The Great Vitamin D Debate with Georgi Dinkov, Danny Roddy, Kate Deering & Matt Blackburn

[Dave Clark]

I think Morley should interview Peat. No debate needed. I’m pretty sure he’d be open to that too.

I've heard Morley say he has a love/hate relationship with Peat. Most likely meaning he doesn't agree with all of Peat's ideas. So, I think at some point, Morley would not be able to keep his mouth shut. But rather than a 'debate', they should discuss the science that they both entertain, and see if they can come to any agreements and which ones they would be. I would love to hear Morley try to sell the idea of the PUFAs in cod liver oil being okay to consume on a daily basis, to Peat, lol.

 

[Amazoniac]

I don't know how many times this will have to be repeated: it doesn't take a Deokine to pop a pill in whatever amount you deem adequate until it brings a few markers (thanks, yerrag) to a desired range.

Those guys are indeed trying to dissuade people with poor arguments and are misleading (Morley is a quack), but the audience is already familiar with venom D, it's not a novel toxin being putted to question. Since the evidence for its effects is overwhelmingly "positive" (perhaps it's why they resort to desperate means to prove their point) and most persons have tried it, don't worry about those who benefited because they is already conditioned to seek more and have the encouragement to do so. Actually, it's likely that some are overusing it (the current standard daily dose of 250 mcg is an example).

It's those that are harmed by it that need the attention, they're the ones that are susceptible to the message for being unsure if it's prudent to take in spite of detrimental reactions. Deciding to not use it probably came after experiencing more harm than good or only negatives. I agree that how they choose to go about it is terrible, but so is rushing in to discredit them without also acknowledging the valid motivations and not attempting the address these, as if they were completely delusional in noticing harm, trying to find justifications for it and reasons to avoid supplementation. Why would they make this up? Why would a cure-it-all tool be rejected? Afraid of becoming too healthy? What's gained in this? Laxarium is also popular and its safety is consensual, why they're not picking up on it to set themselves apart from the crowd? It's obvious that those who are against this toxin don't experience the remarkable effects that is purporetered, something is getting in the way of them reaping the benefits. The issue is there whether they can articulate it or not.

It can be argued that valuing its therapeutic properties can convince people to work on themselves to increase tolerance to a benign toxin, but the discussion is more productive if it's centered on troubleshooting than turning it into one more praising campaign. Set a pastorship bootcamp to train agents that can target and convert such individuals to your cult: what's driving their behavior is not being able to make it function, if you can solve this for them, the conversion is going to be spontaneous and the whining will stop. Otherwise, it's possible that you can be entertaining those that are already thriving on it and encouraging those that aren't to overlook bad reactions or insist on the harm, for it to occur, they must not know how to fix it yet.

 

[RealNeat]

Let's bring Jim Stephenson Jr. into the debate,. Morley and Jim against Georgi and Danny. Now the playing field is a bit more leveled.

I agree, however, Matt has already had them both on his podcast and had a fun time bashing supplemental Vit D with the same (out of context) arguments. As Danny mentioned vitamin D fits Rays explanation of metabolism promoting physiology in a coherent and logical way with plenty of evidence.

The opposition would have to present the same quality of evidence/ coherency to dismiss such a powerful tool, and I have yet to see a valid argument besides calling it a "hormone" and "rat poison" all of which are equal to ad hominem attacks on vitamin D.

My interest in seeing the debate between all of them would be to see how they navigate their answers around complex and interdependent mechanisms of physiology deeply intertwined with the various positive effects of Vit D. Morley has some good things to say, a lot of which align with Ray ,for sure, but he doesn't seem to be able to put his desire for optimal cellular function and how to effectively achieve it in unison.

Looks can be deceiving but he doesn't look very healthy nor does he have the nice dark hair he should if his various theories on copper were accurate.

Ray and I also talk about this on my 2nd podcast with him.

 

[reaching]

(And maybe "a great Vitamin A debate" with Grant Genereux)

I would love this, too. Didn't he have a back and forth with Garret Smith (the other vitamin A dude)?
The whole vitamin A topic really interests me.

I think someone should talk to Grant at least. He has been on a few podcasts but not many.

 

[Sefton10]

I agree, however, Matt has already had them both on his podcast and had a fun time bashing supplemental Vit D with the same (out of context) arguments.

