Throw away your Vitamin D3!

Since everyone seems to agree that it is at least benifical short time, maybe it would be best to take it in intervals such as 1 month on 2 months off.

j87x,

I just want to make clear that taking supplemental D3 is very bad short-term. You'll feel good taking it short-term but at the expense of long-term health.

So again, taking D3 in a supplement is not the same as getting Vitamin D from the sun.

Maybe one day someone will create a D4 supplement to overcome this but would be decades away.

hope this helps

I'm staying on D3 indefinitely until any warnings signs appear. Nonetheless thanks to jdp710 for providing some warning--we just never know for anything for sure.

Some questions on D3 supplementation maybe found here: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/even-more-vitamin-d-studies-of-interest.shtml

jdp701 wrote:I'm not going to get into the science of it and not posting this to change any opinions but did want to give a warning about Vitamin D3.

I've been quietly studing the downsides of Vitamin D3 supplementation for several months and the stuff is very detrimental to long-term health and hair! Short-term you'll feel better and do better on it but after years, and decades for the rest, is where the problem lies.

Allow me to begin this by stating that the title of your thread is obnoxious and irresponsible, guaranteed to draw attention to yourself, at the expense of others.

Where are your human case studies to support such claims that "the stuff is very detrimental to long-term health and hair!" ?

One personal testimony and a three-month online study of vitamins and minerals entitles you to nothing more than an "I feel that" or "I believe that." Neither of which negates the volumes of literature that point to the benefits of supplementing with vitamin D3.

"Dr. Cannell: I understand Dr. Marshall conducted a study and found vitamin D is bad for you. What kind of study did he do?

Mary
Minneapolis, MN

I have been inundated with letters asking about Professor Marshall's recent "discovery." Some have written that to say they have stopped their vitamin D and are going to avoid the sun in order to begin the "Marshall protocol."

The immediate cause of this angst is two publications, a press article in Science Daily about Professor Marshall's "study" (which is no study but simply an opinion) in BioEssays. Dr. Trevor Marshall has two degrees, both in electrical engineering. Before I begin, I want to again remind you that I am a psychiatrist who works at a state mental hospital. In my duty to full disclosure, I must say that I have known a lot of psychiatrists in my life and a few electrical engineers. If I knew nothing else of a disagreement between two people but their professions, I would believe the electrical engineer, not the psychiatrist.

In reading his two articles, Dr. Marshall's main hypotheses are simple:
•Vitamin D from sunlight is different than vitamin D from supplements.
•Vitamin D is immunosuppressive and the low blood levels of vitamin D found in many chronic diseases are the result of the disease and not the cause.
•Taking vitamin D will harm you, that is, vitamin D will make many diseases worse, not better.

If you read his blog, you discover that the essence of the Marshall protocol is: "An angiotensin II receptor blocker medication, Benicar, is taken, and sunlight, bright lights and foods and supplements with vitamin D are diligently avoided. This enables the body's immune system, with the help of small doses of antibiotics, to destroy the intracellular bacteria. It can take approximately one to three years to destroy all the bacteria." That is, Dr. Marshall has his "patients" become very vitamin D deficient.

Again, Dr. Marshall conducted no experiment and published no study. He wrote an essay. He presented no evidence for his first hypothesis (sunlight's vitamin D is different than supplements). From all that we know, cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol, regardless if it is made in the skin or put in the mouth. His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Take patients with severe dementia bedridden in a nursing home. At least some of their low 25(OH)D levels are likely the result of confinement and lack of outdoor activity. However, did dementia cause the low vitamin D levels or did low 25 (OH)D contribute to the dementia? One way to look at that question is to look at early dementia, before the patient is placed in a nursing home. On the first day an older patient walks into a neurology clinic, before being confined to a nursing home, what is the relationship between vitamin D levels and dementia? The answer is clear, the lower your 25(OH)D levels the worse your cognition. Wilkins CH, Sheline YI, Roe CM, Birge SJ, Morris JC. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with low mood and worse cognitive performance in older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;14(12):1032–40. Przybelski RJ, Binkley NC. Is vitamin D important for preserving cognition? A positive correlation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with cognitive function. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Apr 15;460(2):202–5.

