Thyroid UK

Vitamin D & its effect on inflammatory diseases !

2014 paper:

A portion of which says:

"The secosteroid vitamin D has potent immunosuppressive properties (Kimball et al., 2011).

Benefits observed among patients ingesting the substance may subsequently result from the short-term palliative effect described above. ( - that's in the main article !)

Indeed, a number of recent randomized controlled trials have studied the effect of vitamin D supplementation in patients with chronic inflammatory conditions. Most have failed to support a link between supplementation and improved health. In some cases, harm has been reported (Albert et al., 2009; Autier et al., 2014)."

Hope that's helpful ! Any considered view on the above, please ?

MORAL: Beware of what to believe ? ( - in that high supplementation of vitamin D is recommended by many notable bodies/groups & "authorities". Never in HISTORY has this level of supplementation been available or taken place in such LARGE numbers !).

The implications of the view in the above paper, especially if PROVED correct are IMMENSE ! ! ! ( - it'll put the thalidomide sandal, for instance into the shade AND is much more INCIDEOUS, affecting the increasing number of people with inflammatory conditions ! ! !).


23 Replies

In the same vain, and somewhat easier to digest:

Oh dear ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ! !


It also prevents cancer according to dr tent whose vids are on youtube


i don't believe it one bit.


So rickets should not be treated by supplementation ?


These are that types of important questions we'd better start asking ( - once more with a fresh eye ?).

Holick would lend weight to the view in Mercola's above cited article, that making our own pro-hormone vit D ( - and its related metabolites) directly from sensible sun exposure is preferred over supplementation.

I wonder whether unadultered cod liver oil has related metabolites, as well as the main D3 molecules . . . . . something to look up !


Epictetus, high dose vitamin D is very necessary to treat vitamin D deficiency which can impact badly on health. 5,000iu daily is a reasonable dose for insufficient levels and 2,500iu daily for maintenance Oct-Apr in northern hemispheres. Once levels are restored supplementation can be reduced or stopped. Anyone supplementing should have levels tested every six months to check they aren't over supplementing. Annual testing is recommended to check levels don't drop too low.

I had loading and maintenance doses prescribed for deficiency in 2013. I over supplemented in 2014 and levels were over range but I didn't have toxicity. For six months I have been supplementing 5,000iu per week which I didn't think would be sufficient but levels are good at 135nmol/L so it is a good dose for me.


Hi Clutter,

That level, well over 100nmol/L may be confirmation that your immune system is not revved-up causing inflammation in response - in such cases, it is known the immune system activates blood 25(OH)D to its activated form, which causes a vit D dysregulation, which in turn does not allow such high blood levels.

There's a little paragraph about this on p241 of Holick's Vitamin D Solution, going by memory ! Conditions in which such dysregulation is found include sarcoidosis, TB and chronic fungal infections.


Epictetus, I feel well at this level, no pain, inflammation,depression or illness which was considerable when vitD was <10.


That feedback is v. helpful, Clutter and further intimates that you did not have the type of conditions in which vit D dysregulation is seen. Lucky you ! 10nmol/L is low !

I've been pondering for some 3 years what my inability to raise levels over 80nmol/L meant, and why the gains ( - improvement in symptoms) I saw over 18-24 months, gradually disappeared and left me in pretty much a similar state as when I started supplementation some 5 years ago ( - in spite of having raised levels from 26 to over 50nmol/L) . Trying to raised them much above 60nmol/L caused me unwellness, the reason for which I seem to have now (finally !) found.

Now, the body of information such as the above paper ( - of which there is considerable I understand) points to an underlying chronic immune response, in which the stable 25(OH)D is activated - this seems to be well established.

Thanks for your input - it matches the case in a little book by Jeff Bowles (2013) in which the author experimented with taking ever higher amounts of vit D ( - adding vit K2, at higher levels) and reports feeling better and better - seems reasonable to surmise he could NOT have had this type of immune response, either. As far as I know there is no mention of this D dysregulation issue in the book.

