The Real Story on Vitamin D 
chrisb1
15 y
4,363
† Cross †
Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.
Clarkia Extra Strong
Clarkia Tincture 2 oz, 4 oz, 8 oz, and 16 oz
You can get it from the sun, from a pill or in your food, and it can even save your life..............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeg-5NDyJ84&feature=player_embedded
- might be true for some, but not othe... johng
15 y
4,102
Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.
Clarkia Parasites Cleanse
Hulda Clark Cleanse
This is a reply to # 1,595,243otherwise you are doing yourself harm:
http://bacteriality.com/2009/08/10/iom/
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... SilverFox
15 y
5,171
R
Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.
Original Dr. Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 1,595,277Hello Johng,
Why is it that people are not showing improvements...?
With the widespread use of sunscreen which blocks the production of vitamin D in the body, and lowers the 25 D levels, and the life style changes that tend to avoid sun exposure, you would think that Marshall's model would jump out and prove itself... Instead, it appears that the actual evidence, as apposed to some theories, favors the benefits of a therapeutic level of 25 D.
The idea that eliminating all vitamin D from the body in an effort to reduce 1.25 D levels may be totally backward. It may make sense in a model, but the body may actually need more 25 D in order to allow the 1.25 D levels to reach an effective level. The model could be tweaked to show that once the 1.25 D has accomplished its "task" the body will regulate the 1.25 D levels according to its next "task," and that the real problem is that they body ran out of 25 D and was unable to produce enough 1.25 D to get the job done.
It is good to hear that Marshall is planning some clinical trials. This will move his ideas from the model to actual "real world" experience. Hopefully he will make his results public and open for discussion, but that does not seem to be a priority for him. He is quick to discuss the model, but seems to come up short on actual clinical data.
At this point in time, the Vitamin D Council has the most compelling argument, and has a lot of evidence to back them up. Their research is a little over 10 years old now, so some of the long term adverse effects predicted by Marshall should begin to show up.
While I am waiting for credible evidence to manifest itself on the harms of maintaining therapeutic levels of 25 D, I am making sure my levels are in the therapeutic range.
Tom
More
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,920
This is a reply to # 1,595,315If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I do not advocate the marshall protocal. full stop. second, have you gone to a grocery store recently and looked at food lables to see how much vit d is added to food? granted it is toxic crap, but that is part of the problem.
the point I am making is that marshall may be correct about a silent epidemic of stealth infection by l-form bacteria. bacteria that slowly block the VDR's. adding vit d when these bacteria are present is like feeding a smouldering fire. My treatment to clear this condition lasted no more than two months. i did not, repeat, not do the marshall protocol, did not avoid the sun or take any of the drugs that marshall provides. he is wrong about the treatment, but is correct about the underlying disease process. the only unknown? what percentage of the population is affected. based on conversations with my doc, it is a significant percentage, but obviously not everyone. better to know before you supplement. if affected, simply fix the problem and it will not be an issue.
still working on getting rid of the backup levels of toxic vit d derivatives that built up in my system. the point is that I am not unique. as marshall correctly points out, the correlation studies fronted by big pharma, er the vit d counsel suffer from the identical infirmaties as big drug studies. not very impressive to me. only one thing can be trusted these days, first hand experience. get yourself checked people.
John
More
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... chrisb1
15 y
4,013
Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.
Original Dr. Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 1,595,408John you are saying that you do not subscribe to the Marshall Protocol, but then everything you have said to date is in support of his viewpoint.
Bacteria does not cause disease: Pasteur has been shown to be incorrect.............
http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/germ5.php
Bacteria thrives in a bodily environment that supports it. Bacteria is also essential for life and is not harmful especially to VDR's.
Your posts in response to my own are absolute and complete nonsense.
I wholeheartedly agree with the replies from Silverfox.
If you want to spread your misinformation then please do so elsewhere.
Chrisb1.
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... SilverFox
15 y
3,838
Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.
Original Dr. Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 1,595,508Hello Chris,
Just a minute now...
It appears that John is not promoting the Marshall protocol, but simply stating that Marshall may have initially been onto something.
Once Marshall posed the question of elevated 1.25 D levels, as far as John is concerned he totally went off base.
