Anyone Got A Kindle? You Need To Download "Why Vitamin D Should Be Flying Off The Shelves", Currently a FREE e-book !

Hi everyone,

Had another raging insomnia patch again this week and downloaded a heap of free e-books onto my Christmas Kindle.

I found the one in the title in the Self-Help and How To section of Free Books. It's extremely interesting and I personally find it all rings true for me. I would urge everyone to have a read of it.

If you haven't got a kindle, I believe you can download a Kindle app for using on your computer, so you can still get it that way.

The Free Books don't stay permanently free (I thought they did, but I mis-hit a button on one of them the same night, and found myself back at the Kindle Store for one of my free books that I downloaded a couple of months ago. To my surprise it is now listed as costing something like six quid!!! :-O It wasn't even one of the GOOD e-books!!

I have tried taking 5-10,000 iu's of D the last couple of days, following this man's guidelines, and I have to say, I've had a couple of very bright patches of a few hours - a big improvement on being stuck lifelessly in bed, brain refusing to work, not able to email or post, or use the phone, and I don't buy into the anything higher than the RDI is toxic. The RDI for Vitamin D3 (which is actually a pro-hormone rather than a vitamin) is 400 iu's. Considering we all make in the region of 30,000 iu's of D3 from an afternoon in summer sunlight, how could anything below that be potentially toxic ? That wouldn't make sense.

I won't witter on about it, you should read it for yourself. Suffice to say that it has made me feel quite optimistic about recovering at least some of my lost health.

Happy reading !


10 Replies

  • Hi Angel_153 I just went onto Amazon and the book now costs 77p on Kindle or Free if you subscribe to the Prime Time

    Regards JayJay57

  • Oh poo !

    Guess I hit it lucky, then. Oh, I think I might be a Prime member - we get a lot of books and other stuff on Amazon, and it means we save a lot on postage costs because Prime stuff is posted free of charge..

    If you put the title into google, it will come up with this chap's web site, which is called something like prescribe sun - there may be a PDF or another version of it there.

    Sorry about that - it hadn't occurred to me that Prime would have had any bearing on Kindle book prices ! (I hadn't even remembered I'm a Prime member until you mentioned it!)

    Sorry jayjay !


  • Hi Angel_153

    That's ok not to worry, I'll Google it & look for his website in a little while, I have a High Vitamin D deficiency, found via blood test so Dr has put me on Vitamin D Caplets, Thanks for your reply xx

  • Hiya,

    Good that it's been identified!

    Which test did you have (there are two different ones) and what were the results? What dose of D has your doc put you on?


  • Actually, too high vitamin D levels in your blood are toxic and can cause severe damage over time:

    This is why you should not take more than the recommended daily amount without being diagnosed with a deficiency through blood testing. And if you're on very high doses, your blood levels should be rechecked regularly.

  • Absolutly lindsey . I self prescribed magnesium and calcium and upset both and my vitD levels . As all three work together. Cut a long story short i have calcsuim deposits on my spine and hips and had my left parathyroid removed as it was block with calcium. My vit D levels where 13 now without any supplements they are steadly rising . And yes I do feel better my bones no longer hurt . Please folks have a blood test first ..

  • Sorry to hear that, Aura. Glad to hear though that your bones now feel better :-)

    As you say, all these things work together, and you shouldn't mess around unless you really know and understand what you're doing, or are under medical supervision -preferably by a nutritionally enlightened doctor who isn't going to have a freak out if something goes a nanomol over a reference range. Bone density involves Vit D3, calcium, magnesium, Vitamin K, parathyroid levels, calcitonin levels, and also oestrogen and progesterone, too. And I agree, blood tests are essential with any of the fat-based vitamins, because of their ability to accumulate in the body, unlike the water-soluble ones, which we need a daily intake of.

    You can easily hit problems taking extra calcium and magnesium if you aren't aware of some of the other factors necessary to facilitate calcium absorption by the bones. Without Vitamin K to drive the calcium to your bones, it won't get there as it should. Without enough Vit D3 (not Vit D2, which is biologically far less active than D3), the calcium won't be absorbed properly into the bones.

    Ironically, what results is what the body perceives as a calcium deficiency, and it then steals calcium from the bones to put into the blood because it's very important to a number of other functions. What gets left unused gets dumped, usually somewhere inappropriate like the surface or end of a bone, or in soft tissue like the kidneys and other places.

