Be Wary Of Vitamin D Supplementation

[Ben.]

Since i am a idiot and went ahead yday to try 12k IU Vitamin D with some magnesium and Vitamin K despite the knowledge that i do not tolerate it in low dosages ...

Knowing my levels are extremely low and reading all the positive anecdotes i felt i need to give it one more proper try and ... the experience was horrifying to say the least
Not only did my stomache feel wierd and i had bad nausea - after around 1-2 hours or so my head started feeling wierd and my eye sight was severely impaired.

It was both, part of the peripheral vision but also the direct vision that was ... clouded and not accessiable anymore. I coudn't see the things my eyes were focusing on accompanied with this wierd feeling in the head. As if the information gathered trough the eyes were not processesable anymore and this impairment caused a odd kind of headache. A awful feeling of seeing and yet not seeing with only parts visible and the rest being not there eventho it is. I would raise my left hand up to the spot i can't see and indeed i coudn't see my hand full knowing it was there.

---

I got realy stressed and scared for 30 mins and figured i need to absolutely get w/e is in my digestive track moving. A glass of salt water (1 teaspoon salt) does wonders for my transit time and i felt better within 10-20 minutes and my eyesight returned.

So done with vitamin d. One mans cure is another mans poision is so true. Perhaps my liver and digestive track is just damaged and impaired beyond help.

To be honest tho, i found it fascinating that this could even happen.

 

[InChristAlone]

Since i am a idiot and went ahead yday to try 12k IU Vitamin D with some magnesium and Vitamin K despite the knowledge that i do not tolerate it in low dosages ...

Knowing my levels are extremely low and reading all the positive anecdotes i felt i need to give it one more proper try and ... the experience was horrifying to say the least
Not only did my stomache feel wierd and i had bad nausea - after around 1-2 hours or so my head started feeling wierd and my eye sight was severely impaired.

It was both, part of the peripheral vision but also the direct vision that was ... clouded and not accessiable anymore. I coudn't see the things my eyes were focusing on accompanied with this wierd feeling in the head. As if the information gathered trough the eyes were not processesable anymore and this impairment caused a odd kind of headache. A awful feeling of seeing and yet not seeing with only parts visible and the rest being not there eventho it is. I would raise my left hand up to the spot i can't see and indeed i coudn't see my hand full knowing it was there.

---

I got realy stressed and scared for 30 mins and figured i need to absolutely get w/e is in my digestive track moving. A glass of salt water (1 teaspoon salt) does wonders for my transit time and i felt better within 10-20 minutes and my eyesight returned.

So done with vitamin d. One mans cure is another mans poision is so true. Perhaps my liver and digestive track is just damaged and impaired beyond help.

To be honest tho, i found it fascinating that this could even happen.

Why not try a more modest dose of say 1,000? 12k is a lot for this time of yr. And maybe just do it topically. And without the K2 as you could be reacting to that as well. Peat doesn't seem very fond of supplemental K2 (preferring eggs, dairy and cooked greens).

 

[Rafe]

You know, the way you describe that vision problem is identical to a chronic problem I’ve had for maybe 3 years, in long episodes. I like the way you described it b/c it’s just so bizarre.

I thought my visual processing was shot & it was a brain problem. It also caused me to feel unsteady on my feet like I was walking in water.

I went to my ophthalmologist & she gave me prism lenses. But it didn’t really help.

I only just figured out about 3 months ago that it’s the added Vit D in milk, or hypercalcemia caused by Vit-fortified milk plus supplemental D.

Eventually it just couldn’t be anything else.

So I started getting raw milk. And it seems like it has improved pretty steadily. You’re right. Vit D supplements aren’t for everyone!

 

[Ben.]

Why not try a more modest dose of say 1,000? 12k is a lot for this time of yr. And maybe just do it topically. And without the K2 as you could be reacting to that as well. Peat doesn't seem very fond of supplemental K2 (preferring eggs, dairy and cooked greens).

I tried 1k before, causes issues within a week, instantly noticable at 2k aswell (extreme stress reaction).