So, rather than discussing the Marshall Protocol, or referencing the writings of Amy and others, the question should pivot on what causes elevated 1.25 D levels, and if a person has elevated 1.25 D levels, does elevating 25 D levels help or hinder the healing process.
Perhaps we should take a moment and take a look at what 1.25 D levels mean.
Tom- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,970
This is a reply to # 1,595,605Agreed. This issue needs much more research and understanding. I took marshall's description of the underlying process and had myself tested. what my doc found, he didn't believe either... he thought I was was deficienct in vitamin d because my 25D levels tested low. He kept and open mind however and hand a kinesiology test kit put together of the entire vitamin d related pathway. he found that my 1.25d levels were very very high, while 25d was low. He was also able to determine that my VDR's were totally blocked, just as marshall predicted in his disease model (ignore the treatment model). And, as marshall again predicted, there were organisms involved, including l-form bacteria. and what adaptive and clever creatures they are. once they have a toe hold, they use vit d against you, to slowly disable the immune system. if you have these l form bacteria in your body, and many many people with chronic illness do, then taking vitamin d makes you feel good short term and cuts inflamation short term, by shutting down the immune response. this is exactly the problem because the pathogens then can grow strong.
marshall's treatment protocol is terrible. If you look at the Rife forum, the holistic alternatives are discussed. rife technology, or chanca piedra extract and SSKI will do a better job than marshall's drugs. but, before anyone is going to believe that, they first have to understand the propblem exists at all. and unfortuneatly, no one except marshall is even trying to look. the only reason he looked was because he was ill and no one else was going to help him.
in my own case, it didn't take very long to clear the VDR blockage. and here is the really interesting thing... once you clear the vdr blockage, the imbalence between 25D and 1,25-d corrects itself. in plain english, the percieved deficiency goes away and supplements are not necessary. a few minutes in the sun, even in the north, is all you need. if you have this issue, taking vit d will not help you, it will only hurt you. and this is not a rare condition.
there is much to be learned here. I certainly can't say that my case proves the case for everyone. but after this opened my doctor's eyes, he started testing others, and a across a significant number of chronically ill patients who fit the pattern. this class of person, the chronically ill, is exactly the type of person to take vitamin d to help them feel better. its that feeling better that should be a tip off, something is not right.
I don't post this information because I think the marshall protocol is a good idea. but he as done the research on what is happening in the body. he is the only one who has. so until more holistic minded people get off their butts and pay attention to his, his info is the best we have.
John - Re: might be true for some, but not ... chrisb1
15 y
3,953
Lugol’s Iodine Free S&H
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine Solution. Restore lost reserves.
Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 1,595,605Hello Tom,
I agree with your point, although John did originally include a website within one of his posts in support of the Marshall protocol.
However, is it possible to have low levels of 25OHD while simultaneously having high levels of 1.25D?
Is supplementation with D3 or cholcalciferol therefore ill-advised?
I am currently enquiring as to that possibility and what this actually means for health and/or the healing process.
Chrisb1.
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,787
This is a reply to # 1,595,741marshall's group is the only body out there interested in looking at the details on this. the research on the underlying issue is good, the protocol to address the issue is crap. I have always said that. but, you can't throw out the reseach on the underlying issue because you don't like the treatment protocol.
as far as having the imbalence of low 25D and high 1.25-d? I had it, as did a significant group of my chiropractor's other patients, who by the way, is not a doctor who believes in the marshall protocol. as far as inquiring about the issue, i can give a good prediction of how that will go. you will be told that 1.25-d levels are "variable" or "not reliable" and therefore should be ignored or some other nonsense. that is why people need to do their own homework and get tested.
John
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,787
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,970
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,818
This is a reply to # 1,595,508Chris- no offence, but your post is unsupported. It is very clear you do not understand the issue. I could easily make the same comment about spreading misinformation to you. In fact, if you are telling people to blindly supplement with vitamin d without truly understanding all the mechanisms involved, the risks, and the true reasons for the percieved vit d deficiency, you are causing harm.
I have been hanging around this web site since its inception and have experimented with just about every holistic protocal I have ever heard of. some helped, some are just pipe dreams that make for great fantasy. I have really grown to appreciate the difference between wishful thinking/dogma, and results oriented/empirical data.
