YTread Logo
YTread Logo

Vitamin D doses

May 24, 2024
Well, a warm welcome to today's talk, Monday, May 15. I just read a really pretty interesting study that indicates that the

doses

of

vitamin

D that people have been taking are probably too small. This is based on the idea that these The authors tell us that on a typical sunny day 25,000 units of

vitamin

D will be produced per day. Now, compared to the current UK government, a recommended amount of 400 units per day makes it look quite ridiculous. This is based on good practice. evidence that this is what we want at the end of this video. We will wonder why the authorities do not keep up to date with the evidence we have.
vitamin d doses
These medical researchers doing this research was supposed to be evidence-based, and yet do we have evidence? Well, I'll let you answer that question: Are we evidence-based? Are we completely up to date? Perhaps certain areas could use an update in national policies. Now there are quite a few preparations that are actually quite cheap and vitamin D is one of them. Big pharma can't make a lot of money on this now, right, many of you have challenged me and said, well wait a minute, vitamin D is actually quite expensive, yes, we get scammed frequently for the vitamin by some suppliers.
vitamin d doses

More Interesting Facts About,

vitamin d doses...

D, but if there was competition, the point is that there is no patent on it, so many manufacturers, when we start taking more vitamin D, we will, as the health benefits of this become quite controversial, now more Manufacturers can start producing it with the appropriate quality and that. We will lower prices because it is not paid, anyone can produce it. There is no vitamin D. Any pharmaceutical manufacturer could produce large quantities anyway. Let's go directly to the investigation. Really interesting stuff. Here is the original article. Here now you can get most of this article. You can download a large part of this document and it is very interesting.
vitamin d doses
It gives a lot of historical background if you read the introduction. What happened in the 1920s and 1930s, when people began to realize the importance of vitamin D for things like treating tuberculosis and psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis, they actually gave

