The Times: Vitamin D boost for all 'will treat national health shame' and CFS/ME

Here comes the sun..

Hi, Ric, many thanks for that long and informative post. And congratulations on making such great strides towards healthif it works, stick with it until/unless it doesnt any more.

But I come from a different space, and have some comments form another perspective. I am not arguing with your success, but will try to explain why I am following another route. At age 71 (2004), after 70 healthy and active years, I was found to have a heavily calcified and severely stenotic aortic valveso surgery (with one bypass added for luck). I dont know why it happened, but it certainly left me with a fear of calcification. Your optimism about the safety of high dose Vit D is not shared by all --Zitterman, for instance, sees a diphasic effect with harmful effects at both low and high levels, and Krispin Sullivan, the Naked at Noon lady who has spent many years researching Vit D, in an interview in 2010 says We cant overlook the fact that when oral intake...is excessive, vitamin D is shunted into our fat cells, and high storage levels in human fat cells may be dangerous (see In Focus at www. nutricology.com ) I am going to be careful, and regard the issue as at best not yet settled. You are doing finegreat; I fear I might not do so well.

But apart from the safety issue with high dose Vit D supplementation, there is much more to the UV story. I always feel better when there is sun around, and so... In addition to the mouse study, which did suggest strongly that UV does other good things for us mammals than raise Vitamin D levels, there is evidence that the Vit D made in our skin under UV is not the same as that ingested from food or pills. Stephanie Seneff writes about this in a paper on the Weston Price site, Sulfur Deficiency. There she asks Is the skin a solar-powered battery for the heart? and shows that the Vit D made in the skin is Vitamin D3 Sulfate, and that Vit D3 cannot be made directly from unsulfated D3", though it is found in raw milk. She adds I believe it is extremely likely that Vit D3 sulfate is not the only thing thats affected by greater sun exposure...given that cholesterol sulfate and vitamin D3 sulfate are very similar in molecular structure...I suspect that cholesterol sulfate synthesis may also exploit the suns radiation energy. In addition, both cholesterol and sulfur afford protection in the skin from radiation damage to the cells DNA, the kind of damage that can lead to skin cancer. Cholesterol and sulfur become oxidized upon exposure to the high frequency rays in sunlight, thus acting as antioxidants to take the heat, so to speak. There is more detail to her argument than this, but it might help explain that mouse experimentthere is more going on under the sun than the simple generation of Vit D3 as generally understood.

UV A is also captured by the skin and put to work. Martin Feelisch asks Is sunlight good for our heart? ( http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/9/1041.long ), and answers that it plays a key role in the NO cycle that plays such a large role in vascular health, and is triggered by the nitrites and nitrates in, especially, dark green vegetables and beets. An excellent account of this is to be found at www.aor.ca , in their latest magazine, which can be freely read and downloaded there. At this point we connect with the Terry Wahls story, pursued on another thread here.


UV A also plays a role in lowering Blood Pressure ( see Oplander C, Whole body UVA radiation lowers systemic blood pressure..., PMID: 19797169 ) , so the answer to Feelischs question seems a clear yes. In addition to this, the UVFoundation (www.uvfoundation.org ) is doing a genomic study to dig out further effects of UV light on the skin, and I have no doubt that more will be found.

In the light of all this, I am going to stick with the sun, and with my Fiji lamp, which seems about as close to the spectrum of sunlight as I can get at reasonable cost and size. I am of course aware of possible danger, but these days the dangers seem moderated by research such as the review by J. Moan, Addressing the health benefits and risks... (2008), the abstract of which concludes: these data, together with those for internal cancers and the beneficial effects of our optimal Vit D status, indicate that increased sun exposure may lead to improved cancer prognosis and, possibly, give more positive than adverse health effects. Not conclusive, but since lying in the sun gives pleasures in addition to better health, I am going to stick with it as my favourite way of raising Vit D levels, while using pills and the Fiji during those long periods when the sun is not available up here.

