Home > Health, Studies, Supps & Pharmaceuticals > Scientific Studies > This Will Make You Never Want To Take Vitamin D Ever Again

This Will Make You Never Want To Take Vitamin D Ever Again

  1. The Truth About Vitamin D: Fourteen Reasons Why Misunderstanding Endures
    Summary:

    1.Vitamin D is not a vitamin; it is an
    immunosuppressive steroid.

    2.The vast majority of studies fail to
    account for the long-term effects of
    vitamin D.

    3. Chronically ill people are not
    deficient in vitamin D.

    4. Healthy people are not deficient in
    vitamin D and do not need to consume
    extra amounts of this steroid.

    5.The public does not require extra
    sun exposure in order to prevent
    vitamin D ―deficiency.

    6.Vitamin D does not reverse
    osteoporosis.

    7.Extra vitamin D does not reduce the
    risk of cancer.

    8.Vitamin D deficiency does not cause
    rickets.

    9.Most researchers fail to consider the
    alternate hypothesis about vitamin D.

    10.When it comes to vitamin D, the
    current medical climate of consensus is
    hostile to new ideas.

    11.Research touting vitamin D‘s
    benefits is often biased,
    methodologically weak, and ultimately
    misleading.

    12.The dairy and supplement industries
    are intent on heavily promoting vitamin
    D.

    13.The media is neither well-informed
    nor objective about vitamin D.

    14.We must take immediate action to
    remedy the health crisis that has
    resulted from faulty conclusions about
    vitamin D in chronic disease.

     
  2. This flies in the face of everything I've learnt about Vitamin D.

    I actually feel sick reading it.

    Is anyone else feeling the same way? How can we justify even supplementing this hormone ever again?!
     
  3. Does anyone have solid science on L-form bacteria and chronic inflammation?
     
  4. Looks like a bad diet is where it’s at - who’d have thought

    L-form Bacteria Cohabitants in Human Blood: Significance for Health and Diseases - Nadya Markova - Discovery Medicine
     
  5. D without calcium and K2 isn’t safe.
     
  6. Well those 14 points could be applied to any and all supplements and pharmacons with slight tweaks.

    Ultimately, the human physiology is ultra-complex. We like to think that we understand quite a lot about what is going on, but with every bit of knowledge comes a plethora of new questions and blank spaces of ignorance.
    Then there isn’t an optimal state of health. There is only homeostasis - and most important, the fact that we decay and wane with every single day that passes. Some quicker, more drastically, some enjoy phases of stability or slowing of that process - but eventually, every substance that alters physiology as powerful as secosteroids like Vit D are subject to homeostatic mechanisms that we cannot understand let alone control perfectly.
    Hence, sometimes for somebody under certain circumstances Vit D might quicken or slow down decline - in direct oder indirect, intertwined ways beyond our grasp
     
  7. The paper is from 2009. A time when many doctors and researchers not yet thought about Vit D as a secosteroid.
    When Alternative Health claimed it is a cure it all and Pharma feared it might really be.

    There is too much unknown agenda behind that paper to take it seriously.
     
  8. Where is it shown vitamin D is immunosuppressive (in a relevant way) at 30-32 ng/mL?

    The body uses up all vitamin D until serum goes above ~42 ng/mL. A tribe in Africa (black and outside a lot at their native/natural latitude) had average serum 25(OH)D around 46 ng/mL. Both suggest a serum in the 40s is what's desired by the body.

    15,000-20,000 IUs can be produced after 30 minutes in direct sunlight. On the other hand, production tapers to approach 4,000 IU as sufficiency (serum in the 40s) is achieved.

    Evidence.
     
  9. From the paper: "Could it be that the people we call ―Vitamin D deficient‖ actually have a normal level of 25-D? Studies which have tested the level of 25-D in people who live in countries where vitamin D is not added to the food chain prove this scenario to be true. A study which tested the level of 25-D in 90 ―healthy, ambulatory Chilean women‖ showed that 27% of the premenopausal and 60% of the postmenopausal women had 25-D levels under 20 ng/ml.[55]"

    I was "healthy, ambulatory ... premenopausal" with low Vit D level in the 20's, before I was dx with BC. This statement makes me suspect low Vit D levels may be related to high estrogen ( or progesterone defeciency).