doses

that were too high, like 10 times as much. high, and that's why people became paranoid with the higher doses of vitamin D, so we went down to minuscule doses, but we'll see that as we go. um, stick with this because this video is really very important. I think the daily oral dose of vitamin D is three to five thousand to fifty thousand units per day for hospitalized patients and now these were patients admitted to a psychiatric facility often for severe mental illness, but that meant.
vitamin d doses
They were able to monitor all the vitamin D levels of the patients who came to offer supplements and rate them, so it's a really good sample. Actually, I think it's very good research written mainly by psychiatrists referring to the ideas of a seven-year experience now, this is published in steroid biochemistry, molecular biology, that very well-known journal with a snappy title, but It is a serious peer-reviewed journal. I have no qualms about that. This is now taking place in Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio. So as published by the task order in the United States, they say that vitamin D is a hormone produced in the skin, which is true, it is estimated in amounts up to 25,000 international units per day, so if we were hunter-gatherers or lived outside. like we or farm workers are supposed to do or if I spend the entire summer day on my plot, then I should be earning about 25,000 units a day, much more than many people think, which is actually a pretty large amount of vitamin D that has occurred in this natural physiological situation, which is probably a good comparator to take the actions of ultraviolet radiation, as we know, in the skin, vitamin D deficiency is what the authors commonly say and we know that it is a True lack of sun exposure present in very few food sources is not surprising that deficiency is strongly linked to an increase in a multitude of diseases, the authors correctly say and we have seen some on this channel before.
I haven't prepared this, so I'll do it. Look what I can remember immunity of course heart disease multiple sclerosis autoimmune disease colon cancer sure low levels of vitamin D are highly correlated with colon cancer and probably also prostate cancer and cancer of breast. We could continue if my memory was better, but We've looked at quite a few examples of a wide range of health conditions. Vitamin D is remarkably important for maintaining good health and preventing disease. Historically, several of which have been shown to improve dramatically with UV exposure of the skin like in the old days. tuberculosis patients on the balcony or supplements can also be effective these diseases included now these are the examples they give here asthma psoriasis inflammation of the skin rheumatoid arthritis you know, I have cared for patients in absolute agony for years with rheumatoid arthritis causing large deformities and eventually essential paralysis in the joints, but basically you see the idea that I could have helped these patients with pain by giving them high doses of vitamin D and I didn't do it because we didn't know, but why?
We know this is not prehistory. I'm talking about how it seems a shame that these patients haven't been helped with this very, very safe, very cheap and effective intervention. Um, very, very sad, tuberculosis, of course, as an infection. infectious diseases, we know about bacterial infections, of course, we've looked at the potential effectiveness against viral infections and we've looked at the research that shows that people with low levels of vitamin D get more respiratory viral infections, influenza, anyway, that has been clearly demonstrated. We will practice in our hospital. We have been tested routinely. Why aren't we doing this in the UK?
We should test everyone for vitamin D because it is very important and they were doing it from July 2011 until I think it was the 20th or 18th. What happened also offered a supplement to correct the efficiency of 4,700 admissions and most of them agree and Of course, we also know that vitamin D deficiency predisposes to depression, seasonal affective disorder, so psychiatric patients, like all patients, like all people, can benefit from this. It's good to see that done. The vast majority agreed with the supplementation. Patients were typically taking between five thousand and ten thousand units a day, so between 125 micrograms and 250 micrograms, and remember the UK government guidelines, I think it's 400 a day now.
It just makes it seem completely ridiculous that we are recommending such low amounts, where before they were giving between five thousand and ten thousand a day, 125 micro is equivalent to 250 micrograms and now some patients, due to illness problems, are receiving between 20,000 and 50,000 units per day. day, that's 500 micrograms to 1.25 uh 1.25 milligrams 1250 micrograms, really quite high doses daily to try to treat particular diseases like psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis. I think there are no cases of vitamin D-induced hypercalcemia. Hyperhigh calcium in the blood, that's what worries people. about them not adding any cases, I think it's important to emphasize that most patients receive between five and ten thousand per day, some patients receive between 20 and 50,000 per day with no complications none none no complications reported in any of my patients Clinical improvement three patients with psoriasis who received the highest dose my clinical improvement no adverse reactions now analysis of 1400 uh 418 in patients who observed recently were there long enough to develop blood levels of 74.4 nanograms per meal, so reasonably high patients who showed an average level of vitamin D concentration of 118.9 nanograms per meal, this would normally be considered high but, as we say, there were no adverse reactions and the range in these patients was 74 to 800, that is, a 384.
Now here is the key in these patients who had such high levels. of vitamin D, blood calcium, the average was 9.6 milligrams per deciliter and the range was 10, 8.6 to 10.7 and the normal range is normally 8.5 to 10.5, so This is quite acceptable now that variations in the range are seen. A little bit, I take my normal ranges from Davidson's principle and the practice of medicine, so I think we can be pretty sure that that is the exact normal range, so we can basically say that this is essentially within the range and certainly It's not high enough to cause problems.
I took a comparison group over the years of people who didn't take vitamin D, they had an average level of 27.1, much lower, remember the average vitamin D levels in people who took vitamin D were um 118, 9, so that was people taking vitamin D 118, people not taking vitamin D, it was 27.1, much lower now, what about your calcium? Well, it was 9.5, so people who were taking these huge doses of vitamin D, their calcium was 9.6 on average, which is fine. people who don't take vitamin D 9.5, so we can see that it's basically the same, there's no statistical difference between those parathyroid hormone levels.
Now parathyroid hormone is a hormone that is released in response to low levels of calcium using D3. It was 24.2. Those who don't use D3. 30.2 which indicates that those not using d3 were actually releasing some parathyroid hormone parathyroid to try to keep their calcium levels up, which I thought was interesting now, in summary, the authors, the author said this in summary, long-term supplementation with vitamin D3. At doses ranging from five to fifty thousand units per day it appears to be safe, this is what the authors say. The bottom line is that daily oral intake of vitamin D3 ranging from 5000 to sixty thousand in some cases over several years was well tolerated, for example, it is not safe. in both our patients and staff, so the staff government realized that this was a good thing and they started taking it too, so there we go, the conclusions I have put all in the description of course.
Patients and staff, the average level of vitamin D in the blood of our patients seems to have taken about 12 months at Plateau, so they were giving patients five to ten thousand units a day and the vitamin D lovers were still taking for a whole year. before they stabilized, now that to me indicates that vitamin D levels were so slow that it took a year to reach the levels the body wanted, between five thousand and ten thousand units per day for a year before the levels The average concentration of vitamin D in the blood of patients taking 10,000 units of vitamin D a day at 12 months, vitamin D was up to 96 nanograms per thousand, but then they continued with another, what? four months and it basically plateaued, so it's 16 months down to 90. seven nanograms per ml again, all with no reported adverse reactions at all.
The upper limit currently considered is 100 nanograms per thousand. It begs the question if we are supposed to produce this. 25,000 units per day when we are outside. Is this level accurate? Do medical authorities need to change it? An interesting question, I have no doubt that authorities around the world Health authorities UK Health Security Agency or whatever it is called these days should increase the recommended amount of vitamin D the currently recommended amounts in my opinion are too low now of course, I can't tell you what to take, you should consult your own doctor, ideally it would be adjusted according to your blood. levels I'm currently taking 8 000 units a day with 200 micrograms of vitamin K two that's what I'm taking I can't tell you what to take you have to see your own doctor for that I'm not your doctor um but does this need to be changed the way what would it look like?
So, based on this data, did these authors have any conflicts of interest? Well, the authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose if they were funded by some enormously rich and greedy outside corporate organization like certain preparations. may have been defended by research that was done without external funding, when oh when are we going to start using cheap preparations where there is evidence of effectiveness, why aren't governments around the world changing their recommendations based on evidence like this and much more evidence? which we could have quoted um it's actually quite difficult to explain actually um it's obvious why corporate interests don't defend it because they can't make money from it, but I don't care, I want to improve my health and yours, that's what this is about, let's go back to the evidence that shows us how to do this, the knowledge is there, the political will with a big p and a small P probablyit's not there yet, that needs to change, look at this article for yourself because You can read the entire introduction and it tells you about the historical development of how we got to where we are and it's remarkably interesting, so there you have the vitamin D recommendations.
You may are quite low, let us hope that our highly qualified staff. Paid chief doctors and scientists start reading the latest research that would be good, thanks for watching.

If you have any copyright issue, please Contact