Apparently Matt has Jim on again this week. He is going to go point by point and answer the questions Matt didn't have answers to in the original debate.

 

[Dave Clark]

I agree, however, Matt has already had them both on his podcast and had a fun time bashing supplemental Vit D with the same (out of context) arguments. As Danny mentioned vitamin D fits Rays explanation of metabolism promoting physiology in a coherent and logical way with plenty of evidence.

The opposition would have to present the same quality of evidence/ coherency to dismiss such a powerful tool, and I have yet to see a valid argument besides calling it a "hormone" and "rat poison" all of which are equal to ad hominem attacks on vitamin D.

My interest in seeing the debate between all of them would be to see how they navigate their answers around complex and interdependent mechanisms of physiology deeply intertwined with the various positive effects of Vit D. Morley has some good things to say, a lot of which align with Ray ,for sure, but he doesn't seem to be able to put his desire for optimal cellular function and how to effectively achieve it in unison.

Looks can be deceiving but he doesn't look very healthy nor does he have the nice dark hair he should if his various theories on copper were accurate.

Ray and I also talk about this on my 2nd podcast with him.

You can have anybody you want selling their theories on a podcast individually, and it all sounds good and solid. What needs to happen is to have these 'experts' talk their diametrically opposed views right there on the same podcast with each other to either confirm, validate, or refute the others claims, hopefully scientifically and just not opinion-wise. Peat thinks antibiotics are good, many people have had their health messed up with them. Peat thinks fluoride on teeth is okay, he thinks teflon in pans for cooking is okay, (etc.,etc.) but their is solid evidence to support negative health effects from those. Do you take notice that Peat is only heard on podcasts with people who agree with his theories, like Danny, Georgi, etc., for the most part (neutrally biased hosts not withstanding). Wonder why?
I want to hear experts with the different views hash it out, anybody can be a card-carrying member of either side and bias themselves.

 

[Belsazar]

Do you take notice that Peat is only heard on podcasts with people who agree with his theories, like Danny, Georgi, etc., for the most part (neutrally biased hosts not withstanding). Wonder why?

Maybe others refuse to host him or no one wants to debate? Maybe someone could ask him ...

 

[TheBeard]

Do we really care about 25-OHD?

Mine is low at 24 (recommended 30-80), while my natural testosterone is at 900ng/dl and I get plenty of sunshine.

Whenever I supplement with oral D3 I feel off, my liver hurts, and liver enzymes get elevated.

I just don't trust a supplement that is so widely pushed by mainstream media and an overwhelming majority of practicionners.

That just doesn't happen with trully health-giving substances.

 

[Amazoniac]

Brothers and sisters, we're gathered here to celebrate the officialization of our divine method of conversion, we can call it 'The Killciholism Trap'. It consists of a loop where you'll notice that once the person gets in, the only way out is to keep taking until it works, yielding a Killciholick devotee.

Take the sacramental killciol capsule

↳ Are you satisfied?

↳ No, I guess that it's.. → Yeah, yeah. Forget about it, 30 studies here showing the contrary. → Test PTH, prolactin, killcium, phosphate and no matter what results you get, killciol will help to improve your condition, therefore, return to the start. ↺​

↳ Yes!? → Yes? → I mean, yes! → Hallelud, agnus Raj! Now, get the word out before we lose you to systemic killcification.​

You can have anybody you want selling their theories on a podcast individually, and it all sounds good and solid. What needs to happen is to have these 'experts' talk their diametrically opposed views right there on the same podcast with each other to either confirm, validate, or refute the others claims, hopefully scientifically and just not opinion-wise. Peat thinks antibiotics are good, many people have had their health messed up with them. Peat thinks fluoride on teeth is okay, he thinks teflon in pans for cooking is okay, (etc.,etc.) but their is solid evidence to support negative health effects from those. Do you take notice that Peat is only heard on podcasts with people who agree with his theories, like Danny, Georgi, etc., for the most part (neutrally biased hosts not withstanding). Wonder why?
I want to hear experts with the different views hash it out, anybody can be a card-carrying member of either side and bias themselves.