Chinese physicians understood this issue long before they knew that bacteria even existed. they knew that once pathogens or disease breached the body's first layer of defenses, and became chronic, the body could no longer expel the pathogen. at that point, the battle shifts. instead, the body uses its vital energy to contain the infection. this is now called a biofilm. its niave to think that pathogens can't hurt you. true if you are in good health. but those of who were poisoned with vaccinations and heavy metals don't have the luxury of pretending that immune systems will do the job that a healty person's would. once the l-form bacteria are in, they only way they are leaving is with a lot of outside help. go check out the lyme forum and those people if bacteria are harmless. you get my point.
the irony is, the blocked VDR issue that marshall discovered.... IS all about the terrain. fix that issue, and then your body will start to do its job and kill pathogens. problem is, taking vit d for this type of person, only futher degrades the terrain by further suppressing the immune system. So, I don't disagree with you, the terrain is important. for that reason, better get tested before you supplement with vit d.
John- Re: might be true for some, but not ... chrisb1
15 y
4,000
This is a reply to # 1,595,632John,
OK. Let's get to the nitty gritty.
To clarify.......
I have never suggested or commented that anyone should (blindly) supplement with Vitamin D3, until they have already established their vitamin D status by a 25 OHD test.
On that basis, and that basis alone, can an individual decision be made as to whether supplementation is necessary.
The information I have posted on concerning Vitamin D is supported by no other than 30+ Scientists, who mostly all came to the same conclusion independently of each other.
The hole in your argument is that during the time of year when sunshine is plentiful, and people sunbathe liberally, our bodies will manufacture between 20,000ius and 50,000ius per day, to a maximum limit self-determined by the body itself.
This being the case, then these people (according to your information) will be doing themselves irreparable harm. But where is the evidence and the proof of this harmful sunlight-exposure, as you claim that the Vitamin D Receptors (VDR's) in many people are blocked?
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us?
However, in comparison, when sunlight is absent for long periods of time, and sunlight exposure is impossible, then supplementation (of this natural substance of cholcalciferol) would be required if the levels of 25 OHD drop below what is accepted as a normal level determined by Nature.
BTW, harmful bacteria can only take a foothold within the body, if the bodily medium provides an environment for them to exist: this is known as toxemia. A toxemic-free body does not allow pathogens of any description (including invading bacteria) to be made manifest, and the reason I have never had a days illness of any description within the last 30 years.
I have yet to discover any scientific literature/studies that explains or even recognizes a VDR'S blockage, despite hours upon hours of research within scientific journals and elsewhere.
You have also yet to explain in any detail whatsoever, the methodology for this, except the "kinesiology test kit" your Doctor used, and an absent scientific explanation means that I remain extremely skeptical of your assertions.
Please explain by what method your health-professional determined that your VDR pathway and receptors were blocked, and only then would I have to reconsider my position.
Chrisb1.
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,736
This is a reply to # 1,595,734Chris- the nitty gritty indeed. just testing 25D is only getting a fraction of the true picture of what is happening with vitamin d. people have seized on this measure because there is a correlation between low levels and disease... the funny is, we all know how flawed correlational studies are. these studies are not bothering to look at why vit d levels are low. the studies that really crack me up are the studies that find low 25D levels in people living in India and Africa. studies conclude this results from "dark skin". come on, wake up. these people developed their skin specific to that environment... nature knows best, right? the studies are flawed. they draw a cause and effect conclusion where none exists. but you don't have to take my word for it people, get tested and figure it out yourself. like me, you will be throwing your vitamin d in the trash.
John- Re: might be true for some, but not ... #57844
15 y
4,184
This is a reply to # 1,595,774Dear john,just read your post about the marshall protocol..
I kind of new to this but i wondered if you could tell me where to get the vit d1.25 & d25 tests done,
I did have my D25 done which was very low but i did'nt know about the D1.25..
If thats low does that mean i have l-forms?
What if it comes back ok,do you then recommend vitamin d supplements..one problem is im pretty sure my dr wont do the test for me..
I did have a microscope examination done a while back and said he found some l-forms in my cells,but he didnt seem too surprised,he told me everyone has..
