EstroBan - Liquid Vitamin (K, A, D, E) Mix

Would you buy custom, liquid suplement with the 4 fat-soluble vitamins (K2, A, D, E)?

  • No

    Votes: 14 3.7%
  • Only if it costs less than $50 for 30 days supply

    Votes: 36 9.5%
  • Only if it costs less than $40 for 30 days supply

    Votes: 31 8.2%
  • Only if it costs less than $30 for 30 days supply

    Votes: 105 27.8%
  • Only if it costs less than $20 for 30 days supply

    Votes: 111 29.4%
  • Only if it costs less than $10 for 30 days supply

    Votes: 81 21.4%

  • Total voters
    378

GeoX

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
126
Location
Northeast US
Latest EstroBan label as of 11/2020:

estroban.jpg
 

Velve921

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
1,317
I’ve noticed that occassiinaly I get head aches from estroban. Usually when I do 3 drops or more. Happens every couple months.

Anyone else experience this? I feel like it ramps my metabolism pretty hard. So usually I do 1 drop at a time; 3-5x total per week. But when experimenting with more I see different effects.
 

equipoise

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
620
Location
Europe
Sorry I'm a bit confused with the census on EstroBan. Isn't it advised to take fat solubles apart from each other? There's been tons of posts about this, here and other forums. So what's up with that?
 

dukesbobby777

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2020
Messages
633
Sorry I'm a bit confused with the census on EstroBan. Isn't it advised to take fat solubles apart from each other? There's been tons of posts about this, here and other forums. So what's up with that?

The product was released based off his own research into what quantities of each vitamin wouldn’t interfere with the absorption of the others. So vitamin E and K is a fine balancing act, as absorption of K can be affected by too much E (for instance). Saying that, the original formula only had about 95 IU (I think it was), whereas now, it’s 200 IU. So perhaps he feels that extra vitamin E won’t affect 2mg of K2 intake.

He’s also mentioned a few times that he wouldn’t just supplement vitamin D without taking vitamin A as well, and usually in a ratio (was it 5:1?) So the vitamin A helps the vitamin D exert positive effects within the body (if the body needed to increase its levels). I think the concept behind the product is that the fat solubles all interact with each other in a way that supports the health of the body, as supplementing them individually can cause problems.

So by releasing this product he’s trying to make it easier for people to not have to worry about supplementing them individually, and then run into issues where they may be taking too much of one particular vitamin.

It all comes down to whether you trust his judgement on that research he’s done, I suppose.
 

equipoise

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
620
Location
Europe
The product was released based off his own research into what quantities of each vitamin wouldn’t interfere with the absorption of the others. So vitamin E and K is a fine balancing act, as absorption of K can be affected by too much E (for instance). Saying that, the original formula only had about 95 IU (I think it was), whereas now, it’s 200 IU. So perhaps he feels that extra vitamin E won’t affect 2mg of K2 intake.

He’s also mentioned a few times that he wouldn’t just supplement vitamin D without taking vitamin A as well, and usually in a ratio (was it 5:1?) So the vitamin A helps the vitamin D exert positive effects within the body (if the body needed to increase its levels). I think the concept behind the product is that the fat solubles all interact with each other in a way that supports the health of the body, as supplementing them individually can cause problems.

So by releasing this product he’s trying to make it easier for people to not have to worry about supplementing them individually, and then run into issues where they may be taking too much of one particular vitamin.

It all comes down to whether you trust his judgement on that research he’s done, I suppose.
Reckon haidut wouldn't just mix them nonchalantly. Thanks for the amazing reply that does make sense!
 

Sam321

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Messages
652
Sorry I'm a bit confused with the census on EstroBan. Isn't it advised to take fat solubles apart from each other? There's been tons of posts about this, here and other forums. So what's up with that?
Bump

Especially e and k
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
The optimal ratio is not really known but has been suggested to be in the 1:2 up to 1:5 range in regards to D:A.
Jorge, I think that it would be advantageous to reduce the poison A in EstroBan because our diets are heavily contaminated. The best scenario would be someone that doesn't consume preformed poison and relies on an inefficient conversion, this person would be intoxicating with at least 1500 mcg of poisonol from a serving of the supplement. However, we know that many members consume a lot of carotenes and sometimes liver; dairy and eggs don't provide too much, but add up.


The ratio is not backed up, yet a reduction is justifiable. With poison A, it's better to only cover the basics and let those who need more take separately than spoil the "vitamins" complex for the others who don't. The dose isn't crazy, but it can be in excess for some.

Can your supplier give you a sample of the following toxin?