These studies suggest that the low 25(OH)D levels are contributing to the dementia but do not prove it. Only a randomized controlled trial will definitively answer the question, a trial that has not been done. So you will have to decide if vitamin D is good for your brain or not. Dr. Marshall seems to be saying demented patients should lower their 25(OH)D levels. Keep in mind, an entire chapter in Feldman's textbook is devoted to the ill effects low vitamin D levels have on brain function. Brachet P, et al. Vitamin D, a neuroactive hormone: from brain development to pathological disorders. In Feldman D., Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D. San Diego: Elsevier, 2005.

It is true that in some diseases, high doses of vitamin D may be harmful. For example, in the early part of last century, the AMA specifically excluded pulmonary TB from the list of TB infections that ultraviolet light helps. They did so because many of the early pioneers of solariums reported that acutely high doses of sunlight caused some patients with severe pulmonary TB to bleed to death. Thus, these pioneers developed very conservative sun exposure regimes for pulmonary TB patients in which small areas of the skin were progressively exposed to longer and longer periods of sunlight. Using this method, sunlight helped pulmonary TB, often to the point of a cure. Furthermore, it is well known that sunlight can cause high blood calcium in patients with sarcoidosis. In fact, sarcoidosis is one of several granulomatous diseases with vitamin D hypersensitivity where the body loses its ability to regulate activated vitamin D production, causing hypercalcemia. Cronin CC, et al. Precipitation of hypercalcaemia in sarcoidosis by foreign sun holidays: report of four cases. Postgrad Med J. 1990 Apr;66(774):307–9.

Furthermore, although medical science is not yet convinced, some common autoimmune diseases may have an infectious etiology. I recently spoke at length with a rheumatologist who suffers from swollen and painful joints whenever he sunbathes or takes high doses of vitamin D. As long as he limits his vitamin D input his joints are better. To the extent vitamin D upregulates naturally occurring antibiotics of innate immunity, sunlight or vitamin D supplements may cause the battlefield (the joints) to become hot spots. I know of no evidence this is the case but it is certainly possible.

However, if Dr. Marshall's principal hypothesis is correct, that low vitamin D levels are the result of disease, then he is saying that cancer causes low vitamin D levels, not the other way around. The problem is that Professor Joanne Lappe directly disproved that theory in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk. Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml (77.5 to 95 nmol/L) reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period. Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient, as the Marshall protocol clearly does, will cause some patients to die from cancer. Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586–91.

I will not write again about Dr. Marshall's theories. No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously. Personally, I admire anyone willing to swim against the tide and raise alternative theories. I have done the same with influenza and autism. However, I agree with the New York Times and Jane Brody's conclusion: "In the end, you will have to decide for yourself how much of this vital nutrient to consume each and every day and how to obtain it." Jane Brody. An Oldie Vies for Nutrient of the Decade. New York Times. 2008 Feb 19. I agree. You will have to decide for yourself."

Sadly, whoever is right or wrong here - the risk is that many people will simply stop doing anything after reading such a confusing thread.

well i am confused now..right now i am taking d-3/k2 combo...but if i have to take k2 alone than what is the opinion about this product http://www.iherb.com/Life-Extension-Super-K-with-Advanced-K2-Complex-90-Softgels/14619?at=0

i am thinking to add bragg's acv(http://www.iherb.com/Bragg-Organic-Apple-Cider-Vinegar-with-The-Mother-Raw-Unfiltered-32-fl-oz/5711?at=0).how much vit k it provides per serving?

Aside from the MP stuff, there are other recent vit-d downer posts:

http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=41913&pid=416030&st=0&#entry416030

Until I see any peer review studies (which there are none concerning adverse effects), I won't even worry about it. The peer reviews studies that do exist so far are quite overwhelming in Vitamin D's favor.

I've seen unmistakable benefits since taking a solid dose of D3 per day.

The only real caution I can think of is low calcium. Take secondary hyperparathyroidism for instance.
Let's say if your dietary intake of calcium is very low, this could be a cause, and it will be more pronounced if there is a vitamin D absorption problem.

The problem with forums sometimes that panic mode sets in, maybe irrational levels.

If there's any reason for concern, check your 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels.

Finally, vitamin D has an inverse correlation with early mortality--or in English, the more D you have, the longer you live.

CausticSymmetry wrote:Until I see any peer review studies (which there are none concerning adverse effects), I won't even worry about it. The peer reviews studies that do exist so far are quite overwhelming in Vitamin D's favor.

I've seen unmistakable benefits since taking a solid dose of D3 per day.