    Interestingly (to me, anyway, because I've been through it) the body also steals calcium out of bones when it perceives there is a problematic weakness in a tendon or muscle. It nicks the calcium, spends anything up to two years "knitting" that calcium into the weak muscle and/or tendon, then gets to end of the repair with some left over. The body then has to get rid of it, because if it's allowed to get into the bloodstream it can cause blood levels that are too high to be healthy for that body, so it dumps it as calcium deposits in soft tissue. I had a reconstruction following a full mastectomy (left side) for breast cancer in 2007. I became very disabled as I reacted badly to the chemo (fibro hadn't been dx'd then, and I don't think the hospital really took my concerns about my chemical sensitivities terribly seriously until it was too late) and then a year or so later, my right shoulder started to hurt. A lot. They wanted to operate to relieve what they said was pressure on a tendon that had become swollen, by chopping lumps of bone out to make room for it. Orthopod couldn't tell me why my supraspinatus tendon had apparently, mysteriously swollen. We declined the op because it would have left me dependent on using my left arm, which you aren't supposed to do because you can trigger lymphoedema in an arm affected by breast cancer surgery (they remove some lymph glands when they do the mastectomy). I went away and did some research, and found what I've outlined here. I had what's called Reactive Calcific Tendonitis. Surgeons say that when they operate, they find toothpaste-consistency stuff, which is the left-over calcium having been deposited. In my case, the calcium was deposited in my supraspinatous tendon. The pain came from the inflammation caused by this dumping, because the body thinks it's a foreign substance and sends out some immune system cells called macrophages to eat the "invaders" and dispose of them.

    Then exactly the same thing happened to my left arm another year after that - which makes sense, because my left arm was left a lot weaker than the right after the breast cancer surgery, so it will have taken longer for my body to mend it with yet more calcium it nicked from nearby bones. The ultrasounds bore this out - the right shoulder had multiple calcium lumps of 6-12mm each ( :-O ), the left one a year after that had calcium deposits of........ up to 17mm each ! That side was weaker than the right, so it needed more calcium and more time for my body to fix it. In both cases, the pain was excruciating, so I understand the pain you must have been in, and I sympathise.

    Can I ask, how much calcium and magnesium were you taking, and also what form of them you were taking - citrate, malate, lactate, oxide, etc - ?

    I'm already prescribed Ad Cal D3 x2 daily (total 1200mg) for osteoporosis following them taking all my oestrogen away because the cancer was oestrogen based. I have regular calcium tests. My concern is that my Vitamin D levels have never been checked (yet - they will be soon!) and given that I do no load bearing exercise, am indoors all the time and prescribed calcium by my GP, low D3 levels are only going to cause exactly the problems you describe happened to you.

    There is more about this as a reply from me on the other thread, giving details of the upper safe limits, and the level at which toxicity (which is very different from the levels being high enough to affect the parathyroid and other hormones) occurs - which is 20,000 iu's a day long term (500mcg). As an illustration of how random the upper safe limits are, from country to country, the European Food Safety brigade determine Europe's and the US's as being 50mcg a day (2,000 iu's) whilst Australia and New Zealand's levels are set as being 80mcg a day, or 3,200 iu's a day - in a country where pretty obviously they have way more sunshine than we do in the UK, that makes no logical sense whatsoever !

    Glad you're feeling better now, look forward to your reply, Aura,


  • Sorry to her you have had so many problems but it does sound as if you are on the mend so good news there . You explain this complex issue much better than I ever could . My memory and fibro fog makes it impossible to remember what type I was taking sorry only remember they were Holland and Barrett. It took .3yrs from finding my calcuim levels high ,many blood tests, dye type scans and hospital appointments to having the op. I have in m body lots of calcuim lumps as you descrip. Hopefully given time they will disappear. My calcuim levels were found to be high when checking out my tummy for cancer , from what I understand levels are usually low when cancer is present. So then I had test after test before finding the calcuim tumour in my parathyriod. I have just had a dexter scan the results showed no change from my last one two years back so I am happy with that as it seems no more damage has been done. I gave a talk to the people at my support group on my experience and suggested those that had not had vd blood levels tested did so.Three people were taking vd supps that did not need them , bit scary ah .