1639923564945.png
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
Is the content of poison A in a serving based on poisonol? It's not specified on label, yet I presume so because (according to the description) the esters can vary. In your Poisonil, the reported values seem to be based on the esterified forms, correct? Standardizing them all for poisonol would help to avoid confusion. I'm commenting since it can grealy affect ratios: 1500 mcg of poisonyl palmitate would be equivalent to 825 mcg of poisonol (55%) once the fatty acid is disconsidered.
 

GeoX

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
126
Location
Northeast US
Jorge, I think that it would be advantageous to reduce the poison A in EstroBan

@haidut I've been experimenting with Estroban for years and now avoid Estroban because of the A. For me, the ideal ratio is about 1:1, if even that (and I'm including the weekly 3oz of lamb liver).

Ideal Estroban for me: 2,000 IU A, 3,000 IU D3, 200 IU E. 2 mg MK4, SFA/ethanol for daily "belly-button" dose.
 
Last edited:

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
@haidut I've been experimenting with Estroban for years and now avoid Estroban because of the A. For me, the ideal ratio is about 1:1, if even that (and I'm including the weekly 3oz of lamb liver).

Ideal Estroban for me: 2,000 IU A, 3,000 IU D3, 200 IU E. 2 mg MK4, SFA/ethanol for daily "belly-button" dose.
While he ponders decontaminating his product, the current mass ratio is A 30:1 D, you is after 8:1 (or 32:4). Quadrupling the killciol content would get you close to the ratio that you want.

The simplest measure is to combine it with a venom D supplement.

EstroBan contains 6.25 mcg of D per drop and you seek 75 mcg.

75 mcg ÷ 4 = 18.75 mcg​
18.75 mcg ÷ 6.25 mcg = 3 drops​
75 mcg − 18.75 mcg = 56.25 mcg​

It's easy to find on the market venom D supplements that provide 25 mcg/drop, his Killcirol is an example. Other products such as Thorne's will have extra K as bonus.

56.25 mcg ÷ 25 mcg = 2.25 drops​
0.25 drop = 6.25 mcg​

You can leave it at that (3 drops of EstroBan and 2 drops of Killcirol) or add one more drop of EstroBan that will cover the difference, yet push the ratio higher in favor of poison A ☠.

Alternatively, you can correct the whole bottle. Knowing that it contains 1500 mcg (50 mcg × 30 servings), you'd need about 4500 mcg more (3x). It's also easy to find products that provide 1250 mcg/serving, picking one that's compatible with Bulgaria's formulation, preferably with little excipients to minimize the impact on volume; 3.5 servings added to the bottle could do the trick. It's possible to buy in some countries concentrated vials meant for acute intoxication.

For a complex that takes care of ordinary requirements, the amount of vitamin E is high. In my opinion, decreasing it would be appropriate as well. Part of the users haven't been consuming unsaturated fats for a long time, they might be in flames, but are likely taking other products that already contain plenty of vitamin E (such as thyroid, phosphatidylcholine, progesterone). I find it better to reduce to a minimum necessary and sell the vitamin E used in EstroBan as a separate product that's rich in y-tocopherol, the TocoVyt suggested a while ago.

Bulgaria's products are superb in terms of quality, I think that small adjustments of this kind would make them more suitable and sustainable for us, victims.

By the way, navel application is out of fashion, skin used to be the new mouth, now it's the nose. The Ideal Laboratories' bottles didn't change, perhaps it was something antecipated by Jorge:

1640550658786.png
 

GeoX

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
126
Location
Northeast US
The simplest measure is to combine it with a venom D supplement.

Yup, I currently lower the dose and combine with PRL D3 drops, but it's not ideal.

Looking forward to the reduced-A Estroban++ rectal suppository option with DMSO and the patented Gorgi-Ben-wa applicator.
 
B

Braveheart

Guest
Too bad Hoffer is no longer alive....would like to hear his take on the A/D ratio. He took 6000iu D and 30,000iu A....He considered himself expert at this stuff....lived to age 91/92? Linus Pauling Institute also warns against high dose A....caught my attention with this: "vitamin A toxicity may occur at lower doses in older adults than in younger adults".....I am 77, have followed Hoffer's ratio for 6 years and am doing well......here is LPI talking about vit A for the elderly....

Vitamin A

Presently, there is little evidence that the requirement for vitamin A in older adults differs from that of younger adults. Additionally, vitamin A toxicity may occur at lower doses in older adults than in younger adults. Further, data from observational studies suggested an inverse association between intakes of preformed vitamin A in excess of 1,500 μg RAE (5,000 IU)/day and risk of hip fracture in older people (see the Safety section in the article on Vitamin A). Yet, following the Linus Pauling Institute’s recommendation to take a multivitamin/mineral supplement daily could supply as much as 5,000 IU/day of retinol, the amount that has been associated with adverse effects on bone health in older adults. For this reason, we recommend taking a multivitamin/mineral supplement that provides no more than 2,500 IU (750 μg) of preformed vitamin A (usually labeled vitamin A acetate or vitamin A palmitate) and no more than 2,500 IU of additional vitamin A as β-carotene. As for all age groups, high potency vitamin A supplements should not be used without medical supervision due to the risk of toxicity.