The only real caution I can think of is low calcium. Take secondary hyperparathyroidism for instance.
Let's say if your dietary intake of calcium is very low, this could be a cause, and it will be more pronounced if there is a vitamin D absorption problem.

The problem with forums sometimes that panic mode sets in, maybe irrational levels.

If there's any reason for concern, check your 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels.

Finally, vitamin D has an inverse correlation with early mortality--or in English, the more D you have, the longer you live.

CS, with all the respect to your knowledge, i know you're a honest man but this can't be serious
you can not know all the effects of vit D within the human body (and even much less of vit D3 supplementation)
what about the nature of the bond, the mollecular shape, ellectric charge, reactions - to cover it in studies would take close to eternity)

eg magnesium (or calcium or whatever) - it's linked to more than 400 known metabolic processes in the body, again we're talking about bioavailable, active substance - if the bond, charge, mollecular shape/structure is different, it can act differently!

by simple administration of let's say Mg, thousand of markers measurable (and known) change in depending on the mollecular weight, shape, structure, bond, frequency, time, synergic effects, chem reaction, - empirically one cannot cover it

we do not even know what impact let's say calcium supplementation (in all possible forms) have on the levels of calcium (within different parts of bodies, tissue), extracellular, intracellular, etc. What about other markers? Phosphatase, Mg, Na, K, levels, reaction with H ions, etc, etc, i could go on forever, this can't be covered by studies, one would need millions of years just to read it.

Human body can't be transposed on a paper, shrinked to a pill.

CausticSymmetry wrote:Until I see any peer review studies (which there are none concerning adverse effects), I won't even worry about it. The peer reviews studies that do exist so far are quite overwhelming in Vitamin D's favor.

I've seen unmistakable benefits since taking a solid dose of D3 per day.

The only real caution I can think of is low calcium. Take secondary hyperparathyroidism for instance.
Let's say if your dietary intake of calcium is very low, this could be a cause, and it will be more pronounced if there is a vitamin D absorption problem.

The problem with forums sometimes that panic mode sets in, maybe irrational levels.

If there's any reason for concern, check your 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels.

Finally, vitamin D has an inverse correlation with early mortality--or in English, the more D you have, the longer you live.

Sadly IH, there's been a rash of mis-information being printed here in this forum. There's a lot of competing theories and things are getting very confusing. I can only imagine what would happen to you if you came here brand new. Read through a few of these threads and you'll be more confused than ever.

I've been supplementing with D3 for about 3 years now. In the winter I sometimes do 10,000IU and this time of year I keep it around 6000 IU's a day. I have a big frame with a lot of muscle mass and weigh more than the average bear so I feel the higher dosages generally suit me best.

I've had 1 cold while on the IH regimen and it was by all accounts a herxhimer detox reaction early on in my use of the regimen when I was following IH's advice to eradicate candida after having been on anti-biotics for a year and testing positive for candida.

Other than that, I'm not getting sick. I have no health problems. My hair loss has slowed, but I've not had any regrowth. I've put my 70 year old Mom on D-3 for the past couple of years and she also is in great health.

Threads like this are fine in some respects, but if I were anyone new here I'd follow IH's advice. It's his board. The reason most of us come here is to get his advice and the reason most of us come back is that he's helped us.

I'm fine with using new info to change/tweak the regimen, but I don't think there was any new info given here that is concrete enough to get anyone to change anything.

If my immune system was suppressed from the high doses of D-3 I've been taking, why haven't I been getting sick more the past years? Especially since in my case, I'm getting sick less now that before I started the regimen.

Prague - I understand your point.

Here's where I'm coming from:

For several years, I've worked in one of the largest integrative medical clinics in the northern hemisphere, where all focus is on orthomolecular medicine.

The collective clinical experience with respect to individual macro and micronutrients on large patient populations has been well documented and studied. Unfortunately, the vast majority of of the public know very little about this information and are often presented with cherry-picked studies that are misleading--which we all know.

I do not recommend calcium supplementation in general, because dietary calcium is more effective. The two exceptions are Calcium lactate and calcium orotate.

It is very unforatunate that most people are wholly unware of the work some of the most brilliant nutritional researchers, most have never heard of them, but they have more or less figured a lot of these mysterious details out.

I believe in the the majority of cases, there is too much going on to allow diet to trump hair loss until all underlying issues are dealt with.

On vitamin D and others, the tests results have been extremely good, so it isn't a blind guess.