Eventually it just couldn’t be anything else.

You describe it well too, and it has to be the vitamin d. I dont get this from vitamin k on its own.

I experienced these vision issues the last two winters too when i supplemented vitamin d in dosages around 500-1k IU, the big difference was that it took 1-2 weeks to develope the eye issues and at the time i didn't know what caused it, i thought its the cold air drying my eyes.

Now i know it is the vitamin d. 100%.

 

[iso1]

I can tolerate vit D now, only after finding brand without trash additives like titanium and silicon dioxide. In higher doasges it's still have a little bit blunting effect on my mind but in general it's very tolerable, compared to what i experienced with other brand. 1000 - 3000 iu per day I can take without any noticeable sides. Before that, i had really bad experience with vit D with minimum dosages .'' Vitabiotics'' UK brand of vitamin D, is just such an utter trash with so many harmful and unnecessary additives in it.

 

[Kayaker]

You know, the way you describe that vision problem is identical to a chronic problem I’ve had for maybe 3 years, in long episodes. I like the way you described it b/c it’s just so bizarre.

I thought my visual processing was shot & it was a brain problem. It also caused me to feel unsteady on my feet like I was walking in water.

I went to my ophthalmologist & she gave me prism lenses. But it didn’t really help.

I only just figured out about 3 months ago that it’s the added Vit D in milk, or hypercalcemia caused by Vit-fortified milk plus supplemental D.

Eventually it just couldn’t be anything else.

So I started getting raw milk. And it seems like it has improved pretty steadily. You’re right. Vit D supplements aren’t for everyone!

Did you measure vitamin D and calcium? EMF, which everyone is exposed to, causes calcium to exert some sort of effect on cells. Yet, I saw people specifically on here complaining of similar issues, and it may be because many people on here consume a large amount of vitamin D-containing milk. However, my calcium was always normal, and vitamin D was variable. There's a big push to promote vitamin D in mainstream medicine, which I find suspicious. Since vitamin D level correlates with health, the pro-health effect may be from sunlight exposure and level of sulfated vitamin D, whereas the unsulfated supplemental form would cause weird calcium channel issues related to EMF exposure and calcium consumption.

I can tolerate vit D now, only after finding brand without trash additives like titanium and silicon dioxide. In higher doasges it's still have a little bit blunting effect on my mind but in general it's very tolerable, compared to what i experienced with other brand. 1000 - 3000 iu per day I can take without any noticeable sides. Before that, i had really bad experience with vit D with minimum dosages .'' Vitabiotics'' UK brand of vitamin D, is just such an utter trash with so many harmful and unnecessary additives in it.

Health would have the opposite of a blunting effect on your mind. It's probably doing more harm than good.

 

[Amazoniac]

- Association between serum vitamin B6 concentration and risk of osteoporosis in the middle-aged and older people in China: a cross-sectional study

"This study [..] showed that the serum Vit B6 concentration was significantly positively associated with the 25(OH)D concentration in the men and women, and it was inversely associated with the PTH concentration in all the women and men with normal bone mass or osteoporosis.

Serum 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly lower in animals with Vit D and Vit B6 deficiencies than in animals with Vit D deficiency alone. Recovery of serum 25(OH)D concentration after Vit D administration was delayed under conditions of Vit B6 deficiency.[31] Moreover, it was speculated that either the activity of renal 25-hydroxy-vitamin D-1-alpha-hydroxylase decreases or 1,25(OH)2D turnover increases in a state of Vit B6 deficiency.[28] Since serum Vit B6 might regulate Vit D metabolism, it was inferred that Vit B6 might indirectly regulate bone metabolism at least partially through its regulation on Vit D, which has dual effects on both bone formation and bone resorption.[32]

Thus far, studies have not revealed the regulatory effects of single Vit B6 on PTH expression. Vit D exerts negative feedback effects on PTH secretion to prevent the overcorrection of low calcium concentrations. On binding, the Vit D/Vit D receptor complex in parathyroid gland cells translocates into the nucleus and inhibits PTH transcription. Vit D can also inhibit PTH cell proliferation.[33–35] From our results, we infer that Vit B6 might play a positive role in Vit D metabolism, consequently prohibiting PTH secretion. However, the effects and regulatory mechanisms of Vit B6 on PTH are largely unknown.