I should also thank you for reminding me of valuable co-factors; I do take K2 (in two forms) daily, but will add some A, and probably Boron and Strontium as well, after checking their availability in food that I am likely to eat. I hope we both continue to improve via our distinct but overlapping routes.
Best, Chris

Hi Chris, sorry to hear about your heart issues, Im no expert in this and it is something you might want to follow up with someone like a naturopath, but although vitamin D is needed to increase calcium levels and yes taking vitamin D, in massive doses at levels way over what anyone is recommending will increase calcium levels, the missing part of the puzzle is magnesium, magnesium and calcium are antagonists, having too much of one lowers the other, so increasing magnesium dose lower calcium, its all about having the right balance, most of us westerners are out of balance, we have lives of taking in too much calcium mainly through dairy, and not enough magnesium through not enough greens, part of my treatment was to reduce calcium levels through cutting out dairy, and increase magnesium through supplements, my hair analysis results showed high normal calcium and low magnesium, and you cant absorb vitamin D without magnesium, and you cant absorb magnesium with too much calcium.

If your concerned about high calcium, then looking into the amount of magnesium in the body may find the answer for the high calcium, but I would recommend a good naturopath to sort these issues mineral interactions and balances in the body are very complicated.

Dont get me wrong I believe that nature is best, I certainly get a extra boost out of summer sun exposure that I dont get from supplements, the sun is bound to do many things that we dont yet fully understand, but its just not possible for a lot of other people, and the vitamin D supplements certainly do help, and do cure all known symptoms of vitamin D deficiency.

The sun, UV lamps and supplements are the three options for treatment, they will all work, but I felt it important to point out that there are risks associated with the lamps, if your careful and they quickly get your vit D levels up then that is great for the winter months and then out in nature for the summer, its summer here at the moment and Im loving it.

I am aware that the scientific world is busy squabbling with each other as to how much is the right amount, and I would imagine they will continue to do this for decades, as the medical world always takes ages to come to any agreement on any new information. I always have a slightly sceptical view on any small studies that say a certain disease was found at higher or lower levels in people with higher or lower levels of anything, they tend to compare groups that have other completely different lifestyle factors happening that lead to skewed results and frequently compare apples with oranges, I remember us all being told that we should all drink a glass of red wine a day, now were not supposed to have any because a new study found the evidence was flawed.

Some of the studies into vitamin D are quite frankly laughable, I was reading one the other day that said, that cancer levels in all countries with limited sun exposure where way higher than in countries with good sun exposure and increased dramatically with the length of the vitamin D winter, but they came to the conclusion that vitamin D played no role in this at all, because Australia and New Zealand had good sun exposure, but had high levels of cancer, because I live in New Zealand, I just about fell of my chair laughing, if these so called experts had bothered to find out what happens in New Zealand and Australia, they would have found populations that work and live predominantly inside, eat diets limited in cofactors, and have been told to avoid the sun always and to be covered in sunscreen when ever in any contact with the sun, it is total over kill here, this message is everywhere adds on TV, Newspapers etc, Kids are not allowed to go outside at school without hats on, and if these experts had bothered to check the research they would have found that studies in both countries show appallingly high rates of vitamin D deficiency amongst the population, including the re emergence of rickets amongst children! So I was somewhat unimpressed with that study.

The view that I have taken, and it is my view and everyone is free to make their own decisions, is that in countries that have good all year sun exposure, (and there not plastered in sunscreen like my country) A large number of diseases virtually dont exist, these include the likes of most cancers, diabetes, heart diseases, auto immune diseases, MS, depression, CFS etc and yet these kinds of diseases are rampant in areas with limited sun, sure there are other factors involved like diet but that can be fixed. But there has to be a reason for this imbalance in the way illnesses are spread round the world, and a lot of the research community is coming to the conclusion that it is the sun. I agree with them.

The recent discovery that vitamin D is needed by almost every cell in the body, I think is very important, and I want all my cells working properly.

The fact that the body doesnt start to store vitamin D until levels of 125 nmol/L and continues storing until levels are a lot higher than that, I do agree with the researchers does set the bench mark as to where nature wants us to have vitamin D levels so that we have enough for every cell, so that what I set out to achieve, the results for me have been impressive.

But Im certainly not telling anyone else what to do, Im Just trying to explain what the new research says, so that people can make their own decisions, with newer information that they are extreamly unlikely to get from their doctor. Like I say I doubt a medical consensus will be reached on these issues any time soon, they just dont move that quickly, so people just have to look at the research and come to their own decisions, but if people do decide to dramatically increase vitamin D levels remember to get the calcium test from a doctor to monitor if any problems are emerging.

I hope that your health improves, and you get a lot of pleasure and increased vitamin D levels from your lamp, and that the next summer for you is a great one.

All the best

Hi Marlene, RE The interesting thing about vitamine D is that it activates an antenna on the lymphocytes. Without the antenna, the lymphocytes cannot detect intrudors (and then eliminate them). Without vitamine D, the lymphocytes are jobless.

It is for this reason that I believe that vitamin D at sufficient levels might possibly help treat ME if ME is caused by an infection.

To my mind this piece of information may explain why so many infections become chronic, if people have lower than adequate levels of vitamin D it will leave them vulnerable to infection, if the infection is strong enough to put them in bed for weeks they will get no sun and vitamin D levels will drop dramatically, so the lymphocytes become even more useless and unable to help with the ever increasing drop in vitamin D levels, so the patient ends up house bound and never gets enough vitamin D for the lymphocytes and the infection becomes permanent, if the infection is not a fatal one, the patient ends up with a chronic debilitating infection.

Increasing vitamin D to the levels it should be may help to break this cycle, by giving the lymphocytes the vitamin D they need to start working and clear the infection.

All the best

Apart from living in Australia where there is plenty of sun, a few years ago I was tested in autumn and was found to be just deficient at around 59, I supplemented high doses (5000 p/day) and by 6 months I was at the top of the range around the 150 mark. ME/CFS did not improve.

Yes I agree it is good to see these articles, here in Australia everyone is so scared of skin cancer that we overuse sunscreens and the like. Even during the winter months the children at my daughters school cannot go outside unless they're wearing a hat etc which makes me angry!

I should add to that, my increase in vitamin D levels also coincided to me getting worse and spending the first half of the day in bed before I was able to muster enough energy to get up.

Vitamin D may exacerbate autoimmune disease

I think my Vitamin D was around 20-25 ng/mL which is low but taking Vitamin D supplements never seemed to help me and in certain cases I connected it with making me feel worse, so I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm sure it's not the cause of it because I was very active and spending plenty of time outdoors before onset of illness.

Im in Australia and have never noticed D2 being sold.. supplements over here all seem to be the active form of D.. D3 . The regular supplement dose (not for ME but what you see in health food shops) is 2000IU D3

Many who have ME thou find they go deficient using the standard supplement dose and hence need more. (Ive been put on 4000IU per day as I became more deficient at the standard supplement level).

I personally think it is something one does need tested to know how much you need. (most of us thou dont get improvement with it.. thou of cause some of us would have D deficiency symptoms on top of having the ME). D deficiency imcreases ones cancer risk so wise to be on it if you have a deficiency even if it isnt helping symptoms.

IF someone is getting D3 deficiency with symptoms of that.. it makes sense "some" then would get some improvement on fixing deficiency.

Hi, all; with appreciation for Ric's information and experience, I just want to suggest that anyone contemplating high (i.e. way over say 2,000 i.u. per day) first read what Krispin Sullivan (Naked at Noon) has to say. Her book seems currently unavailable, and I have not read it, but she has posted an excerpt on her updated website, and this is very well worth reading as a warning that applies both to over enthusiastic supplement use and too much sun. It is available at http://sunlightd.org/samples.htm .
Best, Chris

Ric, and anyone else, a few questions/thoughts:

1. I had problems with getting diarrhea from it regardless of whether I took it with food or not. This makes me wonder if I'm meant to be taking it or not. Maybe I just don't react well to it. I do fine with the dry vitamin d in my multivitamin but not with the D3 gel pills.

2. Could deficiency in one of the cofactors also explain the depressed mood I got from it?

3. It also made me very tired, unable to get up at all when I'd take it in the day and unable to sleep or sleep well if I took at night.

4. Can regular doctors test for levels of the cofactors or is this something only done by naturopaths and other "alternative" practitioners?

I don't know if these issues above would all be resolved by taking appropriate amounts of the cofactors or if there is something else going on that just makes it not a good supplement for me. At least in the gel form. I never took the dry kind long enough to see if I developed side effects over time, and I'm not sure if the dry kind actually effective in raising levels or not.

Thank you!

If you want to get vitamin D from a natural diet, certain types of fish and fortified milk products are the best. A serving of salmon provides more than the daily RDA of 600 IU. A serving of salmon, a cup of milk, and an egg would total around 1000 IU.

Vitamin D content of various foods from highest to lowest:

In mcg:
https://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/SR24/nutrlist/sr24w328.pdf

In IU:
https://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/SR24/nutrlist/sr24w324.pdf


By the way, this is a nice database for checking nutrient content of foods:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=22114

Hi Ocean, RE 1. I had problems with getting diarrhea from it regardless of whether I took it with food or not. This makes me wonder if I'm meant to be taking it or not. Maybe I just don't react well to it. I do fine with the dry vitamin d in my multivitamin but not with the D3 gel pills.

Diarrhea is an odd reaction to taking vitamin D, especially if you have not been taking large doses, I would recommend not taking it until you have talked to a doctor about it, Vitamin D should not be taken by people who have the likes of Parathyroid disorders, Sarcoidosis, lung cancer, non Hodgkins carcinoma and tuberculosis. Dont know if you have seen it, but there is an interesting tread going on about Parathyroid disorders here http://forums.phoenixrising.me/showthread.php?16620-Montoya-study-High-calcium-in-participants/page2 and how 90% of doctors dont know how to diagnose it properly, SaraM is getting results that strongly imply that they may have a missed parathyroid disorder, and also gets bad reactions to taking Vit D, maybe if you have a look at this, you can see if you have had Parathyroid disorders ruled out properly and maybe contact SaraM and compare notes.

Vitamin D is routinely given to millions of people in high doses with no side effects, so I think it would be very important to get a doctor to take another look to make sure that any and all possible underling conditions that you are not supposed to take vitamin D with have been ruled out just in case. Most of these conditions you are not supposed to take vitamin D with, the reason for not taking it is it raises Calcium to high if you have any of these conditions, so Calcium levels would be the first test I would want done, and PTH (Parathyroid Hormone) because high calcium effects the PTH level. I wouldnt take anymore vitamin D until you are 100% certain that all other conditions that you shouldnt take vitamin D with have been ruled out.

Vitamin D is fat soluble and is processed in the liver and Kidneys, so make sure that these have been tested and are working properly.

RE 2. Could deficiency in one of the cofactors also explain the depressed mood I got from it?

Possibly, magnesium is linked to depression, and vitamin D supplementation can bring out the symptoms of magnesium deficiency. However vitamin D will also make worse the symptoms of any missed disease that you shouldnt take vitamin D with, e.g. one of the symptoms of parathyroidism is depression, so I feel you need to be careful and make sure that these kinds of conditions have been properly ruled out first before looking into co factors.

RE 3. It also made me very tired, unable to get up at all when I'd take it in the day and unable to sleep or sleep well if I took at night.

Again co factors could be playing a role in this, but it could be an underlying condition which if so needs to be found and treated before taking vitamin D.

RE 4. Can regular doctors test for levels of the cofactors or is this something only done by naturopaths and other "alternative" practitioners?

Doctors can test the blood for most of these things, however with magnesium, the body trys to maintain a high level of magnesium in the blood, and takes it out of the cells to do this, as 99% of magnesium is held in the cells, and the body will deplete these stores to keep the blood levels up, and the magnesium blood test only measures the blood and the one percent of the total bodys magnesium in it, so you can be deficient in your cells and still pass the blood test. So it isnt very accurate.

Naturopaths will check the cellular levels found in the hair which gives a better estimation of total body reserves. So Naturopathic testing from my understanding is the best way to go. But talk to your doctor there is no harm in getting them to do these tests and they may come up with some useful information if something is very wrong.

My advice is to start with telling your doctor about strange reactions to Vit D and get them to double check to make sure that every disease that you are not supposed to take vitamin D with has been ruled out properly first, just in case there is something that has been missed that can be treated, and do not take any vitamin D until this has been done.

If that is all fine, then look at getting a naturopath to check co factor levels and get those fixed with trained guidance.

It is possible that there is something in the gel that you are allergic to, but I would get a doctor to double check that all the other diseases that you shouldnt take vitamin D with have been ruled out before experimenting, the dry vitamin D is fine and will raise levels the same. But until youre certain that all the diseases have been ruled out dont take it; you could make yourself very sick if a disease has been missed.

Hope this helps, sorry I cant give an exact answer why your having these reactions, but the point is you shouldnt be having them and they are a sign that something else is wrong, possibly another condition, possibly co factors, but I wouldnt take any more until the reason for the bad reaction has been found.

All the best

My doctor is very emphatic about raising my vitamin D3 level. When I was first tested in December, it was 40 ng/mL. At the time, I had already been supplementing 4-5,000 IU's per day for a couple months. My doctor recommended I up the dosage to 10,000 IU/day. When we tested again in mid-February, I was at 71 ng/mL, which I believe is close to optimal.

The only symptom that has truly subsided since December is shortness of breath. SOB used to be one of my worst symptoms. Now I don't experience it any longer. I don't know if this improvement can be credited to D3, but I recall reading somewhere that D3 improves SOB.

By the way, I was blogging about Vitamin D supplementation in January, because I'd read that at least one researcher believes it suppresses the immune system and allows EBV to proliferate. But the weight of opinion seems to be against him... Personally, I plan to continue supplementing and try to stay around 70 ng/mL.

rlc, you know far more about vit. D than me, but I read that all published cases of vitamin D toxicity involved dosages of greater than 40,000 IU's. If 40,000 is the lower threshold where one starts seeing cases of toxicity, I'd be a little worried about taking 50,000. Vitamin D from the sun is apparently regulated differently by the body, so it is impossible to get vit. D toxicity from sun exposure, but not so with supplements.

Hi PWCalvin, its not the size of the dose that is the problem; it is the size of the dose and the frequency of taking it in relation to the patients level of deficiency. Basically a patient taking large doses regularly needs their vit D levels and calcium levels monitored to make sure that their not overdoing it.

You are right there is a risk of toxicity taking supplements, which you dont get from the sun because the body stops absorbing it from the sun when it is full, which it doesnt do with supplements.

This article says that the first signs of toxicity are seen when people reach the very high level of 150ng/ml http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/13/1/6.pdf

Treatment should be worked out on the basis of what the patients original vit D level is, if it is very low then larger doses can be given for longer times, doctors can give 600,000 iu injections. If the patients level is low, its a good idea to try treatment with a very low dose and see if there are any bad reactions if there isnt, then treating with 50,000 iu or higher is fine, the more aggressively it is treated the quicker the deficiency will be cured, but vit D and Calcium levels have to be monitored to make sure that treatment is not over done, when the right levels are reached the higher doses have to be stopped and lower maintenance doses used to keep vitamin D levels stable all year round, if the patient doesnt have adequate sun exposure.

Studies, show that 600,000 IUs raise vit D levels by around 20 ng/ml, so if a patient was 30 ng/ml under where they should be, it will take about 900,000 IUs to get them up to the right level, this can be done either with smaller doses or bigger ones, the only difference is that the vitamin D deficiency will be cured a lot quicker with higher amounts, problems start if people keep up treatment when the deficiency has been cured, it doesnt matter if people are taking 10,000, 40,000 or 50,000 IUs. If people keep taking it once they have reached optimum levels they will eventually get toxicity problems, which is why vit D levels should be monitored.

The size of the amounts being given only sounds alarming because IUs are a very small unit of measure. People will get 20,000 IUs from 30 minutes of sun exposure. So the number of IUs being talked about is only a few weeks worth of good sun exposure.

You say that your level is up around 70ng/ml so its very much in the high end of the normal range, so I would advise caution, and keep levels well monitored to make sure that you dont take too much.

Glad to hear its fixed youre SOB, at least that something, it completely cured my asthma to, the lungs are apparently full of vitamin D receptors!

With regards to the Marshall protocol, dont want to tell anyone what to do, but personally I think deliberately lowering vitamin D levels is nuts, because vitamin D deficiency is a recognised and serious illness which I cant see any point in people giving themselves. The science that it was based on is in my opinion suspect at best, and modern research that has been done after the Marshall protocol came out shows that without enough vitamin D your immune system is incapable of recognising and fighting any infection, we now know where nature intended are vit D levels to be, I doubt nature evolved us so that we take in too much vitamin D and get EBV infections, if this was the case why arent people dropping like flies from EBV in warmer parts of the world? Although I have seen a lot of hype about the Marshall protocol, the one thing I havent seen is a lot of cured ME patients. But there is a medical fact that is very well known and documented, people who have low vitamin D levels for a long time will get osteoporosis (broken bones)! Personally I think it is a dangerous and potentially life threatening theory, which doesnt have sound science to back it up, but thats just my opinion. But I think that people should be aware that Dr Marshall as he calls himself is apparently not a doctor of medicine his PhD is apparently in electrical engineering, there is some information about him here http://impnvestigator.chat.ru/

All the best

Very helpful. Thanks Ric. I have people in my family with parathyroid problems. I don't know if that kind of thing runs in the family, but I definitely will ask my doctor to test for it if he hasn't already. Thank you.

High Ocean, Parathyroid disorders can be genetic as this article shows http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15133326 so if its in your family, its possible that it is what you have. So you need to get your doctor to test your Calcium and PTH (Parathyroid hormone) levels (there just simple blood tests).

According to the Parathyroid site 90% of doctors dont know how to diagnose it properly, its explained why and how it should be done on this page http://parathyroid.com/diagnosis.htm

The basic gist of it is that Doctors are taught at med school that people with Hyperparathyroidism have high Calcium and high PTH, however this is only true in 75% of cases, 25% will have high Calcium and a PTH that is in the higher end of the normal range, but still normal, most doctors will see results like that and say that PTH isnt high so therefore it isnt Hyperparathyroidism and miss the diagnosis.

Also in some people the Calcium is high but still in the normal range, most doctors will tell the patient that it is fine.

The important thing to remember is that high Calcium suppresses the level of PTH, if you have high Calcium even if it is still just in the normal range, your PTH should be low, if you have a healthy parathyroid. If your Calcium is high or high normal and your PTH is high or high normal then you have parathyroidism.
I hope for your sake this is what it is because it is very treatable.

All the best

rlc, thanks for that excellent information.

My question about your quote above: Are you saying that if I continue to take 10,000 IU's a day, my vit D levels will keep rising until I reach toxicity? Doesn't the body filter it out after you reach a certain level unless, you're supplementing faster than the body can filter?

My doctor advised me to keep taking the supplements to "maintain" my current levels, but I'm certainly not confident that he's correct. Any light you can shed on this would be appreciated.

You can keep retesting. I do that twice a year.

Hi PWCalvin, unlike with vitamin d from the sun where the body stops production when it is full, the body doesnt filter out extra vitamin D when it is in supplement form, so if youre taking in more vitamin D supplement then you body uses, then levels will continue to rise until toxicity starts, which is at levels above 150 ng/ml.

It is estimated that the average healthy male will use up to 5000 IUs a day, so if patient is taking 10,000 IUs a day then there is 5000 IUs a day going into store, if this is kept up for a long time eventually they will reach levels of toxicity.

Unfortunately it is very new that they have discovered that vitamin D levels should be way higher than previously thought, so there hasnt been too much research on how long it takes when taking these kinds of doses to reach toxicity. In this article, which is co written by Dr Hollis, who is the world expert on Vit D, on page 16 in the section on vitamin D toxicity http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/13/1/6.pdf it says In order to produce Hypercalcemia,( Vitamin D toxicity) most adults would have to take in excess of 10,000 IU per day for many months or even years.

So it is possible, remember if you have any sun exposure you will be getting Vit D from that as well.

So as it is important to keep retesting the vitamin D levels to make sure that they are not going to high, if your next test shows that your levels are still increasing on 10,000 IU a day then drop the dose back.

From what Ive read taking 10,000 IUs a day can eventually lead to toxicity, so keep the levels monitored, and drop the dose if your levels keep going up. I certainly wouldnt keep taking 10,000 IUs a day without retesting every now and again to see whats going on, or you could get into trouble.

All the best