    This would be a fun bit to unpack:"...Vitamin D Receptor, the lynchpin of the innate immune system." It builds on both the theory of "receptors" and popular model of the immune system, both of which Peat writes about a lot, and should throw flags that careful analysis is needed before wholesale buy-in.
     
  10. Low vitamin D is associated with estrogen in women.

    Vitamin D association with estradiol and progesterone in young women

    Vitamin D Modestly Tied to Sex Hormones in Older Population

    Vitamin D is an important factor in estrogen biosynthesis of both female and male gonads. - PubMed - NCBI
     
  11. Upon second lecture of this paper, clearly this is a low grade publication with massive heaps of logic. Or maybe they’re in bed with big dermatology and sunscreen companies.

    Vitamin D deficiency or rather, serum 25OHD deficiency correlates with cellular 1,25OHD deficiency well enough so that it’s strongly advised to fix the low levels. As always though, more isn’t better, and whoever claims that we should shoot for the highest part of the range has an interest in such claims. Extra Calcification is NOT desirable.
     
  12. Post menopausal women don’t have higher estrogens... come on now. They’re deficient in all Hormones. It’s called getting old, afaik Peat has no solution to this.
     
  13. Check out the FB group Secosteriod Hormone D. Jim Stephenson Jr. is the admin and post a lot of science on the conversation of this thread. You'll notice Morley Robbins is a member, lol!
     
  14. Would someone send this to Peat for a comment?
    It’s disconcerting how things that don’t fit the narrative often get ignored.
     
  15. In post-menopausal women, estrogen in unopposed because progesterone levels drop, so there is even greater accumulation in the tissues. Almost no one is deficient in estrogen. If there is a fundamental premise of "peating", it is we all have too much estrogen, some way too much.
     
  16. Certainly excessive vit D, be it from the sun or from supplements, is going to have ill effects. As with any steroid, hormone, vitamin, or mineral, it's not simply about the isolated measurement you get on blood labs report, it's about that result in relation to the rest of the lab work.
    I don't know all there is to know about vit D, and I'm in the process of learning like you. I found this video extremely helpful but there's always more to know...
     
  17. That's also my current point of view. I used to be on the no supplement camp, but ultimately supplement or not what matters is how the body feels and reacts to what you ingest, do or apply on your skin.

    Anyway with the state of the food supply today, it's difficult to tell even when food is nutritious or detrimental with the additives and the time spent between storage and consumption.

    Vitamin D is present in animal products and so, should be relatively safe to consume in normal amounts.
     
  18. @LucyL nailed it.

    Blood estrogen is lower in post menopausal women, but the overall effect estrogen has is greater.

    Progesterone opposes estrogen in multiple ways.
     
  19. do you mean dietary calcium, or that extra calcium needs to be taken with D?
    I thought D is meant to increase calcium absorption, so why would supplementing D require more calcium? I mean even if you didn't have calcium, why would that be relevant to D3 being safe, I'd imagine D3 becomes more dangerous the more calcium you consume, while it becomes more important the less calcium you consume?
     
  20. This.

    When I took high doses of Vit D (by itself), I ended up in the hospital with hypercalcemia.
    Hypercalcemia, in case you don't know, is a medical emergency and can result in kidney failure.
    Vit D in the absence of the other Fat-soluble Vitamins is not a good idea IMO.

    Basically, there is no food which naturally contains Vit D which does not also contain Vit A/E/K. I think the only exception is mushrooms which contain a weaker, different form of Vit D.
     
  21. Poison D!
     
  22. I don’t think Vit D is overtly toxic, but the argument (from article in OP’s study) that Vit D is somehow pushed on people by the “muh evil Dairy Induhstry” is ridiculous.
     
  23. How much were you taking? The only cases I have seen of this, both in the literature and anecdotally, have been from either very large doses, intramuscular injections (also large doses), or chronic ingestion over 60,000 iu a day. Of course, that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen at a lower dose, but I'm curious.
     
  24. 50,000 IU daily for maybe 2 months.