Although the serum Vit B6 concentration was significantly associated with 25(OH)D and PTH, and both PTH and Vit D play critical roles in the maintenance of calcium and phosphate homeostasis and maintenance of bone health,[36] this study revealed no significant relationship between the serum Vit B6 concentration and the serum concentrations of calcium and phosphate. These findings are consistent with the results of a previous study, which showed that in rats with Vit B6 deficiency, Vit D metabolism was impaired without changes in plasma calcium homeostasis or BMD.[28]"​

 

[Rafe]

@Kayaker
I haven’t measured my D or calcium. I haven’t taken the emf problem as seriously as others here, but I’m more open to it since I took a road trip last summer & came to understand why people are talking so much about the new tower power.

I do know that there were several threads on vertigo & how many people on the forum were having it. A few people really but it seemed consistent. Then, I didn’t think it was the milk-D & other issues took over.

TY for alerting me to the sulfated/unsulfated issue. I don’t know how that works yet. If you can point me to a primer, I’m open. I know there are threads about it.

@Amazoniac
Ahhhh. Isn’t it just the termites that make the house fall down?

It is in the context of killer calcium that I nearly make Amazoniphonia a living language. But then, it turns out that I have just not held out my coffee cup in that godlike cosmopolitan way that makes everything fall perfectly in place.

But only for a mere blissful moment.

 

[Kayaker]

@Kayaker
I haven’t measured my D or calcium. I haven’t taken the emf problem as seriously as others here, but I’m more open to it since I took a road trip last summer & came to understand why people are talking so much about the new tower power.

I do know that there were several threads on vertigo & how many people on the forum were having it. A few people really but it seemed consistent. Then, I didn’t think it was the milk-D & other issues took over.

TY for alerting me to the sulfated/unsulfated issue. I don’t know how that works yet. If you can point me to a primer, I’m open. I know there are threads about it.

A Special Report on Vitamin D3 sulfate – Keep Hope Alive Journal

I'll test my PTH along with my calcium and vitamin D.

 

[Rafe]

@Kayaker
I like that article a lot. TY That makes a lot of sense. Besides, I don’t know what kind of vit D is added to milk but I can’t see that it would be high quality. That would cut into profit.

I’m thinking that Dr. Seneff is Stephanie Seneff at MIT. Interesting. She’s getting slammed for her work on calling out the covid narrative.

She’s a great generalist. World needs more of those.

 

[David PS]

@Kayaker thanks for the article. It is part of a series of articles she wrote in her blog about the importance of sulfate. It is not just for vitamin d.

Stephanie's Page

stephanie-on-health.blogspot.com

 

[Amazoniac]

- Nutrient Metabolism: Structures, Functions, and Genes (978-0-12-387784-0)

Spoiler

---

- Hypercalcemia in Disseminated Candidiasis

"Factors other than parathyroid hormone such as prostaglandins, osteoclast-activating factors, and "vitamin" D-like steroids are known to induce hypercalcemia [13,14]."​

---

- The Synergistic Interplay between Vitamins D and K for Bone and Cardiovascular Health: A Narrative Review

"In rats, 1,25(OH)D receptor binding can undergo gamma-carboxylation in the presence of vitamin K. This means that 1,25(OH)D receptor carboxylation can potentially modify the intrinsic biochemical properties of the nuclear receptors and modulates its binding to DNA [34]."​

 

[Amazoniac]

I have been listening to neurologist Dr Stasha Gominak about her amazing findings on vitamin D and came across some information I have never heard before. They are using a vitamin D test called an immuno assay that is cheaper and FAR less accurate!!! The real test is using a half a million dollar machine that is used for checking hormones, vitamin D is actually a hormone. Most of Canada, Australia and the UK are using the immuno assay which is inaccurate. I just checked and labcorp is also using the immuno assay! I had almost just bought it from life extension. Glad I waited. I am sure if the lab code is right they could do it on their hormone machine, but if the code says immuno assay that's what they are using. Here is the lab in the US that uses the right machine: Vitamin D, 25-Hydroxyvitamin D (D2, D3), LC/MS/MS (QuestAssureD™) it's called LCMS. Make sure whenever you get a vitamin D test it is LCMS, NOT immuno assay.

