From John Cannell, MD
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/
From 1955 to 1990, all infants in East Germany received 600,000 IU of Vitamin D every three months for a total of 3,600,000 IU at age 18 months.
With the 400 IU/day recommendation of the American Pediatric Association in mind, I ran across this amazing paper while surfing Medline for Vitamin D. According to this paper, all infants in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) received dangerously high doses of Vitamin D every three months in their doctors office. The policy was in place for 35 years. The first 600,000 IU dose was given at three months and then every three months until the child was 18 months of age. This works out to an average of 6,000 IU per day (actually, for several technical reasons it is not equivalent) for 18 months. The authors collected blood before the dose and then 2 weeks after the quarterly dose to obtain 25(OH)D, 1,25(OH)D, and calcium levels on a total of 43 infants.
Before the first dose, at 3 months of age, the average infant was extremely deficient (median 25(OH)D of 7 ng/ml). Two weeks after the first dose the average 25(OH)D level was 120 ng/ml, the second dose 170 ng/ml, the third dose, 180 ng/ml, the fourth dose, 144 ng/ml, the fifth dose, 110 ng/ml and after the sixth and final dose, 3.6 million total units, at age 18 months, the children had mean levels of 100 ng/ml. That is, by the 15 and 18 month doses, the children were beginning to effectively handle these massive doses.
The highest level recorded in any of the 43 infants was 408 ng/ml at age 9 months, two weeks after the third 600,000 IU dose. Thirty-four percent of the infants had at least one episode of hypercalcemia but only 3 had an elevated serum 1,25(OH)D. The authors reported that all the infants appeared healthy, even the infant with a level of 408 ng/ml, that is, no clinical toxicity was noted in any of these infants.
They also reported that repeated inquires in GDR have failed to identify clinical Vitamin D toxicity as a result of the prophylactic program. The pediatricians and health officials in the GDR just did not look hard enough for toxicity as such doses will certainly cause clinical toxicity, right? Or maybe such doses only cause asymptomatic hypercalcemia and not clinical toxicity. It would be interesting to look at the infant mortality in East Germany during those years, compared to similar Eastern European countries, as well as current cohorts of German adults who underwent such treatment as an infant.
10 comments:
WOW, this is absolutely amazing! One would think there would be toxicity, especially in infants. As we have learned the more D3 the better. Goes to show you how well
D3 works with the human body. Thanks Dr.Joe for your continuing efforts to educate us on D3. Wonderful, simply put, wonderful! Sherry Denny, Redwood City, CA
That is odd. I have an elevated Calcium level, 10.5, after taking 5,000 units of Vit D3 for 2 months. Wonder why that is? My Vit D3 level is around 50. So why wouldn't the children, or do you think they were not tested for high levels of Calcium. What amount of Calcium should you take if you are taking 3,000 units of Vit D3 per day?
They had a lot less allergies than the infants in the west who had no such treatment - and so far this has been contributed to a "growing up in less cleaned up surroundings"...
MP, Germany
Whos kids are they experimenting on? That doesn't sound awefully ethical to me. I feel terrible if I take a too high dose D3, could the chidren tell anyone if they were feeling bad? NO!
Leave the kids alone and be more careful with dosages on those who were deficient whoever is doing tbose experiments!
There may be other reasons for an “elevated” serum Calcium. One of them is that the amount of D3 you take is enough to raise the Calcium.
You know, of course, that all the “normal” levels in the labs in the United States of America are done on people who are low in vitamin D3. It takes about $500,000 and 9 plus months to change that and they just won’t do it. The vast majority of MDs still feel that world is berserk and we all are going to be “toxic.”
Still, see if you have any pathological reason for your calcium level.
Dr. Joe
Dr Joe, It seems like we always have trouble distinguishing between Vit D and D3.
It seems like this is where the difference lies in toxicity fear. It's a mix and match type thing.
My wife has Scleroderma. Amongst other things vit D deficiency is suspected. Since she is a petite Asian at about ninety five pounds. I have her daily on 20,000 units of D and myself on fifty thousand for a month, then we plan to cut back to about ten to fourteeen thousand units daily for a maintenance dose. Scleroderma is an autoimmune disorder, where the body produces too much collagen, and blocks calcium and protien. Do you have any results of persons with Scleroderma taking higher amounts of Vitamin D?
Daddyniowa, I do not have any results of persons with Scleroderma taking higher amounts of Vitamin D.
Last year, my wife's Bone Mineral Density test showed a T score of -2. We have been taking D3 50,000 units daily during the last year. Her Vit D3 level six months ago was 100+. She has also be taking Vitamin & Mineral Complex (2 paks/day). Each Pak has 315mg of calcium. She is also taking 3 scoops of ProArgi9 Plus daily w/ Mystica and CoreGreens. Recently, she retested BMD. T score is now -3. She recently sent saliva test for Female Hormone Profile and Food Intolerance results. Her dr. is suggesting OsteoMedica or Ossapan. Does she need to make any changes if she follows the dr's suggestion? Her family has history of osteoporosis. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
I am 63, weigh 160 lbs and live in LA. I take 200,000 IU of Vitamin D every week. I strip to shorts and a hat every day and walk in the sun around noon for an hour. My blood level in Sept was 120ng/ml. I consider 100ng/ml to be the bottom end of the healthy range. Go to uctv.tv and search for Vitamin D. Read the research.
Post a Comment