    In retrospect I now realize that was a huge dosage, but it seemed appropriate because I had depression and almost never left the house and had virtually 0 sun exposure for a few years.
     
  25. I only needed a 5,000 IU dose of D3 to notice a mood elevation. What were your levels prior to supplementing ? Mine was as low as 17ng/DL.
     
  26. This is part of an argument for the Marshall protocol. Proal is a frequent collaborator with Trevor Marshall in papers. Proal's more recent papers describe the microbiome in relation to immunity and chronic disease.

    The Marshall protocol has its own web forums and plenty of places to read more.
    It is a protocol that is lengthy in time, and may be costly if there is limited insurance reimbursement. It includes olmesartan, pulsed antibiotics, and "avoiding inter-personal stress and environmental immune suppression such as radio frequency radiation", in addition to vitamin D avoidance.

    I have heard the Marshall arguments for years, and seen anecdotes of patients and practitioners. I remain interested in Dr. Peat's ideas.
     
  27. Xenoestrogens are the issue, not the picograms of estradiol per milliliter of serum
     
  28. 5000iu vitamin D3 always made me feel off, whether taken with K2 or without.

    My head is much clearer since I discontinued
     
  29. I noticed elevation of mood after supplementing 5,000 IU of D3 for a couple of days (close to one week).
     
  30. I’ve been taking 5k for probably about 6 months and haven’t noticed any negative effects except a potential calcification forming on my index finger joint(maybe..?). Anyways I’ve just recently upped my boron intake to increase mag and D levels. I’ve also switched from mk4 to mk7 recently to test it out. Didn’t notice anything on mk4 and don’t notice much from mk7
     
  31. From the article:

    "CYP24 breaks down excess 1,25-D, ensuring that the level of 1,25-D in the body stays in the normal range. But in chronically ill individuals, the VDR (which is blocked by bacterial proteins) can no longer transcribe CYP24. The level of 1,25-D in the body becomes significantly elevated since there is no CYP24 to keep it in check."

    "1,25-D binds to the PXR receptor, a receptor that is involved in making another enzyme called CYP27A1. CYP27A1 is responsible for converting D3 into 25-D in the liver. Elevated 1,25-D affects the activity of the PXR receptor in a way that causes less D3 to be converted into 25-D, meaning that the level of 25-D in chronically ill individuals drops."

    "Yet another factor contributes to the low level of 25-D seen in patients with chronic disease. An enzyme called CYP27B1 normally regulates the amount of 25-D converted into 1,25-D. When more CYP27B1 is produced, conversion occurs at a greater rate."

    ¿


    "Some claim that 1,25-D levels are not really important because they sometimes appear to fluctuate, and so do not measure them. Or, when they do measure 1,25-D, they automatically attribute a high 1,25-D combined with a low 25D to secondary hyperparathyroidism, a condition in which the kidneys produce more 1,25-D to compensate for inadequate calcium intake. Rather than recommend more calcium, such clinicians mistakenly recommend more vitamin D."

    "But secondary hyperparathyroidism can be ruled out by measuring parathyroid hormones, which researchers usually fail to do.[47][32] More thorough studies on several inflammatory diseases[48][49][50] specifically ruled out secondary hyperparathyroidism as a cause for the high level of 1,25D relative to 25D."

    "Furthermore, some researchers and physicians who test 1,25-D do not realize that the sample must remain frozen before analysis in order for the resulting reading to be accurate."


    "Some clinicians have patients supplement with vitamin D and calcium in an attempt to reverse bone loss. To begin with, patients with chronic disease may obtain less of a benefit from calcium supplements since the calcium metabolism of patients suffering from chronic disease is different from that of healthy individuals.[71][51]."

    "Rickets is a softening of the bones that leads to fractures and deformity. The majority of cases occur among children in developing countries who suffer from severe malnutrition."