    GPs are funded for Vd blood test so there should be no problems. At the same time this was all going on I went to see a herbalist about my tummy who told me I had bugs in my tum and she could cure me ( at a high cost I may add ) when the results came back from a biopsy no bugs where found. Interesting I thought .

    Angel have a blood test and see what your levels are I will never again self prescrip any supps.

    Take care of you x

  • Hi Aura,

    Bless you, you've really been through the mill, and still are, by the sound of it. Hugs (gentle ones!)

    I've written more about this in other posts, but essentially, given that I've been house and or bed-bound since 2007/8, eat little oily fish, and can't do any load-bearing exercise to encourage bone density through pushing calcium into my bones (which means whatever little supply of D in my body will have been trying to balance blood calcium with bone calcium and will have been depleted through doing that),. I'm pretty safe bet for D deficiency. Despite being osteoporotic, and having regular calcium test and the odd DEXA scan, no-one at my docs has ever mentioned testing my D levels - which I am going to organise as soon as I can.

    I used to work as a nutritional consultant, both for a private doc and for my own clients, too. If you'd like some more advice (I'm not practising in the sense of doing in for a living anymore, but am happy to give advice and help by sharing what I know if anyone wants to understand more about all this sort of thing., so I'm not like your herbalist and charging for info!) drop me a private message on here (you right click on the person's name, then it offers you a choice of actions, and a message is one of them- bit hidden away, but PMs are possible on here) with your email and I'll see what I can do to help.

    Did you really have a biopsy from your stomach? Or did they just check bug levels in your stool? Their definition of the right levels of bugs in stools is nearly always wrong - I've been in with raging systemic candida and a "No yeast present" result from stool sample testing several times. The definitions are set by people who clearly don't understand that the "right" levels vary from person to person. Different people have different levels of different bacteria - good and bad ones- in their digestive system. You've only got to look at how people from different countries react with violent diarrhoea to food eaten in a foreign country, where the bacteria are different from the ones we're used to. The locals who've grown up with that food and water have the right balance of bugs to normalise things. People whose systems haven't been gradually exposed to those bugs get hammered - again, to varying degrees, again indicating that different digestive systems have different abilities to cope with alien bacteria, which indicates that all of us have different levels of certain bugs in our systems. These tests make the assumption that everyone's gut flora and fauna balance is the identical, when it rather obviously isn't. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see this :-)

    Don't worry about the old brain fog thing - I get tons of it too, like we all do, and that's why I'm only on here in fits and starts. When I feel up to it, I'm on here, but there's a lot of time when I can't think at all, and can't turn the computer on. I'm hoping that I can get things improved if not resolved through a comprehensive program of nutritional support and some other natural medicine - something I've studied since c.1998 when I got frustrated by the NHS's inability to help me work out what was going on with my failing and problematic health. I'm still learning new things.

    Re calcium levels and cancer - I can talk about this because I've been there. I got breast cancer in 2007. I've always done "weird" things with calcium (which may, in retrospect, be down to the fact that I was then unaware of the complex relationship between calcium, D, magnesium, A, and K). I was diagnosed with a second bout of new cancer in my other breast two years later. The radiographer showed me the slides, and pointed out the excessive amounts of calcium. She pronounced that I had it a second time. It turned out, after 2 weeks of biopsies and scans, that I didn't. But the reason she assumed I did was because calcium deposits usually indicate that the body is in chronic inflammation, and when cancer is in the patient history, they assume that the inflammation is due to a resurgence of the cancer. I know because I asked - of course I asked! I was furious that they'd put me and my friends and family through the shock and despair of a second cancer diagnosis, so I wanted to know how such an incorrect diagnosis had been reached. That's what I was told, by my oncologist and my GP, and other doctors I've spoken to about it. So, no, it isn't low calcium that indicates cancer, it's high calcium. Unless it's different for blood tests, which I suppose it might be. Definitely calcium deposits in certain areas like the breast are taken to indicate a likelihood of cancer. I'm sure that if they were concerned about your tum then they would have pounced on that immediately, so I don't think you've go anything to worry about there.

    I'm only sorry that things went so badly wrong for you with your efforts to help yourself with vit D. I'm sure that if someone had advised you to take Vit K, Vit A, D3 (cholecalciferol, not ergocalciferol which is D2) along with the right ratios of calcium and magnesium, and possibly some oestrogen and progesterone too, you wouldn't have had the horrible problems that you unfortunately did.