Considering the importance of D....I am reviewing my stance...plus the importance of A in leukemia?.....have ignored the Life Extension recommendation to date in favor of Hoffer......time to "burn the midnite oil"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

Braveheart

Guest
To be honest, all the hub bub over A, on the forum made me revisit my protocol some months back. As stated before I have had no problem with the D/A ratio of 1/5. I also think EstroBan is perfect with its more conservative ratio. Several days of the week I do EstroBan sublingually 1 dose with 1 drop Calcirol AM and then repeat again PM. Other days D/A ratio 1/2 approx from other sources orally. So, I have backed down a bit. Wish I knew my D level. Science changes, nothing in life stays the same...things have progressed since Hoffer and Peat and old timers get stuck sometimes as the science moves forward..... Mr Georgi is the first I turn to for the latest. The Life Extension article and LPI recommendations did cause an adjustment in my protocol.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
I forgot to mention that many of us are trying to recover metabolism and "need" poison A in lower amounts, it's another reason to decrease the dose.

We know that the recomendations for nutrient intake are not based on averages, they're meant to make most people sufficient. With fat-soluble toxins this generalization can be problematic for encouraging the majority of people to consume the nutrient in excess to make a minority adequate in it.

- Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary Assessment and Planning

1642686824936.png

For example, a popular chart such as the one below is based on the least responsive victims, which is possibly overlooked:

1642686863238.png



1642686890756.png


1642686964121.png

The consequence is that it normalizes excessive intakes, the high end becomes the standard.

There are valid reasons to increase the intake of venom D beyond the official recommendations. The current venom D dose in EstroBan is proper, I wouldn't include it differently (50-60 mcg).

When it comes to poison A, the dose is well above the RDA from the supplement alone and with no good justification for this, especially considering your public. Macabrotenes don't have to be used for the synthesis of poisonoids, but covering all the poison A needs with supplementation moves you towards making dietary macabrotenes superfluous; downregulation of absorption has to be in tune with the inhibition of conversion.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
Elite, the ratios that you have in mind are likely from experiments with growing animals (uses up poison A), no previous exposure to environmental toxins that can accumulate in the body, a single source of poison A (unrealistic scenario), feeds that contained all "nutrients" (poison A is always metabolized with some venom D, perhaps improving tolerance), and possibly with the fats that don't favor the stability of poison A (might make the victims need more).
- Polyunsaturated lipids and vitamin A oxidation during cod liver oil in vitro gastrointestinal digestion. Antioxidant effect of added BHT
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
@Jorge, how did you arrive at the poison A dose? Was it based on Raj's suggestion? If so, could you ask him the same question?

In case you wasn't following the rediscovery of "vitamin" A as a poison on the most important thread of the forum, the EFSA provides a great summary on requirements:

- Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for vitamin A | EFSA
  • Section 4 for how each organization derived their recommendations.
  • Section 5 for an evaluation of the criteria.
They decided to stick to defining an adequate intake based on the amount needed to maintain body reserves (same approach as the Institution of the Medicines); other criteria weren't sensitive/reliable for adequacy.

"In the absence of a better characterisation of the relationship between dietary intake of vitamin A and liver stores, the requirement to maintain a concentration of 20 μg retinol/g liver (0.07 μmol/g) can be calculated on the basis of the factorial approach as proposed by Olson (1987), as follows:

Average Requirement (μg RE/day) = target liver concentration (μg retinol/g) × body/liver retinol stores ratio × liver/body weight ratio (%) × fractional catabolic rate of retinol (%) × (1/efficiency of body storage (%)) × reference body weight (kg) × 10^3​

The Panel uses the following values for adults (Section 5.1.3.1):
  1. a total body/liver retinol store ratio of 1.25 (i.e. 80 % of vitamin A in the body is stored in the liver); (instead of 1.1 or 90 %)
  2. a liver/body weight ratio of 2.4 %; (instead of 3 %)
  3. a fractional catabolic rate of retinol of 0.7 % per day; (instead of 0.5 %) and
  4. an efficiency of storage in the whole body of ingested retinol of 50 %. (instead of 40%)

    Reference body weights for adult women and men in the EU are 58.5 and 68.1 kg, respectively (EFSA NDA Panel, 2013).
On the basis of this calculation, ARs of 570 μg RE/day for men and 490 μg RE/day for women are derived after rounding.