(Also, don't know what to make of the ONE star comments to his book on Amzn and the allegation that the replies by a Tony Clifton are actually by the author ! None of the ONE star comments, as far I can see today are raising this important D dysregulation issue, - on 14/7/2015).

We may be talking here about a sub-group of people who's immune response ( - often causing inflammation) have this vit D dysregulation anomaly not seen in those who do not have such an immune response.


Epictetus, the dysregulation thing makes sense. There are some people with low vitD who can't tolerate D3 supplementation. One member said it made the moles on her skin itch.

I didn't have any adverse effects when vitD was 384 either but glad I caught it then as kidney stones etc. can develop when it's too high.


I can't tolerate vitd, even 800iu made me feel terrible but my calcium was high so could have been part of it.

My level went from 12 to 24 and that is it, never got any higher. I have to rely on sunshine, the only vitd I can manage.


Hi Hypohen,

See the Mercola link above . . . . . want do you make of that ? Investigate this further, I would - and share with us your findings on this or similarly titled thread . . . . . this is SO important, I feel !

E x


Calcium level must be checked before taking high doses in case the deficiency is caused by hyperparathyroidism in which case taking vitd is not a good idea.


Holick ( - almost ubiquitous in the D-field ?) recommends a generous intake of calcium. However, other studies I seem to recall have found that those who supplement with calcium are in fact likely to reduce their longevity matched like-for-like with those you don't.

Vieth ( - another big name in the D field) is of the view that for most of us who drink milk and eat cheese regularly, calcium intake is pretty adequate/ample.


Hypohen, GP didn't check calcium before or after prescribing 40,000iu. Endo tested last week and it's fine.


I also don't recall a calcium level check with raising 25(OH)D blood levels and it may not be routinely being done.

However, I understand ONE reason for checking the calcium blood and urine levels with increasing 25(OH)D levels, is that one or both of these levels can RISE in cases of the type of immune dysregulation we're considering in this thread.

BUT how many doctors would actually know that that's ONE significant conclusion if the results do indicated increased calcium levels ? ? ? Hardly any at present, I would hazard to speculate !


We do not want to suppress our immune systems. I have had no improvements when tests show i was at optimal levels.


Precisely - immune suppression not helpful, in the main.

What range did you have as "optimum" Faith, and from what level did you rise into it ? I believe feedback such as yours is often disregarded as its convenient to do so . . . . . . . and then perhaps unwittingly forgotten.

And, it has been said, "those who cannot remember the past are . . . . . " . . . . . wait, what was it ? ? ? Forgetful ? Nope, that's not it . . . .

. . . . . oh, yeah: " . . . . . . condemned to repeat !".


my vitamin d was at 14! I got it to over midrange at 100..also my iron/ferritin from 25, to just over mid improvements at all. I was very disappointed. I think the vit D is going to be found to be a "dud", just like they thought coq10 was the "fountain of youth" and how we should avoid fat, eggs..etc.. It's just a fad.


Hi Faith,

I can see why one could conclude "vit D" might turn out to be a "dud" from an experience like yours. However, that experience is unique to you and certainly not representative of the whole population - and its this COMPLEXITY which is contributing towards the present confused picture.

Certainly, there are clear reports of people found to be deficient, who in restoring their levels have FELT much better ( - I'm in that group) but LITTLE account is currently being taken of those whose clear improvements wane away ( - as is the case for me) EVEN tho' "better levels" ( - seen in the healthy population) are maintained.

This immune suppression effect, with the benefits being a temporary palliative in this sub-group is the ONLY explanation I have come across so far that explains my personal experience.

The technicalities may be as stated here ( - which tho' simplified, is still to complex for most of us, who are not micro-biologists):

( - good luck with that; at least you can email it or give a printed copy to your GP/consultant).

I suggest you may wish to consider whether you should suspend supplementation ( - if you've not already) in the light of this body of info.

Take care !


i know take 1,00 vit d one time per week, if i remember.


Hi - you must be online right now !

Do you mean you take 100IU once a week ?


yes, if that. My other pills were 10,000's.


You may also like...