    Re D blood test levels - it depends which of the two types of D test they had, and which reference range the testing lab and the GP were bound to. According to the book by M Azziz, even in this country, the reference ranges varied widely between different hospitals and different GPs and different labs. They vary massively from country to country, too, which makes no logical sense in terms of defining optimum human health, and says more about the governing body who set the reference ranges than anything else. The same goes for the supposed Upper Safety Limits set by different countries for Vit D - how does it make sense that our UK upper limit, as defined by the EU, is 2,000 ius a day, when in Oz and NZ, it's set at 3,200? They obviously make more D in their bodies than we do, given we blatantly have a lot less sunshine than those countries do.

    I view the "official" RDAs/RNIs/ULs with suspicion, and always check the literature and my library of books on the subject before assuming these levels are right. They are usually way off. It's worth understanding that all of the RDAs assume several things: that everyone is healthy, properly nourished, has no deficiencies of any sort, no health challenges of any sort, is active, eats organic food grown or raised on optimally-nutrient-rich soil (none of us can do that because the world's soil has been depleted of most mineral content by intensive farming, even organic farms struggle to maintain the right mineral balance because they aren't allowed to use chemicals and it would be impossible to put back every single macro and micro mineral into their crop fields) - and that those levels are designed to prevent actual disease states in those perfectly healthy people who eat perfect food from perfect soil.

    Ironically, if you're perfectly healthy, you won't be looking to take supplements! b

    Plus, there's a huge thing with the government and the pharmaceutical companies. The government make a lot of money out of the pharmaceutical co's. The pharmaceutical companies make literally billions each year from patenting products that are supposed to improve health. They cannot make money without a product being patented, and they cannot patent anything that occurs naturally in nature. Hence, they seek to discredit natural treatments wherever possible, because it threatens their market share of profits. They will always advise a government that natural medicine is dangerous, because they're trying to protect their profits.

    All they do in order to get a product patented is to add an extra molecule to make it Non Natural. This is why the progesterone you can get on prescription acts so differently in the body than natural progesterone does. It's also why drugs like Pregabalin and Gabapentin, both based on the naturally occurring Gamma Amino Butyric Acid, have such vile side effects - they are not the product that our bodies have evolved to make use of. The same with the serotonin reuptake inhibitors - great idea in theory, but they've had to put in other chemicals to make it patentable, and these are what cause the side effects. Far better to increase serotonin production naturally, by upping B6 intake for example, than by putting chemicals in that stop the body doing what it needs to do to keep things balanced, and not helping the body make more of what it needs.

    When I was practising as a nutritional therapist, I saw a lot of hypothyroid patients. When it's a simple case of the thyroid gland not producing enough thyroxine, as determined by seeing blood tests from their doctor, having them take the amino acid tyrosine, from which thyroxine is made, along with iodine (another component of thyroxine) and selenium (a component of the enzyme that converts the inactive thyroxine to the active tertroxin), made them happy and well again. And once well, the majority of them were able to discontinue or at least reduce treatment, because whatever had thrown the system out of whack had normalised when the thyroid levels had been normalised. My whole thing was/still is that the body is a self-healing organism, and that if we can only identify the problem and the cause, we can then give the body the raw materials it needs to fix itself.

    Ok, I'm having a relatively good afternoon, and I'm getting tired from typing and thinking now, so you must be struggling to read such a block of info, so I'm going to stop.

    Keep in touch,


  • Hi Aura,

    I meant to say, yes, the calcium deposits I had in my shoulder disappeared a few weeks after the crisis of pain and inflammation - I haven't had another ultra sound to confirm this, because they won't do one unless they think there's a problem, and my symptoms have resolved. As the symptoms have resolved, I have to assume that the calcium deposits have been dealt with by my body, which is what all the research I did on this subject said would happen. If they were still there, my shoulders would still be agony, with no range of movement.

    My GP said, when I asked him what the connection between calcium in breast tissue and breast cancer was, that calcium is deposited by the body when the body has been in a chronic state of inflammation, and that in the case of patients with a history of cancer, they assume that the inflammation is being/has been caused by a re-emergence of cancer.

    And I have finally managed to get an apt with my GP, so will arrange the tests for D levels then. I am completely confident that the levels will come back very low. I will let everyone know, whatever they show :-)

    A xXx

You may also like...