Do you recommend me just trying treatment,my symptoms are kind of ms related..
Thankyou- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,823
This is a reply to # 1,595,874your doctor's comment that "everyone has" l-form bacteria is precisely one of the issues that gets me so upset about this issue. what he is saying is true, but in most people, its not a big issue because your immune system keeps them in check. you start to run into problems when the immune system gets suppressed, which can result for any number of things, including drugs like steroids, and, if your VDR's are being blocked by l-form bacteria, vitamin d. it then turns into a vicious circle as you keep taking more vit d to feel better, all the way leading to further blockage of the VDR's. L-forms are stealth bacteria, a problem that is not well recognized or understood.
I don't know where you can get a blood test that you could actually trust. most labs in the US simply cannot be trusted to get this sort of thing right. what I had to do was see my holistic chiropracter. he is very skilled with kinesiology testing. he did not believe in this at all (like most people on the website) so he was highly skeptical. but, like a good doc, he listened, had a full testing kit made, and we checked my entire vit. d pathway. he found several problems in a addition to the blocked VDR's, which were totally blocked (I took cod liver oil for years- bingo). you might be able to find a doc from the marshall web site, get the tests, but, if you fit the model, skip the treatment, just check out the rife forum for this issue, the treatment is not difficult. or, come to st. louis, my doc will check you. he was shocked by this, but, by testing many of his patients, he is now a believer. correlational studies can be manipulated easily, first hand confirmation, not so easy.
John
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,823
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... SilverFox
15 y
4,465
R
This is a reply to # 1,595,774Hello John,
After spending some time looking at this, I have come up with the following...
1.25 D levels vary according to the bodies ability to absorb nutrients from the diet. High levels are directly caused by low serum levels of calcium and phosphorus and are greatly influenced by parathyroid hormone imbalances. A lot of the studies supporting this were done both in humans and in animals and date back to the 1970's. Studies done later than 2000 have added magnesium to the list.
While there isn't a lot of correlation data between 25 D levels and 1.25 D levels I think we can look at what causes an increase in the 1.25 D levels and go from there.
This indicates that if your body has thyroid "issues" and can not absorb calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium from your diet, you will end up with elevated 1.25 D levels.
Jumping to the co-factors involved with vitamin D we find that they are magnesium, zinc, vitamin K2, boron, genestein, and some vitamin A.
Since 1.25 D levels have been shown to be inversely proportional to serum calcium levels, you can lower your 1.25 D levels by increasing the serum calcium levels. However, in order to absorb calcium into your body, you need vitamin D. Also, in order to have an adequate amount of vitamin D, you need magnesium, zinc, and the other co-factors associated with vitamin D.
When we start looking at electrolyte imbalances, thyroid imbalances, and zinc and calcium deficiencies, we may be able to address most illnesses. Now compound this by suddenly deciding to increase your vitamin D levels and you can mess up a whole lot of body functions.
Here is an example of this. I know of a person that found that their 25 D levels were low, and they decided to increase these levels. They felt that they were in pretty good shape overall, so no further testing, or consideration was done. Over a period of time, the 25 D levels steadily increased until they got to the therapeutic levels. Suddenly, this person developed heart palpitations.
Now we took a closer look at what was going on. We discovered that electrolyte balance was very important to body functions, including heart rhythm, and to the absorption and utilization of vitamin D. A close detailed look at diet revealed a magnesium deficiency. Blood tests showed magnesium in the low normal range, but it seems that this person needed to be in the normal to high range for their body.
Further research revealed the following:
Calcium, magnesium, sodium, and phosphorus levels need to be in balance and adequate for optimum health.
These electrolytes require vitamin D to allow absorption from diet and supplements.
However, vitamin D requires the electrolytes in order to function.
An electrolyte imbalance can effect heart rhythms.
Diet can be deficient in trace minerals and can alter electrolyte balance.
After a round of magnesium supplements and a diet change, the heart palpitations went away and things are back to normal.
Now, let's put this all together...
Elevated 1.25 D levels have been shown to be reduced by increasing serum calcium. In order to increase serum calcium through diet, you need adequate levels of vitamin D and have an adequate intake of calcium. In order for vitamin D to work, you need to have adequate supplies of the co-factors including magnesium and zinc.
