Improper Dropper Feeding Of Liquid Vitamin D Feared Responsible In Accidental Death

[johnwester130]

Sure, and there are a whole lot of excipients in it too. I'm not particularly recommending that product. Just that if one is convinced one's baby needs a vit-D supplement, then it's probably safer to administer via skin. I read the article as saying the accidental death was probably because of how it was applied with the pipette, and maybe too much at once - it looks to me as though it was primarily a physical choking hazard, not a biochemical hazard.

Excipients: Anhydrous citric acid, Editic acid Disodium salt, Water, Purified water, Red fruit flavor, Propyl gallate, Glycerol, Disodium phosphate dodecahydrate, Polysorbate 80, Potassium sorbate, Propylene glycol, Saccharin sodium, Sodium hydroxide

 

[schultz]

Sunlight is the natural way the body synthesize vitD, and uvb lamps are the closer to it.

And this not blue light by the way. Is ultraviolet B light. Any study or reference about it being bad -under a controlled exposure- for not having other light spectrums?

I don't know of any newborn died after been administered vitD from uvb therapy.

Are you claiming that the lights in those pictures strictly puts out a UVB wavelength? If they are mercury vapor lamps, which is likely, then they put out blue as well.

@tara makes a good point about topical application. Surely this is safer than UVB therapy given the well known and well studied damage UVB can potentially cause. There is a reason they are all wearing goggles in the picture.

The safest way (for a baby on the breast still) would be for the mother to supplement a high dose herself so that enough can get into the milk, or for the mother to use the UVB light (which avoids giving potentially damaging light to the infant)

 

[Such_Saturation]

Any study or reference about it being bad -under a controlled exposure- for not having other light spectrums?

I don't know of any newborn died after been administered vitD from uvb therapy.

Strong arguments lol

for the mother to use the UVB light (which avoids giving potentially damaging light to the infant)

The recent recognition of the "bystander effect" of radiation exposure, in which cells that haven't been irradiated undergo genetic changes or death when they are exposed to irradiated cells, has provided an opportunity to return to the "field" idea in cancer, because the stress-induced factors emitted by irradiated cells are the same toxic factors emitted by cells undergoing carcinogenesis from other causes, such as over-exposure to estrogen.

 

[Agent207]

@tara makes a good point about topical application. Surely this is safer than UVB therapy given the well known and well studied damage UVB can potentially cause.

Safer an artificial drug over natural dermal synthesis? The studies you mention are those that warn about the danger of sunlight. Yes, sunlight can cause damage if you ABUSE it, so what? UVB and sunlight are totally safe (and beneficial) at sub-erythemal dose range. This is the best and optimal way to get adecuate 25OH levels, over the synthetic non-sulfated form.

The fearmongering studies about uvb/sunlight are at the credibility level of those about cholesterol before. Almost everything can be damaging if you don't know how to use or abuse it. Aspiring for example.

There is a reason they are all wearing goggles in the picture.

There is a reason why people use uv blocking glasses when they sunbathe at the beach or play snow activities. And its not because sun is the bad guy.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Safer an artificial drug over natural dermal synthesis? The studies you mention are those that warn about the danger of sunlight. Yes, sunlight can cause damage if you ABUSE it, so what? UVB and sunlight are totally safe (and beneficial) at sub-erythemal dose range. This is the best and optimal way to get adecuate 25OH levels, over the synthetic non-sulfated form.

The fearmongering studies about uvb/sunlight are at the credibility level of those about cholesterol before. Almost everything can be damaging if you don't know how to use or abuse it. Aspiring for example.

Sunlight has red in it

 

[Agent207]

Sunlight has red in it

Yep. And UVA and blue light as well. You like those too?

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yep. It has UVA and bluelight too. You like those too?

Well it's better than a "UVB" lamp...

 

[Agent207]

Well it's better than a "UVB" lamp...

Yeah, but a d3 pill is not. Did you forget what we were discussing about?

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yeah, but a d3 pill is not. Did you forget what we were discussing about?

What's wrong with one?

 

[schultz]

The recent recognition of the "bystander effect" of radiation exposure, in which cells that haven't been irradiated undergo genetic changes or death when they are exposed to irradiated cells, has provided an opportunity to return to the "field" idea in cancer, because the stress-induced factors emitted by irradiated cells are the same toxic factors emitted by cells undergoing carcinogenesis from other causes, such as over-exposure to estrogen.

Oh yah the bystander effect! I would love to see that studied in regards to breast milk.

 

[schultz]

Sunlight has red in it

Exactly, which Ray says mitigates the damage from the blue and violet. My point, which I suppose I didn't explain well enough, is that blue light by itself is damaging. I don't think I said sunlight was bad... Here is a snippet from the kmud podcast on cancer.

"And everything that is carcinogenic happens to weaken the function of that crucial enzyme [cytochrome c oxidase], so that the wrong kind of fat in the diet, the wrong balance of estrogen to progesterone, a deficiency of thyroid hormone or the wrong kind of radiation. Ultraviolet or x-rays will destroy that as far as they can reach it. Ultraviolet only does it in the skin. So the sunlight is still on balance because the red light restores the enzyme that ultraviolet is destroying. If you avoid sunburn, the sun is going to be pure benefit."

I was totally channeling Haidut with the red text and underlining.

Later in the episode he says (regarding fluorescent bulbs) "Those little things are going to cause an epidemic of cancer." (because they are high blue and lower in red)