I have this video marked where she starts talking about it:


And here is part 1 if you want to know more about vitamin D and sleep:



Aside from this big news about vitamin D tests, through her clinical practice she cured sleep apnea (and other miraculous accounts of reversal of mental retardation) by getting vitamin D in the range of 60-80. Anything over 80 for too long and you have bigger problems with chronic pain and the heart. But she also needed to combine D with a B50 complex, she learned that it is actually our microbiome that supplied us with all the necessary b vitamins but the microbiome is not healthy when you don't have enough vitamin D. I am unsure how she arrived at this conclusion, but she said 3 months of a B50 complex and getting D in range can get the microbiome back online. She didn't get the best results just using vitamin D, over time her patients started complaining of a daily headache, so she then experimented with vitamin B5 on her patients and had good results, but I guess now she uses the whole complex because she figured out our microbiome produces the entire complex not just one. This is just my rudimentary understanding.

She explains that using D like a vitamin is DANGEROUS. Consider it like using thyroid and get labs done often or know exactly what symptoms you get when you have too much (like pain).

@Tarmander she could be your next podcast guest!

I think that if the person has the option, pick that one for being more reliable. However, for adjusting supplementation, the levels will increase, tending to minimize the gross errors of detection.

- 25-Hydroxyvitamin D assay standardisation and vitamin D guidelines paralysis

Spoiler

- Vitamin D testing: advantages and limits of the current assays

Spoiler

Someone can aim for a certain target and the tests can be a guide. Yet, attempting to hit a precise level is pointless, it guarantees nothing; fine tuning has to be based on sensation. The alternatives might be acceptable for this purpose, although some tests can make a deficiency appear milder and others are quite unreliable.

It would be great for Tarmandor to interview her.

 

[InChristAlone]

I think that if the person has the option, pick that one for being more reliable. However, for adjusting supplementation, the levels will increase, tending to minimize the gross errors of detection.

- 25-Hydroxyvitamin D assay standardisation and vitamin D guidelines paralysis

Spoiler

View attachment 31032

- Vitamin D testing: advantages and limits of the current assays

Spoiler

View attachment 31033

Someone can aim for a certain target and the tests can be a guide. Yet, attempting to hit a precise level is pointless, it guarantees nothing; fine tuning has to be based on sensation. The alternatives might be acceptable for this purpose, although some tests can make a deficiency appear milder and others are quite unreliable.

It would be great for Tarmandor to interview her.

She is very clear not to go over 80 and to fix sleep it has to get to 60. She has mucho grande experience. But this report about lab tests not being standardized is concerning as the CDC is calling on labs for standardization of testosterone and estradiol as well so it's not just vitamin D. I don't understand at all why it isn't precise enough , what about it is hard to analyze? And wouldn't Dr Gominak know about these pitfalls if they were that concerning? She seems concerned about the immuno assay. It is cheaper to run, and as we know big pharma is all about profit. But at least those reports confirm LCMS is the gold standard.


Is that table showing as the levels get higher it is not as precise? Maybe that's why she found the range 60-80 good because the precision is so off she can't say one level. And at least secosteroid D is fairly safe at lower dosages.

 

[RealNeat]

@Kayaker thanks for the article. It is part of a series of articles she wrote in her blog about the importance of sulfate. It is not just for vitamin d.

Stephanie's Page

stephanie-on-health.blogspot.com

Dr. Peat has specifically mentioned on ORN that he disagrees with Stephanie's take on sulfate being the end all be all for vitamin D. Dr. Peat is more fond of Michael Hollicks view.