You know how a persons regimen is working when they are Buski'd...

redhead,

I've used that form as well as another form of K2 MK4 for past 7 months. That form you linked to has too much gelatin for me to be comfortable recommending. Gelatin caps/soft gels is about 18% MSG. Some is fine and may not notice anything but if you're taking a lot of other gelatin capsules/soft gels it can all be too much.

hadrion,

Was also an early adopter of D3 as well. Unfortunately I have also recommended it to others in past and others on this forum. Been on the fence regarding info on D3 for months. Experience in Rife is undeniable and trumped any scientific explanation on either side though.

Weston Price has mentioned problems taking Vitamin D in Cod Liver Oil without adequate K2. That was about 80 years ago and mentioned a synergy. K2 is a co-factor used to convert the uncoverted D (e.g. cod liver oil, supps). However, this is a little off topic and different explanation from this thread though.

Fruitexb did a study on own product and found it's product "The average increase in vitamin D levels was 19.6%" Their product contains the co-factors K and boron.

Having 100% uncoverted D3 is not found in sun exposure.

Elderly will have an even harder time converting the unconverted D3. Sun exposure (i.e. UVA) is what's especially needed for them especially.

Regarding immune supression.


"Here we show that dendritic cells (DCs) are major targets of 1,25(OH)2D3-induced immunosuppressive activity."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10679076

dendritic cells =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendritic_cell

There's also one looking into D3 for organ transplants.

Don't mean to repeat myself but there will definitely be more studies showing low 25 D levels in those with X ailment. That's like saying those with X ailment have low Vitamin C levels without understanding why C levels are low to begin with. Could be lead poisoning for example.

I came across this forum after many years of adopting a 'perfect' lifestyle - diet, exercise etc. BUT despite this, I had several symptoms which were immune to my approach - including hair loss. My fitness levels have always been way above average, but something was not right. Up until discovering this website/forum I completely shunned conventional medicine/dentistry and refused to take ANY supplements/medicines thinking rationally that everything in my exeptional diet should be more than adequate. But clearly I needed to do something more. I think that taking supplements inc D3 is helping me - not much sun here in the UK! and IH has given me a few more lifestyle tweaks to adopt and maintain. Until I resolve my outstanding health issues, I will continue to take the supplements. Once things have hopefully balanced out, I will drop what I consider unessential because the running cost of these supplements is vast.

It is just so difficult to work out what is 'bugging' my body. I was quite proud though to visit my dentist today (with the plan to safely remove my mercury amalgams) for the first time in TEN YEARS or so and my gums and teeth were fine! So I must be doing something right. In fact heavy metal detox is my next major project and hopefully my remaining issues will draw to a close.....fingers crossed.

Thanks guys for all the fascinating info on this site.

Would also like to thank CausticSymmetry for all the great information, taking the time to answer questions and being at the tip of spear with all the latest information!

I'd donate more money but will have to click on an ad for now

I second jdp701. This is an awesome place with lots of colorful personalities, dissenting opinions & passion. Major props to CS & others (including you, jdp) who take time to answer questions from everyone. In the end, the forum archives will constitute a goldmine of info for serious students of health, hair loss & nutrition.

This is easily one of the coolest forums I've ever seen. Easily. Enjoy it while it lasts...

CS

I never questioned work, intentions, commitment of yours or other honest searchers. This is just a call for a responsibility. We're playing with our bodies - there are ppl who moreless know what are they doing but there is always a majority who has to follow. I'm not completely new to this and even less someone jealous or having problem with my ego as some in the past.

What i would question is the limits of the approach. Based on measuring something in relation to something giving birth to correlation to something, etc. I want to put it simple and clear since it's quite subtle I will give an exemple for that purpose:

let's say cancer - empirical (orthomollecular) approach would test multiple (infinite nr) of substances and measure some (in the actual paradigm relevant) values. This approach has some limits, since a) it's impossible to do it with all substances b)one has to choose the relevant criteria (and ignore others - like with vegetable oils we agree on - junk science says good omega 3 in rapeseed but there would be hundreds of measurments going against rapeseed oil if the criteria (or the paradigm) would be set differently). The exemple with calcium was just an exemple, i know you're against calcium supplements (but i know your opinion had evolved over the years). When the studies show sthg it doesnt mean it's true (what you call junk science - concerning saturated fat, calcium supplments, fluoride was some years ago science driven often by good intentions). Can this happen with let's say vit3? My answer is yes.

what we need is to find the very basic principles in relation to the organic matter. Not to test all the substances of the world and to supplement hundreds of them. We have to go further. I write this since i know there's a relation between mollecular structure (bond) and carcinogenity of a substance. By applying a complex but yet simple mathematical principle. This accelerates the human episteme, one doesn't need to test all the substances of the world. Same for viruses - it's enough to see its structure and it's possible to tell which substance will kill it (based on other simple mathematic operation relevant to the mol. structure of a substance).
Empirical approach would test many substance to see which one works. This way the human knowledge (i like the comparison to a fractal wave) progresses slowly since empirically the information is unlimited and we already produce more than we can ever read. We need to get to the principles.