The bottom line appears to be that if you have elevated 1.25 D levels, you need to elevate your 25 D levels, make sure you have the vitamin D co-factors addressed as well as any electrolyte or thyroid imbalance, and then you need to increase your calcium intake. According to the testing that has been done in animals and humans, this will bring your 1.25 D levels back into its normal fluctuating range.
Tom- Re: might be true for some, but not ... chrisb1
15 y
3,964
This is a reply to # 1,595,880Tom,
an excellent post and some very nifty detective work.
It is definitely true to say that the nutrient levels of the body are intertwined and any imbalance of one, can cause health anomalies.
The emphasis on Vitamin D levels, and that alone, is probably a misleading one in conjunction with other nutrients which act synergistically and in tandem with each other.
This is more a case then of "nutrient-teamwork".
All the more reason then to have a well-balanced, low calorie, but nutrient-dense-diet as espoused by Dr Joel Fuhrman MD and others.
This should (in my opinion) facilitate the body into absorbing and utilizing the optimum levels of Vitamin D via sunlight or supplementation in the absence of sun-exposure, and which is just not available from the diet.
Nutrients do act synergistically in achieving optimum health, and where it is still generally accepted by many health professionals that supplementation of Vitamin D3 is required in the absence of sunlight in acting as a prophylactic against the onset of many chronic diseases, including cancer.
I am still awaiting a response to my inquiry re' the levels of 1.25D in comparison to 25OHD and will post on this as soon as I have the information to hand.
However...........................
In 1976, Dr. Ramon Medalle and colleagues at the Washington University School of Medicine described five patients with Magnesium (Mg) deficiency and low blood calcium whose calcium blood levels would not return to normal after Vitamin D treatment, a condition known as Vitamin D resistance. However, serum calcium promptly returned to normal in all five patients after treatment with Mg, raising the possibility that such Vitamin D resistance may be caused from simple, but severe, Mg deficiency. Medalle R, Waterhouse C, Hahn TJ. Vitamin D resistance in magnesium deficiency. Am J Clin Nutr. 1976 Aug;29(8):854–8.
What is not known is how mild to moderate Mg deficiencies (like most Americans apparently have) affect Vitamin D metabolism. The safe thing to do is to eat green leafy vegetables and a handful of sunflower seeds every day (Trader Joe's sells a variety of seeds). If you can't, won't, or don't end up doing that, then take a Vitamin D supplement with added Mg.
In fact, there are now supplements on the market that contain all the co-factors vitamin D needs to work properly (including magnesium): zinc (the base of the fingers of the Vitamin D Receptor each contains a zinc molecule), Vitamin K2 (Vitamin K helps direct Vitamin D to calcify the proper organs and prevents calcification of improper organs), boron (boron is involved in the rapid, non-genomic action of Vitamin D on the cell wall), a small amount of genestein (about one-half the amount the average Japanese consumes every day) which helps activated Vitamin D stay around longer at the receptor site, and a tiny amount of Vitamin A. Again, the wisest thing to do is to eat green leafy vegetables and a handful of seeds every day as that combination contains the co-factors Vitamin D needs, the co-factors many Americans are deficient in.
Chrisb1. - Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,950
This is a reply to # 1,595,880Tom- I respectfully disagree. In my own case, my levels began to return to normal as soon as I treated the VDR blockage issue. no change in supplementation. so, for at least some people, something else is going on. giving a fair amount of thought today, I think I came up with a way boil this down to its essence. the imbalence between 25D and 1.25-d is actually an indicator that the body's terrain is off. this a signal that some changes are necessary, but simply covering over the issue through increased supplementation simply puts the issue off for another day, and actually suppresses the immune system. I wonder what would happen if people who are testing low in 25d, instead of supplementing with vit d, and hiding the issue, instead treated the VDR blockage for a few months, would the body then regulate iteself, thereby eliminating the need for any supplementation? In my case, yes. and after all, isn't this a truly holistic way of looking at health? how natural is it to manipulate blood levels of something like vit d when we have, at best, only speculation regarding what truly is healthy.
of course I can't say this will be true for everyone with chronic health issues... but, for those with immune issues like allergies or other sorts of inflamation, there is a real risk here that should not be ignored. that is the point I am making.