I think it's important to note that vitamin D and Vitamin A should be in balance. With vision issues the first thing Id do is make sure that vitamin A intake is not being overshadowed by large amounts of D.

The second thing is that EMF is really an important thing to consider when talking about calcium balance. Dr. Peat was asked about calcium being harmful to hypothyroid people, and his answer "anything is harmful in a hypothyroid state" is telling.

Part of the reason a hypothyroid state is dangerous is because of the inability to probably produce and retain Co2. Co2 differentiates minerals in and out of the cell, by messing with proper Co2 production the doors for mineral imbalance and toxicity stay open.

This is then made worse by a chronic stress response, flooding the cells with calcium.

EMF is a stress and causes the same "VGCC" issues that Martin Pall gets into, (in a not so Peaty explanation)

Vitamin D in a body where calcium metabolism is being disturbed may cause issues, but rather than D being the problem, it's likely the existing mineral imbalance.

Direct toxicity to the vision could be caused by the previously explained mechanisms but in addition the effect of microwaves and visible blue spikes in artificial lighting are an insult to injury. Both are destructive to the structured water in cells and cause more of the previously mentioned leakiness, mineral imbalance and possibly cataracts. The eyes are particularly sensitive to environmental poisons, also mentioned in Peats articles referencing UV damage to the PUFA rich tissues.

@Ben.

 

[Rafe]

@RealNeat
That’s contextualized. And prioritizes the thyroid support first like RP does.

I just looked up Holick’s blog. His view on D seems pretty straightforward.

What you’re saying also gives a common sense priority plan & a coherent picture of how D fits.

 

[Ben.]

Dr. Peat has specifically mentioned on ORN that he disagrees with Stephanie's take on sulfate being the end all be all for vitamin D. Dr. Peat is more fond of Michael Hollicks view.

I think it's important to note that vitamin D and Vitamin A should be in balance. With vision issues the first thing Id do is make sure that vitamin A intake is not being overshadowed by large amounts of D.

The second thing is that EMF is really an important thing to consider when talking about calcium balance. Dr. Peat was asked about calcium being harmful to hypothyroid people, and his answer "anything is harmful in a hypothyroid state" is telling.

Part of the reason a hypothyroid state is dangerous is because of the inability to probably produce and retain Co2. Co2 differentiates minerals in and out of the cell, by messing with proper Co2 production the doors for mineral imbalance and toxicity stay open.

This is then made worse by a chronic stress response, flooding the cells with calcium.

EMF is a stress and causes the same "VGCC" issues that Martin Pall gets into, (in a not so Peaty explanation)

Vitamin D in a body where calcium metabolism is being disturbed may cause issues, but rather than D being the problem, it's likely the existing mineral imbalance.

Direct toxicity to the vision could be caused by the previously explained mechanisms but in addition the effect of microwaves and visible blue spikes in artificial lighting are an insult to injury. Both are destructive to the structured water in cells and cause more of the previously mentioned leakiness, mineral imbalance and possibly cataracts. The eyes are particularly sensitive to environmental poisons, also mentioned in Peats articles referencing UV damage to the PUFA rich tissues.

@Ben.

Thanks. My EMF exposure is realy bad and work binds me to the screen chronically. Ofcourse i us the apps to reduce the blue light but i had been a computerchild and been confronted with it daily in huge amounts for 16 years now.

For the past week or two overall wellbeing/health went down and inflammation up and i just learned that they installed smartmeters in the building. Not sure if connected but i'll get myself a EMF meter. If it wasn't for winter i'd sleep outside and try to spend most time outside without a phone or anything.

 

[Rafe]

That sensitivity of the vision point is really helpful to figuring out what to do first, too. Thank you, @RealNeat .

Less screen time, back to basics.