I'm sorry if i didn't put it clear, if you don't have an idea what i tried to say in my last 2 paragraphs, it's ok - i didn't maybe put it as clear which is uneasy by these means on a forum.

Hey guys, the study posted above doesn't mention d3 explicitly, it only says vitamin d, I was reading sometime ago about the same thing as mentioned here, that vitamin D2 shouldn't be taken, because it does some sort of conversion which yields in bad things...where d3 doesn't have to which doesn't make it immuno suppressant..

Any thoughts?

jdp701 wrote:You know how a persons regimen is working when they are Buski'd...

Infections come in many forums (I mean, forms), jdp. Like when a person presents his opinions as fact without much, if anything, to back them up. You should be careful with that, as it can become highly contagious.

Prague seems to have contracted some of the same symptoms...

Prague, I agree with a lot of what you write in this thread.

I think at the end of the day, one might ask WHY we would need to take supplements in the first place. I have reasoned that today we simply do not live in the same conditions in which we have evolved - (ex depleted soil, pollution and other environmental insults, lack of sunlight, sendentary lifestyles, high sugar / carbohydrate diet, etc) - therefore targeted supplementation makes sense to me.

However, I do agree that nature trumps science, hands down. Isolating one molecule, popping it into a pill and ingesting (at myriad doses) can produce unintended consquences. We learn new things seemingly everyday about how these things work in our bodies.

That's why I also agree that it is good to take a break from supplements and cycle on / off. The body is always seeking balance - if there is an unintended / unknown consequence from taking xyz supplement, then the break should help allow your body to get back into balance.

As far as Vit D goes, I have not been sick once since I have been taking 5000 IU daily. I have also noted on this forum, a better sense of well-being on Vit D. In fact, it's the only supplement that I can honestly say I've felt a noticeable difference from taking!

Having said all that, during the summer months, I will be getting my D from the sun only .

lostwind,

There are two different forms of Vitamin D metabolites.... 1,25 D and 25 D.

D2 is synthetic. D3 is not and is a lot more effective in raising 25 D levels while being less dangerous.

So again, D2 and D3 both suppresses immune function.