    "[..]a team of biologists at Harvest Medical School published the results of a study on rickets. The researchers engineered mice without vitamin D receptors (VDRs). Since vitamin D can have no effect on the body unless it can bind to the VDR, the mice could use no vitamin D whatsoever in their bodies. The researchers found that if the mice were given a diet high in calcium and phosphorous they did not develop rickets and their bones were just as strong as normal mice with active Vitamin D Receptors.[107]"

    "A second study, by the same research team, corrected rickets by replacing calcium and phosphate ions in the bloodstream of mice without Vitamin D Receptors, thereby confirming the results. The team concluded that rickets is not caused by a deficiency of vitamin D but instead results from hypophosphatemia, a condition where the level of phosphorous in the blood is too low.[108]"

    "Clearly, low calcium was part of the problem as well. Diminished levels of calcium cause an increase in Parathyroid Hormone, which subsequently causes the body to excrete too much phosphorous. This causes the level of phosphate in the body to drop, leading to the altered bone formation seen in rickets. Joyce Waterhouse, PhD, a researcher associated with Autoimmunity Research Foundation writes, "Low phosphorus is the proximate cause — but low calcium intake is generally the ultimate cause."


    "In 2004, a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by researchers from the Mayo Clinic, Oregon University School of Medicine, and other institutions confirmed that a low level of calcium can lead to rickets. The team assessed the absorption of calcium in 15 Nigerian children with active rickets. They found that all 15 children had resolution or improvement of rickets after six months of treatment with calcium supplements.[109]"

    "Consequently, the US Department of Agriculture website clearly states―Rickets in toddlers is a large problem in parts of Africa, especially Nigeria. It is not due to vitamin D deficiency but is caused by not having enough calcium in the diet."[110] It's certainly no surprise that children in Africa, who get copious amounts of sunlight, are not suffering from a disease caused by vitamin D deficiency."

    "If a child with rickets is severely deficient in vitamin D, as well as in calcium and phosphorous, administering a small amount of vitamin D (which will be immediately converted into 1,25-D) can help by allowing the Vitamin D Receptor to turn on genes that affect the absorption of calcium. This probably explains why in the early 19th century, some children given high does of vitamin D were said to be cured from rickets."​

    Hi, Giraffe. Hope that you're doing great. You haven't aged at all.
     
  32. Did you also take vitamin K2 (MK-4) and magnesium? How much? Did you avoid excess calcium?

    I took 100,000 IU for 6 months and serum calcium was still in range. Following, I took 60,000 IU for 1 year. Serum calcium was still in range.
     
  33. .
     
  34. Vit D increases BLOOD Calcium, but increasing blood calcium is generally bad and usually a sign of high PTH (which RP says should be kept low with higher calcium intake.)

    Also bones aren't made of JUST calcium, they are Calcium+Phosphate (Hydroxyapatite).

    The calcium in milk is also bound to phosphorus.

    When you get sun exposure, the Vit D is bound to Sulfate, it is not "free Vitamin D" as in the form in supplements.

    No, I did not take any other fat soluble Vitamins including K, which I suspect was part of the issue.

    The only magnesium I got was a small amount of MgO in a multivitamin.

    And my calcium intake was very low - I did not consume any dairy (vegan) and also did not consume many leafy greens either.
     
  35. Even 100 mcg MK-7 would've helped, but the preferred ratio is 10 IU D3 : 2 mcg+ MK-4.
     
  36. :lol:

    I am fine thanks.
     
  37. :greenwave
    Glad you’re here!
     
  38. Thanks, Blossom.
     
  39. A beautifully articulated post!
     
  40. Good to see you! :grouphug
     
  41. it’s hard not to get angry when you go into a store and look at the huge dairy section without one single milk that doesn’t have vitamin A D or both added (i know there are some exceptions like some u.n. homogenized/whole milks). How are humans so dumb to think it’s a good idea to make it a law to fortify every single food, giving no options to the consumer. same goes for wheat products, as if they ignore thousands of years of human nutrition without supplementing white bread/skim milk. who’s to blame for this? the government?
     
  42. I hope you are doing well, charlie.
     
  43. I don't have a quote, but I thought Peat considered D one of the safe supplements, along with pregnenolone. I've taken 1000-2000 IU a day for about eight months.
     
  44. What does that mean can you explain. Does vitamin d inhibit the immune response to infection does it make it easier to get sick. Should it not be supplemented unless you take other things alongside it
     
  45. What are the symptoms of too much vitamin D in the body?
     
  46. Hard to achieve if you're taking vitamin K(2 MK-4; 10 IU : 2 mcg+) and magnesium along with D3.

    Vitamin D toxicity lines up with hypercalcemia.
     
  47. Lmao!!!!
     
  48. All 14 of these "reasons" are extremely weak, some of them not even applicable or making any real sense. The only one that is of concern is the first one, saying it is "immunosuppressive". I looked at the paper, the reference it uses points to a broken link, and on top of that the statement from the paper says :

    "Let‘s start with this fact: the vast majority of doctors touting the benefits of vitamin D are not aware of discoveries made by researchers in the field of molecular biology, which have clearly shown that the ―vitamin‖ D derived from diet and supplements is not a vitamin, but a steroid with immunosuppressive properties when elevated"

    ..Ok, elevated how much? Did they dump 1,000,000,000 IU into a mouse? Or did they test with a reasonable amount (2000-5000 iu equivalent in human) Of course if you take too much you're going to have problems, this is a given. Guess what?...elevated levels of water in the body can kill you.

    Going further the article doesn't even say it suppresses the immune system, it says it has "immunosuppressive properties". This could be a good thing for people with auto-immune system problems, or it could be a bad thing, it's an extremely broad statement and is vague. Immunosuppressive properties can mean almost anything I want it to since it's not a hard-defined term in the medical community. This entire article reads like click-bait and is targeted at people who won't spend any time to dig into their its details and broad statements.

    I'm not defending D3 at all, I'm just saying this paper is huge a piece of garbage.
     
  49. This is very interesting, I think also you are talking about ferritin in that in some inflammatory response ferritin is elevated which makes it a positive acute phase reactant and 25D decreases with a SIR making it a negative acute phase reactant
     
  50. Is it lowered due to being used up or to allow the body's desired reaction to take place?
     
  51. So d3 should be avoided with autoimmune or other virus/infection until you are cured of the virus infection, once cured then you can add d3 again?
     
  52. Supplemental D makes me feel like ***t but sunlight makes me feel amazing.

    I took the supplemental D3 with k2, mag from mineral water, calcium, taurine, vit a from liver, zinc from oysters, vit c from acerola and other fruits. I took it both topically and orally. Made no difference.

    Supplemental vit a makes me feel terrible as well. Liver makes me feel different but not bad.
     
  53. What effects does it give you.
     
  54. @BigChad
    I had a period of time of bad hyperhidrosis. Vit D increased that significantly. It also made me cold, and tired.

    Sunlight doesnt do any of those things to me.
     
  55. @choc what form of vitamin A did you use? And what dosage?
    Personally I use palmitate retinyle and I like it
     
  56. Sunlight is amazing. Instant mood lift and overall sense of wellbeing without feeling hyperexcited.
     
  57. My gut feeling, pun intended, is that if we were meant to get thousands of units of D orally, food or otherwise, you would find it in nature in our food supply. Other than extreme and rare foods like fish liver, etc., most foods have modest amounts of this hormone compared to other fat soluble vitamins. I just don't believe we need to get the amounts they say we do, and it is evident that nature offers it in the highest amounts via sunlight/skin production. I think that low D status is not the cause of disease, but the result of it, and few are taking into account of the active form of D which can be high when storage forms are low.
     
  58. The body makes 15,000-30,000 IU in 30 minutes from direct sunlight when deficient. The amount asymptotes toward 4,000 IU as sufficiency is achieved. That is, it could be said the body wants 4,000 IU (+ amount they got from food) once sufficient.
     
  59. Increase boron to boost vitamin d and magnesium status and eryting all good?
     
  60. I think sunlight does not have the calcium promoting phosphate reducing effect oral vitamin d3 has?
     
  61. Hello! I did have an "experience" with Throne K2/D like 30 drops on my tummy. It made my ears pop, feel pressure all day and at night I could hear a ringing, like the kind followed after a loud concert. Stopped the supplement and after a couple of days everything went better. I just heard RP say he only supps daily in winter. So maybe the dose makes the poisson and daily supplementation is too much. Will try only on Mon and Fri, and see if that works out. I can see why DR takes these two separate (D & K).
     