Regards,
John
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... chrisb1
15 y
3,876
This is a reply to # 1,595,997John,
with all due respect, it is difficult to take you seriously concerning your alleged VDR blockage, when you have yet to provide any proof or evidence that this was the case.
This website lists most if not all of the independent research studies on Vitamin D, but I can find no mention of VDR's being blocked except for a minority of people with certain health conditions.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/science/research/vitamin-d-genetics.shtml
This is the latest information I have to hand concerning 1,25D (calcitriol) in relation to levels of 25 OHD (cholcalciferol)..............
In good health, 1,25D blood serum levels are in the low range of normal.
The body also decides how much 1,25D is needed in tissues. Having enough substrate (25D) so that the tissues are able to produce as much 1,25D as they need is important.
Increasing serum 25D will usually decrease serum 1,25D.
The body will determine appropriate 1,25D levels if it has enough substrate and other cofactors mentioned earlier in my previous post.
High serum 1,25D, in the face of an adequate 25(OH)D and normal PTH, means that somewhere, 1,25D is being produced outside the kidney. It is only a cause for concern if calcium is elevated.
I would like you to provide any proof other than "anecdotal evidence" that Vitamin D can actually "suppress the immune system", because unless you can actually support that view from other verifiable sources, then it will remain conjectural and speculative, if not irresponsible.
"but simply covering over the issue through increased supplementation simply puts the issue off for another day, and actually suppresses the immune system".
AND..........
"how natural is it to manipulate blood levels of something like vit d when we have, at best, only speculation regarding what truly is healthy".
In answer to the above paragraph, there is absolutely no speculation at all re' optimum levels of Vitamin D, and (as I have said on a previous occasion) this is decided by the body itself with exposure to sunlight at approx' 20,000 to 50,000ius per day.
It therefore follows that in the absence of optimum sunlight-exposure for extended periods of time, supplementation within that range would be ideal.
Please provide any evidence that supports your views of VDR blockages and that Vitamin D suppresses the immune system, otherwise I am done here.
Chrisb1.- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,865
This is a reply to # 1,596,124Chris- quite a bit of irony here. Suggesting that I making this up because I don't have "proof"? do you really think i would beat my head against a wall on this tyring to get the word out, just to entertain myself? come one, that is just silly. I understand that you get push back when you challenge dogma, and that is exactly what the push behind vitamin d supplementation is, dogma.
I have no problem with people getting sunlight, assuming that their bodies have not already been compromised by l-form bacteria. but, vitamin d supplements are not sunlight. and, the problem here is not none of the vit d proponents bother to tell people that there is a risk that needs to be addresssed and understood. as far as providing the evidence of vit d suppressing the immune system, it has been posted three times now in the links to studies summarized on the Amy Proelh web page. anyone who is really intersted will find it. your mind is already made up, so, lets not waste my time here, or yours, playing games. slowly (some) people will catch onto this, but I expect it will take a decade. for those of you with allergic, autoimmune or other chronic disease... take a close look, you have to take the responsibility yourselves. unfortuneatly you cannot trust your health to anyone other than yourself.
John - immunosuppressive, not in dispute... johng
15 y
3,879
This is a reply to # 1,596,124would have thought you would know that vit d is immunosuppressive. not really in dispute, plenty of Science out there:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6071897/claims.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/hrq78p32hwj4t905/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090408164415.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125223302.htm
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/6_Suppl/1704S
first one is really interesting. note is suggests using vit d to suppress the immune system only where the patient's immune system has not been compromised.... can anyone guess why that is? i think you know why....
John
Expand 17 messages, 21 to 37 of 37 johng
15 y
3,946
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,865
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... chrisb1
15 y
3,876
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... chrisb1
15 y
3,964
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... #57844
15 y
4,184
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,736
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... chrisb1
15 y
4,000
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... SilverFox
15 y
3,838
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... chrisb1
15 y
4,013
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... johng
15 y
3,920
- Re: might be true for some, but not ... SilverFox
15 y
5,171
R
- might be true for some, but not othe... johng
15 y
4,102
fetched in 4.8340 sec, IP =172.70.179.132, y=1