Here is a good article and will leave it at that



Vitamin D: the alternative hypothesis
Paul Albert

In the spirit of Dr. Barry Kramer’s remarks, I am going to discuss the vitamin
D secosteroids from the perspective of molecular biology and recent
research pointing to immunosuppressive effects of vitamin D
supplementation.
The Tufts report under consideration repeatedly alludes to two vitamin D
metabolites: 25-D and 1,25-D. As the report states, 1,25-D is the
biologically active form, and it seems most researchers would agree that 25-
D is the inactive form. There is a significant difference though between a
molecule which is an inert substance - in other words, totally inactive - and
one which interferes with transcriptional activity, and it is this distinction
which I would like to spend my time discussing.
To review, some have called the VDR the "gatekeeper of the innate immune
system." The VDR is now known to transcribe nearly a thousand genes
including a number of key antimicrobial peptides including the betadefensins
and cathelicidin. The VDR is normally activated by its native
ligand, the active form of vitamin D, 1,25-D.
But if the Vitamin D Receptor plays a vital role in the innate immune
response, what explains the statement by Arnson and Shoenfeld, the latter
of whom is editor-in-chief of Autoimmunity Reviews: "Vitamin D has multiple
immunosuppressant properties"?
Our group has found an answer that differs from the conventional view and
has the advantage of explaining a wider range of real-world observations.
In a recent paper, Professor Tony Norman implies that 25-D does not bind
the Vitamin D Receptor.1
The paper I recently published in Autoimmunity Reviews, based on our in
silico and clinical data, shows that, in contrast to Dr. Norman’s finding, 25-D
is able to bind the VDR. We have found that both 1,25-D and 25-D, which
1 As Dr. Norman let us know afterwards, this characterization of his view is not up to date with his current
thinking. If pressed, however, we could probably find other prominent vitamin D researchers who would
argue this.
are superimposed in this figure, and have nearly identical structures, have
high affinities for the VDR, with the Kd of 1,25-D being 8.48 and that of 25-
D being 8.36.
But – and this is my most important point – we have found that 25-D,
lacking this one additional hydroxyl group, cannot activate the VDR. Instead,
as its concentration builds, it actually inactivates VDR expression.
This poses a problem, because if 25-D slows VDR activity, we're facing the
possibility that the form of vitamin D that would be elevated by increasing
the level of dietary supplementation stifles rather than activates genetic
transcription and immune function.
As the report suggests, the evidence for vitamin D's efficacy in chronic
disease is mixed. But some studies do seem to show a benefit. For those
studies, we would argue that what researchers perceive as this benefit is
instead temporary palliation due to reduced VDR activity with the higher the
dose of vitamin D administered, the higher the palliation observed.
Indeed, the secosteroid 25-D may exert palliation on the innate immune
system not unlike the way corticosteroids exert palliation on the adaptive
immune system.
So is it possible then that supplemental vitamin D is now perceived as a
wonder substance by some simply because it effectively palliates the
inflammation associated with diseases across the board? If so, this would
certainly explain why its effects are most noticeable in the short-term and
why efficacy often diminishes in the long-term.
For example, a 2000 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine,
found that five patients confined to wheelchairs with severe weakness and
fatigue were able to walk after being administered 300,000 IU’s of vitamin D
over a period of six weeks. Yet no follow-up study was ever published on
the group, suggesting that their ability to walk was only a temporary
phenomenon. This is the type of reaction we would only expect to see from a
powerful immunosuppressant, an immunosuppressant that offers short-term
inflammatory relief but is actually harmful over longer periods of time as it
causes the activity of the immune system to become increasingly
compromised.
Indeed there are several studies that show that vitamin D's negative effects
are most noticeable over the long-term. Studies that are more likely to
reflect long term effects found higher rates of brain lesions, allergies, atopy,
and kidney stones in patients who were studied for periods up to 30 years
after beginning to take vitamin D. These papers are cited in my recent
Autoimmunity Review.
Another important consideration has not received adequate attention. The
push by some to raise the DRI to historically high levels is grounded in the
assertion that an increasing proportion of the American public is deficient in
25-D, the metabolite we have found is immunosuppressive.
More specifically, since a low level of 25-D is now commonly seen in patients
with a variety of diagnoses, it has been assumed that diminished levels of
the secosteroid are contributing to ill health.
Yet, the alternate hypothesis must be considered - that the low levels of 25-
D observed in patients with chronic disease could just as easily be a result
rather than a cause of the inflammatory disease process.
Our research suggests that this is the case. Indeed, we have found that
1,25-D tends to rise in patients with chronic disease and that these high
levels of 1,25-D are able to downregulate through the PXR nuclear receptor
the amount of pre-vitamin D converted into 25-D, leading to lower levels of
25-D. I describe this finding further in my paper.
So are we really facing an epidemic of vitamin D "deficiency" or are we
simply beginning to note more signs of an imminent epidemic of chronic
disease – an epidemic which would be exacerbated by increasing the amount
of vitamin D added to our food supply?

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/research.shtml

Run this script and undeniable.



program a pulse 0 0
backfreq c 28004531.0055 50 # 6.66 - 22 Octaves higher or use (Pulse 6.66 50)
####################################################################################
# Title: Vitamin D Derivative
####################################################################################
label 0

dwell 480
duty 82.4
88777.6677 duty 50
46876.5487

label 1

label VitD2
dwell 240
duty 82.4
586.9855

label VitD3
dwell 240
duty 50
vpulse 1 .02 50
76665.6664

label 2
program c pulse 0 0 backfreq b 0 0

label HRES.1
dwell 180 duty 82.4
6776776.6665

label 3
program c pulse 0 0 backfreq b 0 0

label HTLV
dwell 60
6576677.5555

label 4
program c pulse 0 0 backfreq b 0 0 duty 50

label Toxin
dwell 180
vbackfreq a 0.00247875 0 66.6 # (s^-6)
vbackfreq b 0.04978707 0 66.6 # (s^-3)
8877677.5666

And this is supposed to convince me of what, pray tell?