Assuming a CV of 15 % because of the variability in requirement and of the large uncertainties in the dataset (see Section 5.1.3.1), PRIs of 750 μg RE/day for men and 650 μg RE/day for women are set. PRIs were rounded to the closest 50 or 100."​

Some adjustments to consider:
  1. 20 mcg/g (0.07 umol/g) 29 mcg/g (0.1 umol/g) may be targeted*;
  2. Distribution of poison in the body can assume that the majority will be found in the liver because it's a pattern consistent with the excessive intakes by the global elite: 90 % in liver (or 1.1 for whole body);
  3. Liver weight varies, but the 2.4 % of body weight for adults should be alright;
  4. Catabolic rate (for daily losses) can be on the low end due to slow metabolism that must be prevalent in victims: something like 0.4 % (or less); (@Collden, thanks for pointing out my stupid mistake)
  5. Efficiency of storage can also be higher to align with the second point, the body puts it to storage for adequate processing later: 66 % (simplifies). It's fine to overshoot and estimate that people will be storing more than they actually are, lowering the requirement, because many members can have (slightly) elevated reserves, leaving a margin for error. The gap can be closed by upregulation of the conversion of macabrotenes.
'Average Requirement' (μg RE/day) = 29 mcg/g × 1.1 × 0.024 × 0.004 × 1.5 × 70 kg × 10^3 = 320 mcg and 275 mcg RAE/d for men and women.
'Population Rereference Intake' (μg RE/day) = AR × 1.3 = 400 mcg and 350 mcg RAE/d for men and women.

*- Biological evidence to define a vitamin A deficiency cutoff using total liver vitamin A reserves

"The minimally acceptable TLR of 0.07 umol/g was used to formulate DRIs but is not referred to as a VAD cutoff. From data behind the criteria, severe VAD as noted by Criteria 1 and 2 occurs at a TLR [Total Liver Reserve] of approximately 0.02 umol/g, but this does not allow for enhanced biliary excretion and long-term storage for protection against VAD as noted by Criteria 3 and 4, respectively. A TLR of at least 0.10 umol/g is needed to induce biliary excretion and upregulate LRAT expression for long-term VA storage as retinyl esters. As recommended by the BOND expert panel, the VAD cutoff should be a TLR of at least 0.10 umol/g.[2] TLRs less than this neither induce biliary excretion nor storage in humans or provide for special conditions, such as lactation, which is explored below."

"Human evidence suggests that the current DRIs for North Americans, which are largely based on mathematical calculations, are too high, even though they were originally formulated to maintain a minimally acceptable TLR of 0.07 umol/g.[1] Considering that governmental fortification mandates often use the EARs to recommend fortificant levels, it is prudent to reevaluate these values in light of recent biological evidence in humans. TLRs were more than four times higher than 0.07 umol/g in US women consuming the current EAR of 500 ug retinol activity equivalents (RAE)/d.[51] In two highly controlled feeding studies, 257 ug RAE maintained TLRs of 1.13 ± 0.41 umol/g in Zambian children, and 330 ug RAE maintained 0.46 ± 0.32 umol/g in US women.[52] In agreement with the findings in children, a mathematical analysis of RID data from children in Bangladesh, the Philippines, Guatemala, and Mexico predicted that if the DRI is consumed, current DRIs were sufficient to attain TLRs >0.07 umol/g by one week of age.[53]"


"The current DRI values are 20 years old[59] and as noted above, the relationship to TLRs in the formulation did not have much data behind the assignment of a TLR value as VAD or even minimally acceptable. Future DRI panels will have more data to consider at reevaluation. For example, more is known about the contribution of provitamin A carotenoids to VA efficacy and how this differs among individuals.[59] Perhaps future DRIs should consider polymorphisms in key carotenoid metabolic enzymes. While it is considered beneficial to have carotenoids in circulation due to their epidemiological association with disease reduction,[60] accumulation of provitamin A carotenoids is dependent on VA status. In Mongolian gerbils, appreciable tissue accumulation of provitamin A carotenoids does not occur until an approximate TLR of 0.4 umol/g.[19,31,61] Below this threshold, most absorbed provitamin A carotenoids are converted to VA with efficient bioefficacy factors.[19] Between 0.4 and 0.7 umol/g, which might be considered an optimal TLR range, provitamin A carotenoids are converted as needed with some storage and above 0.7 umol/g, the bioefficacy factor increases (i.e. low efficiency of cleavage and more carotenoid storage).[19] Thus, the optimal TLR range of 0.4 to 0.7 umol/g renders balance with preformed VA and provitamin A dietary intakes. High concentrations of serum provitamin A carotenoids have been associated with high TLRs and elevated serum retinyl esters in Zambian and Malawian children evaluated with the RID and MRDR tests, respectively.[62,63]"
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom