OK, thank you for answer.
Best regards

I have been taking Vitamin D and have found that it makes me extremely physically fatigued and also very tense/stressed/nervous. I am also taking hydrocortisone. I was thinking that with time that this would pass but hope I am not doing harm or making it worse. I am new to this forum so sorry if I posted this in the wrong place. I don't even really know what my actual issue is, just thought that this might give some hint. Thanks

I believe that the list of awful risks linked here on this webpage, that "is believed" (by "whom???") to apply to Marshall Protocol patients, has a pretty shakey basis. The author of the list claims to have based it on studies of NIH studies. But please note that these NIH studies were not made on Marshall Protocol patients. They were made on different subsets of the general population, not any MP group. The author basically found all the risks claimed for vitamin-D "deficient" general-populace people, and compiled them together. But please note that, even if those risks are "associated" with people who have low levels of proper vitamin-D function, and even if the MP people cut vitamin-D out of their lives, the Marshall Protocol group take a vitamin-D analog, Benicar, to give them the benefits of vitamin-D nuclear receptor (VDR) activation. Vitamin-D does almost nothing good by itself outside of activating the VDR. Vitamin-D's beneficial role in our bodies is mostly via activation of the VDR. It is that activation which provides the wonderful immunostimulation and metabolic functions usually sought when people take vitamin-D. So there is a very positive and direct reason to believe that MP people would not be "at risk" for all those vit-D related diseases. How will we know for sure? Well, has anyone done a double-blind randomized control trial on the MP group? I think the answer at the time of writing is no. The first such trial is now underway at one of the world's largest clinical hospitals, and isn't scheduled to finish for about four more years. So the best "in-vivo" test indicator of MP health risks comes from the MP study group itself. They say they're doing fine, despite low levels of vitamin-D. That awful list of diseases is what they are avoiding and/or recovering from. Thank you.

The form of vitamin D3 doctors use is D2 and this is less effective than D3 the form human body's use. That is one of the reasons the amount they use has to be so much higher.

If you were used to sunlight and spend all day in the sun carefully avoiding burning but getting as much sun as possible it is technically possible to achieve natural intakes of 50,000iu/daily/D3, although for practical purposes it is more reasonable to consider amounts between 10,000~20,000iu the result of daily sun exposure.

A google search for 50,000iu cholecalciferol free shipping produces several options for cheap purchases.

My view is that it's important to get 25(OH)D from the present 9ng/ml to above a safer 55ng/ml The standard advice is to use 50,000iu each week for 8~12weeks then retest to see if this is sufficient. This equals just over 7000iu/daily.
If you were overweight then using the formula 1000iu/daily for each 25lbs body weight may be more effective. Up to 10,000iu/daily is considered absolutely safe even in sunny countries.

People with low vitamin D status particularly in childhood are more likely to develop autoimmune conditions.

Having a low vitamin D status leaves you vulnerable to far more adverse consequences than the level human bodies evolved to function with while living near naked outdoors.

I don't think such megadoses are harmfu.

I just don't think they are natural or necessary.

Your hormone system is a complex thing and full of checks and balances and large sudden changes in status lead to periods of fine tuning and adjustments in those counterbalancing actions.

Taking a natural though highish amount of Vitamin D3, equivalent to reasonable daily sun exposure that more than covers your daily needs will lead to 25(OH)D levels rising over a fairly short period but at a rate which allows the fine tuning of the immune function to be achieved at a natural rate.

I prefer to keep my 25(OH)D level both HIGH and STABLE that way I avoid the need for the body to adjust and creating less opportunity for periods where there is an imbalance between the pro/anti inflammatory and pro/anti proliferative forces to lead to trouble.

Nice - very comprehensive answer.

Should I understand that a massive dose is better for the me to recover a better body working (excess of D3 will go to stock and then be available for normal use) ? So the level will recover its normality (for example 50 �g/l) within few weeks or months ?

No contraindication with Hashimoto ?

My post wasn't detailed enough (intake proposed is D3 Cholecaciferol).

Ted, the docs in India were using D3. Quite a few docs use D3 now.

__________________

It would be great if I could say the same happens in the UK. I have had several examples online of people being TOLD they were taking vitamin D3 in the USA But who when shown an images of D2 Ergocalciferol recognize the identification numbers.

D2 speeds up the turnover of VITAMIN D therefore causing more pronounced swings from high to low status and as it is more expensive and less reliable it should be avoided.

PS Re Arrowsmith's supplementing regime 2X 50000 a month provides 3 571 daily + 5000iu/d= 8,5000iu/daily and results in a 25(OH)D around 80ng/ml. This is towards the upper end of what is natural and ideal for someone with a chronic condition but it ensures at all times the body has available immediate access to both circulation 25(OH)D and reserves of stored D3. If I had a cancer diagnosis I would keep my 25(OH)D in exactly the same range as Arrowsmith.

The megadosing regime using D3 for dealing with infections is detailed here Stoss therapy While vitamin D3 is fat soluble Vitamin C is water soluble. The halflife of vitamin d is measured in weeks the half life of Vitamin C is measured in minutes. If you want to raise circulating plasma levels of vitamin c then TIME RELEASE, SUSTAINED RELEASE or similar forms are required. 500mg sustained release vitamin c taken 6times at 4hr intervals will have more effect than 3g Vitamin C taken once daily.

I had very low vitamin D levels when I was first tested. Exactly what I did is hard to remember now and it is posted on the forum here somewhere but it was about like this; I took 50,000 IU 3xd for 3 days then went to 50,000 one time a day for a for a total of about 2 weeksday then went to 10,000 IU for several days before I got retested. After about 3 weeks I was tested and my level was 130, originally 20 somthing.

I've settled on 50,000 two times a month and take 5,000 iu most days. My last two checks have been in the 70 and 90 range, which is where I prefer to keep it since I have a cancer history.

If I feel like I am getting sick I up it immediately, but I don't feel like that very often and have nipped it all in the bud by megadosing vitamin d and vitamin c.

Iodine is what you really need to look into. You should be able to get your D levels up quickely whatever way your doc decides to help you. Personally I would not go for the shot. I prefer to make shifts a little slower, and over the course of a few weeks you will be fine. In regards to iodine, Make sure you are not taking medicine for acid stomach. That can really reduce the amount of iodine you absorb from food or from supplements.. HCL is very important for the proper metabolism of iodine. It is fundamental.

There is research out on Vitamin D and brain lesions, go to www.metametrix.com they recommend testing for D and K together. D supplementation without enough K causes brain lesions. I have found doing a UBI will cause a huge vitamin D increase but your own body is making it from the ultraviolet light.
I would not take vitamin D supplements without reviewing this material first.

The myth about Vitamin D and calcium causing brain lesions comes from this research
Calcium and vitamin D intakes may be positively associated with brain lesions in depressed and non-depressed elders

Those who are able to read and think for themselves will soon come to the conclusion that this is a set up.

The researchers have the finances available to do expensive MRI scans on the brains of these elderly people but choose to use dietary logs to work out Vitamin D and calcium status.

It's totally ludicrous to use diet as a measure of Vitamin D levels.
Everyone knows vitamin D3 is made in the skin and that is our main source, even in elderly people.
Although they don't make as much as younger folks, elderly people who live in the country and work in their gardens have higher levels than people the same age living and gardening, in urban environments.
It isn't the ability of the skin or the diet that accounts for that difference but the air pollution.

The Payne research did not correct for the differences arising from urban or rural living.

The Payne research above didn't measure 25(OH)D3 although for research purposes the cost of 25(OH)D testing is trivial (less than $40) whereas the cost of MRI scans is in hundreds of $$.
If you have some motive to want to prove higher levels of vitamin D may be dangerous then you need to do proper measurements and this Payne research failed to do that.

When at best less than 10% of our daily vitamin D requirements could possibly come from diet (and that involves eating oily fish daily) only idiots and those with malicious intent would use a food frequency questionnaire to guess 25(OH)D status.

I agree that it is worth recognising the fact that increasing vitamin D status improves the absorption of calcium and that levels above 42ng/ml are required for maximum bone mineral density. Certainly taking magnesium and vitamin K2 will assist the creation of strong bones.

But that is NOT a reason for not raising vitamin D levels.
Calcium is best obtained and utilized from food sources.
If you want to preserve bone structure then not only do you need to increase your D3 intake (and magnesium +Vitamin K2) but you also need to cut out the sodas.

The level at which babies are born with sufficient Vitamin D status to absorb calcium in optimum amounts from their diet and obtain natural vitamin D3 from their mothers breast milk is 58.8ng/ml and that requires 6400iu/daily supplementation at latitude 32 or an equivalent amount from non burning full body exposure to UVB bearing sunlight.

If you think you know better than the hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary process found worked best then I would like to see your evidence.

This new research tells us that
25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 is an agonistic vitamin D receptor ligand
That means vitamin D requires just one hydroxylation to be an active hormone. But it is only an active hormone when present in sufficient amounts.
40ng/ml is too low. 60ng/ml gives it more act in the way we evolved to function.

Vitamin K2 information
There is good reason to say that Developmental vitamin D deficiency causes abnormal brain development

Yes I think the answer is not to avoid supplementing with D but rather stop supplementing calcium. Is there any proof that taking calcium to raise blood levels will cause that calcium to go back into bones??? I doubt it. There is more in bones than calcium. You need magnesium and other minerals in proper balance. So if you take just calcium, and it gets absorbed, where can it go? It has to get filtered out again and it could very well cause lesions in the process. I'm just using common sense. And if you take a lot of dairy, which is overly high in calcium, you could get lesions. Best thing is eat lots of green veggies. These are high in absorbable calcium.

Interesting post here at NEPHROPAL on Fructose, Vitamin D, and Calcium that confirms the points
intestinal absorption of calcium was decreased in the fructose fed rats.

fructose load may also lower active Vitamin D levels and intestinal absorption of calcium

milk sugar lactose decreases intestinal absorption of calcium as well!

high calcium levels in the blood stream can be detrimental

Information for anyone who would like some basic data on Vitamin D:

A ton more info here: https://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rient&dbid=110

Gosh, do ya think all this "lower cholesterol" hooplah and the proliferation of cholesterol lowering statin drugs has anything to do with Vitamin D issues??

Cheers,
BB

__________________
Improving health made simple.

The increase in 25(OH)D level after UVB exposure was negatively correlated with baseline 25(OH)D level and positively correlated with baseline total cholesterol level
Basically this experiment shows that
the higher your vitamin D status the less Vitamin D3 your skin makes when exposed to UVB
(we knew that because if people living naked outdoors kept making D3 at the same rate day after day they would get vitamin D toxicity and we wouldn't have survived the evolutionary process)
and that
the higher your cholesterol level the more Vitamin D3 you make.

So what happens when people age and the amount of cholesterol in the skin diminishes as their skin gets thinner?
As people age their skin is less able to make as much vitamin D3 (it can still makes some and there are other reasons (to do with circadian rhythm) why it's important for older people to get outside into the sunshine (or even bright light) regularly.

So if you want to increase your rate of aging by speeding up the reduction in the level of cholesterol in your skin then using Statins is a good way of doing that, it will of course also reduce your natural ability to make Vitamin d3 and I'm sure you are all aware those with the highest vitamin D3 (and cholesterol) levels live longest.

Most of the people who live the longest also have high cholesterol. So it makes me wonder why any normal person would want to lower the levels to begin with.

Dan