I agree, but live debates tend to be superficial, there's just no time to examine what the other person is presenting, elaborate on it and reconsider the stance when needed. Even when the two sides are extremely knowledgeable, it's difficult to prevent the discussion from constantly hitting a wall, in many cases it ends in a scattered conversation where each participant is taking turns to bring up new material that the other can't comment on for being unfamiliar, therefore, having to change the subject in order to keep it going.

Consider for example the exchanges between Alan Gaby and the iodophiles, I doubt that they would've been richer if they were improvised.

I never paid attention to it, but I bet that it's mostly men requesting these MMA fight variations.

Whenever I supplement with oral D3 I feel off, my liver hurts, and liver enzymes get elevated.

How come? Even though I don't doubt that you've experienced some adversity, it's supposed to help in restoring liver health and, in the fact, has been shown to improve liver enzymes.
- Co-treatment with Vitamin D Supplementation and Aerobic Training in Elderly Women with Vit D Deficiency and NAFLD: A Single-blind Controlled Trial

We know that them being elevated is not necessarily a bad indication. We also know that venom D can promote the 'expression of antimicrobial peptides', it's possible for things to get worse before they get better. Have you tested PTH, prolactin, killcium and phosphate? But given your current killcidiol level, it should be fine for you to skip ahead and attempt to increase it to at least 50 ng/ml, which should be safe, far from the toxicity range.

 

[baccheion]

Georgi completely dismantled the vitamin d - potassium depletion rat study in like 1 minute...

Vitamin D3 increases aldosterone. Dumps phosphorus and potassium. Adding magnesium normalizes.

 

[TheBeard]

Brothers and sisters, we're gathered here to celebrate the officialization of our divine method of conversion, we can call it 'The Killciholism Trap'. It consists of a loop where you'll notice that once the person gets in, the only way out is to keep taking until it works, yielding a Killciholick devotee.

Take the sacramental killciol capsule

↳ Are you satisfied?

↳ No, I guess that it's.. → Yeah, yeah. Forget about it, 30 studies here showing the contrary. → Test PTH, prolactin, killcium, phosphate and no matter what results you get, killciol will help to improve your condition, therefore, return to the start. ↺​

↳ Yes!? → Yes? → I mean, yes! → Hallelud, agnus Raj! Now, get the word out before we lose you to systemic killcification.​

I agree, but live debates tend to be superficial, there's just no time to examine what the other person is presenting, elaborate on it and reconsider the stance when needed. Even when the two sides are extremely knowledgeable, it's difficult to prevent the discussion from constantly hitting a wall, in many cases it ends in a scattered conversation where each participant is taking turns to bring up new material that the other can't comment on for being unfamiliar, therefore, having to change the subject in order to keep it going.

Consider for example the exchanges between Alan Gaby and the iodophiles, I doubt that they would've been richer if they were improvised.

I never paid attention to it, but I bet that it's mostly men requesting these MMA fight variations.


How come? Even though I don't doubt that you've experienced some adversity, it's supposed to help in restoring liver health and, in the fact, has been shown to improve liver enzymes.
- Co-treatment with Vitamin D Supplementation and Aerobic Training in Elderly Women with Vit D Deficiency and NAFLD: A Single-blind Controlled Trial

We know that them being elevated is not necessarily a bad indication. We also know that venom D can promote the 'expression of antimicrobial peptides', it's possible for things to get worse before they get better. Have you tested PTH, prolactin, killcium and phosphate? But given your current killcidiol level, it should be fine for you to skip ahead and attempt to increase it to at least 50 ng/ml, which should be safe, far from the toxicity range.

Wait, I thought you were against vitamin D supplementation.
Guess I misunderstood your sarcasm in the last few posts.

 

[Amazoniac]

Wait, I thought you were against vitamin D supplementation.
Guess I misunderstood your sarcasm in the last few posts.

The satire above may seem absurd at first, but once it's illustrated in your case, we realize that it occurs often. I'm not against venom D, only its indiscriminate use that's common nowadays. It's getting ridiculous, Raj recommends it for everything, a combination of killcium and venom D or thyroid hormones.

If you could test the healthiest people that you know, how many would have a killcidiol level close to 50 ng/ml that's being pushed as optimal? Or supercentenarians, how many of them had such levels throughout life? It can be that both groups are exceptional in spite of a lowered level, similar to the bad habits that they have, but at least it shows that it's possible to live well outside of what's considered optimal. In the presence of adversities from supplementation, that's a point in favor of not treating in urgency, as if it was a threat that has to be addressed immediately at the expense of other aspects.

