Re: Immunemodulator alternative to Benicar:Vitamin D

[Guest guest]

Vitamin D has a lot of the same characteristics as benicar, and many

more. There's a lot of commercial variations (synthetics) in testing

for inflammation (there's no profit in doing studies of the natural

form)

Some known benefits:

* reduces cholesterol

* reduces risk of heart disease

* reduces risk of cancer (50+% less)

* reduces risk of diabetes (70% less)

" For all endpoints, the most advantageous serum concentrations of 25

(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL), and the best are between 90 and

100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In most persons, these concentrations could

not be reached with the currently recommended intakes of 200 and 600

IU vitamin D/d for younger and older adults, respectively. A

comparison of vitamin D intakes with achieved serum concentrations of

25(OH)D for the purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to

suggest that, for bone health in younger adults and all studied

outcomes in older adults, an increase in the currently recommended

intake of vitamin D is warranted. An intake for all adults of > or

=1000 IU (40 microg) vitamin D (cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring

vitamin D concentrations in no less than 50% of the population up to

75 nmol/L. " 1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):18-28

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=AbstractPlus & list_uids=16825677 & query_hl=1

4 & itool=pubmed_docsum

[Guest guest]

How ironic & funny, that Vitamin D, the one substance that a certain unnamed protocol creator rails against more than anything else, naturally does the same thing he's trying to accomplish with Benicar and sunglasses! You gotta admit, it's rich. penny Ken <ken_lassesen@...> wrote: Vitamin D has a lot of the same characteristics as benicar, and many more. There's a lot of commercial variations (synthetics) in testing for inflammation (there's no

profit in doing studies of the natural form)Some known benefits:* reduces cholesterol * reduces risk of heart disease* reduces risk of cancer (50+% less)* reduces risk of diabetes (70% less)" For all endpoints, the most advantageous serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL), and the best are between 90 and 100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In most persons, these concentrations could not be reached with the currently recommended intakes of 200 and 600 IU vitamin D/d for younger and older adults, respectively. A comparison of vitamin D intakes with achieved serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for the purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to suggest that, for bone health in younger adults and all studied outcomes in older adults, an increase in the currently recommended intake of vitamin D is warranted. An intake for all adults of > or =1000 IU (40 microg) vitamin D

(cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring vitamin D concentrations in no less than 50% of the population up to 75 nmol/L." 1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):18-28http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=AbstractPlus & list_uids=16825677 & query_hl=14 & itool=pubmed_docsum

[Guest guest]

If you think about how the immune system is like a seesaw - up when

you need it, down when you need it, and balanced in the middle when

you are healthy - it only makes sense that the body needs vitamin D

to be elevated at certain times. Hey, we evolved to live in sunlight.

Duh!

I buy into the concept that some infections may cause elevated D3 -

out of balance - assisting the bacteria and not our cells - but to

think that a human can live for 18 months to ? years without sun or

omega 3 fatty acids doesn't seem to make sense. What's really weird

is that some docs who use this treatment don't even do the " avoid the

sun thing " for months to years. What is wrong with this bright

picture? I continue to maintain that it is the particular

antibiotics, not so much the D, that is helping these patients.

Indeed, the lack of D over time may be making some very sick indeed.

And that is all I have to say about that.

a

>

> How ironic & funny, that Vitamin D, the one substance that a

certain unnamed protocol creator rails against more than anything

else, naturally does the same thing he's trying to accomplish with

Benicar and sunglasses! You gotta admit, it's rich.

>

> penny

[Guest guest]

Dear Penny

The "Great Unnamed One" made the fundamental error of assuming that the physiology of the sarcoid process is transferrable to other disease states. It still may be a valid approach to Sarcoid though it would seem to be contra-indicated for CFS/CFIDS/ME/Whatever.

Regards

Windsor

Re: [infections] Re: Immunemodulator alternative to Benicar:Vitamin D

How ironic & funny, that Vitamin D, the one substance that a certain unnamed protocol creator rails against more than anything else, naturally does the same thing he's trying to accomplish with Benicar and sunglasses! You gotta admit, it's rich.

penny Ken <ken_lassesen > wrote:

Vitamin D has a lot of the same characteristics as benicar, and many more. There's a lot of commercial variations (synthetics) in testing for inflammation (there's no profit in doing studies of the natural form)Some known benefits:* reduces cholesterol * reduces risk of heart disease* reduces risk of cancer (50+% less)* reduces risk of diabetes (70% less)" For all endpoints, the most advantageous serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL), and the best are between 90 and 100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In most persons, these concentrations could not be reached with the currently recommended intakes of 200 and 600 IU vitamin D/d for younger and older adults, respectively. A comparison of vitamin D intakes with achieved serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for the purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to suggest that, for bone health in younger adults and all studied outcomes in older adults, an increase in the currently recommended intake of vitamin D is warranted. An intake for all adults of > or =1000 IU (40 microg) vitamin D (cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring vitamin D concentrations in no less than 50% of the population up to 75 nmol/L." 1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):18-28http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=AbstractPlus & list_uids=16825677 & query_hl=14 & itool=pubmed_docsum

[Guest guest]

Yeah, but who knows. I mean there are studies that indicate sarc is

caused by borrelia and cfs may be caused by borrelia in a lot of

cases. I think the problem is assuming that all bodies are producing

too much D hormone at any given stage in the disease process.

a

>

> Dear Penny

> The " Great Unnamed One " made the fundamental error of assuming that

the physiology of the sarcoid process is transferrable to other

disease states. It still may be a valid approach to Sarcoid though it

would seem to be contra-indicated for CFS/CFIDS/ME/Whatever.

> Regards

> Windsor

[Guest guest]

yes, Wallace, and I'll also say I personally have a friend who found sun avoidance to be a huge help with her symptoms. So the point is, no one-size-fits-all protocol. penny Windsor <rwindsor@...> wrote: Dear Penny The "Great Unnamed One" made the fundamental error of assuming that the physiology of the sarcoid process is transferrable to other disease states. It still may be a

valid approach to Sarcoid though it would seem to be contra-indicated for CFS/CFIDS/ME/Whatever. Regards Windsor Re: [infections] Re: Immunemodulator alternative to Benicar:Vitamin D How ironic & funny, that Vitamin D, the one substance that a certain unnamed protocol creator rails against more than anything else, naturally does the same thing he's trying to accomplish with Benicar and sunglasses! You gotta admit, it's rich. penny Ken <ken_lassesen > wrote: Vitamin D has a lot of the same characteristics as benicar, and many more. There's a lot of commercial variations (synthetics) in testing for inflammation (there's no profit in doing studies of the natural form)Some known benefits:* reduces cholesterol * reduces risk of heart disease* reduces risk of cancer (50+% less)* reduces risk of diabetes (70% less)" For all endpoints, the most

advantageous serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL), and the best are between 90 and 100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In most persons, these concentrations could not be reached with the currently recommended intakes of 200 and 600 IU vitamin D/d for younger and older adults, respectively. A comparison of vitamin D intakes with achieved serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for the purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to suggest that, for bone health in younger adults and all studied outcomes in older adults, an increase in the currently recommended intake of vitamin D is warranted. An intake for all adults of > or =1000 IU (40 microg) vitamin D (cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring vitamin D concentrations in no less than 50% of the population up to 75 nmol/L." 1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):18-28http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed & cmd=Retrieve & dopt=AbstractPlus & list_uids=16825677 & query_hl=14 & itool=pubmed_docsum