 

[Amazoniac]

She is very clear not to go over 80 and to fix sleep it has to get to 60. She has mucho grande experience. But this report about lab tests not being standardized is concerning as the CDC is calling on labs for standardization of testosterone and estradiol as well so it's not just vitamin D. I don't understand at all why it isn't precise enough , what about it is hard to analyze? And wouldn't Dr Gominak know about these pitfalls if they were that concerning? She seems concerned about the immuno assay. It is cheaper to run, and as we know big pharma is all about profit. But at least those reports confirm LCMS is the gold standard.


Is that table showing as the levels get higher it is not as precise? Maybe that's why she found the range 60-80 good because the precision is so off she can't say one level. And at least secosteroid D is fairly safe at lower dosages.

OPEN metrology book ,part there))

- Measurement System Analysis (MSA) | Six Sigma Material

..like Jorge in everything that he does.​

The 1% provided mean bias (accuracy) and the intervals (precision) for most detections that can be wider or narrower depending on assay.

Once you get to a desired range (that's away from deficiency), based on values reported, deviations from a target level must not be determinant for a therapeutic effect, at least for the common tests in use. Especially considering that there can be comparable (when not worse) errors with the 'gold standard' test. Reminded me of Mr. Bead's episode where he counts us. The majority of results should be around the bias, not the extremes. The refinements have to be based on feel because testing a single metabolite won't give you a clear picture of what's going on.

Lack of precision isn't surprising given that they're dealing with minute amounts (20 nmol/L = 8 ng/ml) of a fatty toxin that diversifies and associates with other molecules.

From the second:

"Total 25(OH)D is the widely accepted metabolite to measure for vitamin D status. Nonetheless, albeit many methodological improvements have been made, its determination is still a challenge [16, 18, 21]. The reasons include the tandem determination of both 25(OH)D2 and 25(OH)D3 and the compulsory dissociation of the hydrophobic 25(OH)D from its carrier proteins (VDBP), albumin, and lipoproteins. On this note, it is particularly important to realize that, when using automated platform organic solvents, which infer the best dissociation, cannot be employed, consequently resulting in use of alternative releasing agents that result in an inferior dissociation of 25(OH)D from its binding proteins. This is particularly observed when analyzing samples from the pregnant women or those on estrogen therapy or patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) [22–24]. Furthermore, it needs to be emphasized that 25(OH)D2 and 25(OH)D3 have dissimilar affinity constants for these binding proteins, as such only an efficient dissociation method will suffice to produce accurate recovery and quantification of both the forms. Resulting from an exponential increase in demand for 25(OH)D testing, automated immunoassays are favored and as obvious from the Vitamin D External Quality Assurance Scheme (DEQAS) participants, <1% of the laboratories use currently RIA (www.deqas.com). However, a number of studies have reported comparisons between different automated platforms and RIA, high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC), and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), with poor agreement [13, 14, 25–31]. For this reason, new insight into the physiology and analytics of vitamin D may perhaps allow reconsideration of how we assess vitamin D status."

"The variable performance of immunoassays has several reasons, including matrix effects, poor antibody specificity, cross-reactivity with other 25(OH)D metabolites, and limited release of vitamin D from carrier proteins. In particular, 25(OH)D2 and heterophilic antibodies are common causes for erratic results in daily practice. Most of the interferences that disturb immunoassays do not influence LC-MS/MS methods, as they remove proteins and lipids completely prior to analysis and distinguish common metabolites with high specificity. In spite of these limitations, chromatographic methods and immunoassay methods have regression slopes close or near to 1.0 with intercepts [57, 58]. In fact, current automated assays have an acceptable overall correlation with LC-MS/MS methods. Thus Passing–Bablok regression analyses for the most popular immunoassays have been reported for the assay from Abbott, DiaSorin, IDS, and Roche with mean bias <3% as compared to LC-MS/MS [36]."​

 

[Amazoniac]

The analyses aren't agreeing well, Mito's has more details:

- Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) intralaboratory study for the assessment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay variability and bias

Spoiler

"Box and whisker plots for the percent Coefficient of Variation (%CV) (A) and mean % bias (B) by test assay for the analysis of 50 single-donor samples. The box encompasses the 25th to 75th percentile of all results, the whiskers represent 1.5 x interquartile range above the 75th percentile and 1.5 x interquartile range below the 25th percentile. The bar in the box represents the median value (%CV or mean % bias) for each assay. The dots outside the box and whiskers plots represent individual measurements outside the whisker range."