I'm not sure if they would improve with supplementation, perhaps not if given in isolation, just like the person that can't keep up supporting it and ends up with a monotherapy that's not sustainable, doing more harm than good.

 

[Ben.]

Do we really care about 25-OHD?

Mine is low at 24 (recommended 30-80), while my natural testosterone is at 900ng/dl and I get plenty of sunshine.

Whenever I supplement with oral D3 I feel off, my liver hurts, and liver enzymes get elevated.

I just don't trust a supplement that is so widely pushed by mainstream media and an overwhelming majority of practicionners.

That just doesn't happen with trully health-giving substances.

Vitamin d above 1000 IU orally results in me feeling constantly agitated. 2000 or above makes it realy bad. As if my body is ready to run from a wild animal like a lion. The advertisment of widespread wonder tools make me sceptical too. If it works for some, more power to them ofcourse. My dad can't take it at all for example.

I don't know how many times this will have to be repeated: it doesn't take a Deokine to pop a pill in whatever amount you deem adequate until it brings a few markers (thanks, yerrag) to a desired range.

Those guys are indeed trying to dissuade people with poor arguments and are misleading (Morley is a quack), but the audience is already familiar with venom D, it's not a novel toxin being putted to question. Since the evidence for its effects is overwhelmingly "positive" (perhaps it's why they resort to desperate means to prove their point) and most persons have tried it, don't worry about those who benefited because they is already conditioned to seek more and have the encouragement to do so. Actually, it's likely that some are overusing it (the current standard daily dose of 250 mcg is an example).

It's those that are harmed by it that need the attention, they're the ones that are susceptible to the message for being unsure if it's prudent to take in spite of detrimental reactions. Deciding to not use it probably came after experiencing more harm than good or only negatives. I agree that how they choose to go about it is terrible, but so is rushing in to discredit them without also acknowledging the valid motivations and not attempting the address these, as if they were completely delusional in noticing harm, trying to find justifications for it and reasons to avoid supplementation. Why would they make this up? Why would a cure-it-all tool be rejected? Afraid of becoming too healthy? What's gained in this? Laxarium is also popular and its safety is consensual, why they're not picking up on it to set themselves apart from the crowd? It's obvious that those who are against this toxin don't experience the remarkable effects that is purporetered, something is getting in the way of them reaping the benefits. The issue is there whether they can articulate it or not.

It can be argued that valuing its therapeutic properties can convince people to work on themselves to increase tolerance to a benign toxin, but the discussion is more productive if it's centered on troubleshooting than turning it into one more praising campaign. Set a pastorship bootcamp to train agents that can target and convert such individuals to your cult: what's driving their behavior is not being able to make it function, if you can solve this for them, the conversion is going to be spontaneous and the whining will stop. Otherwise, it's possible that you can be entertaining those that are already thriving on it and encouraging those that aren't to overlook bad reactions or insist on the harm, for it to occur, they must not know how to fix it yet.

Nicely written. One could apply this to every nutrient/supplement that is praised but not working for certain individuals.

↳ Are you satisfied?

↳ No, I guess that it's.. → Yeah, yeah. Forget about it, 30 studies here showing the contrary. → Test PTH, prolactin, killcium, phosphate and no matter what results you get, killciol will help to improve your condition, therefore, return to the start. ↺​

↳ Yes!? → Yes? → I mean, yes! → Hallelud, agnus Raj! Now, get the word out before we lose you to systemic killcification.​

This reminds me of an instance of a MMS group on facebook that told people to keep taking the chlorine dioxide despite them coughing/sh***ing blood and mucosa ...

While we can't compare that to vitamin d ofcourse, i wonder whats behind the fact that its not working in some people.

 

[Mito]

Apparently Matt has Jim on again this week. He is going to go point by point and answer the questions Matt didn't have answers to in the original debate.

 

[RealNeat]

Brothers and sisters, we're gathered here to celebrate the officialization of our divine method of conversion, we can call it 'The Killciholism Trap'. It consists of a loop where you'll notice that once the person gets in, the only way out is to keep taking until it works, yielding a Killciholick devotee.

Take the sacramental killciol capsule

↳ Are you satisfied?