  62. I stop taking vitamin D3 but needed to comeback: the brain fog, the low mood was horrible!! Vitamin D3 give-me energy and a peaceful felling!!
     
  63. Guru, where is this from?
     
  64. I have had a lot of experience with ear pain and pressure in relation to intestinal inflammation. @MeatOrchid You were applying the supplement to your skin, or using it orally?
     
  65. Vitamin D is supposed to lower endometriosis likelihood, which is why I take it.
     
  66. Sounds like you took the first step towards resuming full hearing function! The ringing happens because you hear a new frequency area and your brain is "surprised" by it. As the days go by you learn to ignore this and silence lands again. This is similar to you not noticing the clothes you wear soon after you put them on.
     
  67. I applied Throne K2/D on my skin, between 10 and 20 drops daily.
     
  68. I read a lot about the Trevor marshall Protocol,thats where this is coming from.
    marshall is an electrical engineer if i recall correctly,with self described,believable severe autoimmune disease,
    foremost Sarcoidosis and also concomitant disease like vitiligo.He treated himself with longer dose doxycycline
    and another ABX.Plausible,i looked it up myself,cutaneous sarcoidosis gets healed by 12 months of Doxy or minocycline.
    His idea: Disease is produced by latent infection,all is interrelated and so on and so forth.Where he is jumping the
    shark is that Vitamin D is not necessary.It is,he accepts it,but wants us to agonize the Vitamin D receptor not with
    Vitamin D metabolites and such,but with an in-silico analysed Ligand with higher affinity for the receptor,and this would be
    Olmesartan.A bloodpressure chemical,which happens to have also allegedly affinity for VDR -Receptor.
    It was a worthy try.But lots of the mystery-diseases typically lined up like gulph-war syndrome(read military psych-evaluation:in a subset of cases,it is poisoning by an prophylactic malarial compound,brain stem pathology),Bipolar,
    Parkinson and such did not respond,even after years of convoluted treatment.But worthy try and good thinking.
    Mystery diseases are stemming from Hi-Salt autoimmunity is my hunch.:satellite::smoking:
     
  69. And you do need D3.it doesnt matter enough if you eat it or synthesize it locally.same destiny,both go into the bloodstream,
    and from there distribution into tissues ensue.for a male without testing,i also would recommend 4000 IU.
    And it has to be D3,and not D2.
     
  70. So Vitamin D is "bad" now?

    I grew up with little sun and was pretty pale, which makes me think I could've been a bit subpar in the D department. I did drink milk and such, but that D isn't the same as the big orange one in the sky I don't think.

    Now I don't supplement but it makes me question it more since -- although I do get some sun often -- I can't know how well my body is utilizing it. Maybe some people need a "loading" phase (like with creatine) to replenish some deficiencies (undetected ones especially) but then can taper them off and lower dosing. I mean this is the way I see it with plenty of vitamins -- you don't absolutely need some "perfect" minimum/maximum number of every vitamin and mineral and every "everything" to be healthy on a daily basis because (ideally) one can hold on to and use said compounds without necessarily having to have every single one in some super rigid regimen all of the time (but still regularly of course). Sure, some are more immediate/depleted faster, but others are more efficient (or at least should be) and you don't need 'X' perfect number of every 'Y' compound constantly I don't think (although, yes, regularly in general).
     
  71. I guess that loading phase is meant to speed up the process to get to the desired maintenance. It serves to shock a body that's adapted to lower intakes of a nutrient and I can't think of a good reason to do it unless it's an emergency, it would eventually reach stabilization with a more patient regimen without unnecessary stress. For example, there was a recent thread on iodine, why take grams of it all of the sudden when the body isn't prepared if the increase could be gradual instead? It would make sense in case the person is near a plume of radioactive iodine.
     

  72. No,it isnt Bad now.
    You are utilising it probably a lot like everyone else.
    You do not need daily perfect numbers,but weekly-hit targets.
    For absorption or transport-strained substance,you do need to hit Targets on the daily.