"For plot A, CVs greater than 35 % are excluded and the red line denotes the 10 % VDSP criterion for %CV. Four points are excluded with %CVs of 38 % for Siemens, 41 % and 47 % for Biomérieux I, and 67 % for Biomérieux II."

"For plot B, biases greater than 100 % are excluded and the red solid line denotes zero bias and the red dashed lines represent ± ≤5 % bias."

These are for the 50 samples, including the cases intoxicated with D2.

The key is to pray to have your result off in opposition to the skewing of the test.

For a known one with moderate performance:

Spoiler

Obtaining 160 nmol/L (64 ng/ml) when it's in fact 115 nmol/L (46 ng/ml) would be troubling. However, excluding the trash assays whose names I'm not familiar with, most of the time the results seem acceptable for practical purposes.

- Interpreting Vitamin D Assay Results: Proceed with Caution

"LC-MS/MS instruments are expensive and may be inferior to automated analyzers in terms of sample throughput. Hospitals have financial and logistic reasons for continuing the less accurate immunoassay methods for routine patient assessment. An argument put forward to counter the notion that serum 25-OH-D must involve LC-MS/MS technology is that it is too expensive for routine use and its preoccupation with precision and accuracy is overkill and less important than knowing the general vitamin D status of a given patient: deficiency, sufficiency, or toxicity. Binkley points out that knowing the method-related thresholds and method variability may be more relevant than using fixed IOM values for vitamin deficiency based on LC-MS/MS technology (27,28). By this approach, the physician becomes familiar with the vitamin D thresholds for the chosen assay rather than the IOM-specified threshold value >20 ng/ml required to ensure vitamin D sufficiency. However, a caution must be sounded that although this approach may work to follow responses of individual patients before and after vitamin D therapy, the imprecise methods should not be used in research studies involving patient-to-patient or method-to-method comparisons. All methods used for research or routine purposes should be subject to external quality assessment schemes (DEQAS, Vitamin D Standardization Program, and College of American Pathologists), which in the main-use samples with National Institute of Standards and Technology reference values, in the process providing more confidence that the assays will meet current accuracy standards. The Vitamin D Standardization Program is using its program to coordinate efforts to bring all LC-MS/MS methods and immunoassay manufacturers into line based upon different performance criteria (17)."​

It's not necessary to test, take no more than the amount that makes you feel best (nice) provided that it's a physiological dose (or at least not too irresponsible), that there's adequate nutritional support, and no adverse effects are observed. It's like with thyroid supplements, some users ignore tests altogether. It forces the person to develop awareness in order to optimize the destruction.

Thinking and dosing in terms of IU is a bad habit, it's a meaningless unit. It has to be based on mass or mole. It's no wonder labs choose one or another, they don't work with a level of 1540 IU/L. The elite takes our wool, we buy from them after processing and they keep us from making meaningful associations in using the products.

Companies have to discontinue IU and fractionate the serving to tempt the victim to experiment with more or less; not to hit a certain level, but to encourage and facilitate fine tuning. For oral dosing, the chances of optimizing are higher if you're dealing with something like 15 mcg than 2000 IU per drop; the same goes for topical use when scaled.

It's delusional to believe that getting to a specific killcidiol target is how you optimize it, it can represent different things depending on the state of the person, think of how many influences there are on it. As it was pointed out elsewhere, a safe margin of intake exists, we don't obtain the perfect amount of any "nutrient", the body will make the adjustments, but we can make the job easier through experimentation.

---

Accuracy applied to the collective is actually termed 'trueness'.
- Review Article: Metrology in Medicine: From Measurements to Decision, with Specific Reference to Anesthesia and Intensive Care