↳ No, I guess that it's.. → Yeah, yeah. Forget about it, 30 studies here showing the contrary. → Test PTH, prolactin, killcium, phosphate and no matter what results you get, killciol will help to improve your condition, therefore, return to the start. ↺​

↳ Yes!? → Yes? → I mean, yes! → Hallelud, agnus Raj! Now, get the word out before we lose you to systemic killcification.​

I agree, but live debates tend to be superficial, there's just no time to examine what the other person is presenting, elaborate on it and reconsider the stance when needed. Even when the two sides are extremely knowledgeable, it's difficult to prevent the discussion from constantly hitting a wall, in many cases it ends in a scattered conversation where each participant is taking turns to bring up new material that the other can't comment on for being unfamiliar, therefore, having to change the subject in order to keep it going.

Consider for example the exchanges between Alan Gaby and the iodophiles, I doubt that they would've been richer if they were improvised.

I never paid attention to it, but I bet that it's mostly men requesting these MMA fight variations.


How come? Even though I don't doubt that you've experienced some adversity, it's supposed to help in restoring liver health and, in the fact, has been shown to improve liver enzymes.
- Co-treatment with Vitamin D Supplementation and Aerobic Training in Elderly Women with Vit D Deficiency and NAFLD: A Single-blind Controlled Trial

We know that them being elevated is not necessarily a bad indication. We also know that venom D can promote the 'expression of antimicrobial peptides', it's possible for things to get worse before they get better. Have you tested PTH, prolactin, killcium and phosphate? But given your current killcidiol level, it should be fine for you to skip ahead and attempt to increase it to at least 50 ng/ml, which should be safe, far from the toxicity range.

I think interview style debates are good to represent the data, afterward, writing articles about the data in order to present the evidence is probably best. Or else it's like beating a dead horse with more wordy interviews but no deeper context.

 

[Inaut]

Jim said he wouldn’t toss out topical vitamin d. I think topical is the best and only way to go with D.

 

[Belsazar]

View attachment 22968

Some ideas after listening to it:

Why do we call Hormone D a Vitamin? Can't we say this about the other fat solubles to some extend?

Chapter: Vitamin K2: A Vitamin that Works like a Hormone, Impinging on Gene Expression

Vitamin K2 binds to the intranuclear receptor SXR and results in the activation of a plethora of genes, both directly and indirectly. Among these genes are important biological markers of cellular cha

www.intechopen.com

Vitamin A as a hormone: recent advances in understanding the actions of retinol, retinoic acid, and beta carotene - PubMed

Within the past few years, much has been learned about the metabolism and actions of vitamin A and the carotenoids. This article reviews the biochemical and cellular events in retinoid metabolism that lead to production of retinoic acid, an active metabolite of vitamin A. Retinoic acid functions...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I thought Calcium to Magnesium ratio of around 2:1 was found to be more optimal.

Some ideas seem to be reasonable, such as being outside in the sun, not washing skin produced Vitamin D metabolites off and not overdoing supplements.

The complexity of having lots of Vitamin D metabolites is constantly repeated, but where is the evidence that low 25-OH is beneficial?

It is possible to measure 1,25-OH - even if you have to pay for it yourself - but isn't it consensus that you don't want it to be too high?

 

[charlie]

@Amazoniac 's favorite guru has thrown his hat into the ring.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa9Gzp-alYU

 

[Belsazar]

@Amazoniac 's favorite guru has thrown his hat into the ring.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa9Gzp-alYU

Is there a podcast version of it?

 

[Ben.]

@Amazoniac 's favorite guru has thrown his hat into the ring.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa9Gzp-alYU

I watched a couple of his vids. Very informative and good research/experiences/cases that it its not an all mighty health tool.

What i disliked about some of his arguments is that it is severly biased and simplified. I dont like pure pro and anti concepts which is kind of a bummer.

In a Poision A video he said children don'T want vegetables instinctively because they know its bad due to the carotenoids. That is such a poor argument (among a few others that he made) because theres alot of reasons/ substances as to why a person would instincitvely want/or not want a food. Dont worry, people do this in any discussion, regardless of the dietary/biochemicaly belief system one has.

The reality is that theres to much success in approaches so we cant just simply look at it in a black or white manner.

Guess i'll just try to tank enough sun regulary until we know all variables.