"Toxic effects" of high vitamin D [ - Vieth, 2006]

Having yesterday inadvertently posted this on another forum (D'oh !), here it is for your cogitations:

"The actual one line quote is: "High doses of oral vitamin D supplements, however, have been shown to have toxic effects (Vieth, 2006)."

This followed a ( - clearly questionable?) view on the safety (for ALL?) of vitamin D formed by sun-exposure:

"The cutaneous conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D3, which spontaneously isomerizes to cholecalciferol, is regulated so that prolonged sunlight exposure does not lead to excess production; both precholecalciferol and cholecalciferol can be photolysed to inert compounds."

[ - does that apply to ALL, . . . . . . withOUT qualification ? ? ? See below !]

The above from paragraph 30 on p. 11 of "Update on Vitamin D Position statement by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition" of 2007 - SACN report available FREE online online ( - hurray !):

gov.uk/government/uploads/s...

As we know from other posts on this forum, there are (seemingly ?) credible and significant reports of well over a decade of a sub-group of the population, which is affected by or exhibit a "vitamin D dysfunction" found in those with a range of medical conditions: for this group, it might be said that even limited amounts of sun exposure can further elevate the already (relatively) higher calcitriol levels, which inflame an already poor situation further, unlike in their healthy counterparts, aggravating the (often unidentified) disease process ! These are said to be or include Th1 inflammation causing conditions. This knowledge is POWER ( - I dare say !) for those so affected !

I remain unsure whether Prof Vieth even adequately ( -or at all) acknowledges the existence of this sub-group, the size of which, I fear may be increasing, year by year as the number of people with this dysfunction rises ! The level of supplementation Vieth considers as safe would NOT appear to apply to this sub-group, for which one body of opinion recommends reducing calcidiol, or 25(OH)D levels . . . . . and hence ANY supplementation would be seen as counter-indicated ! A HIGH vitamin D level, as assessed by the standard calcidiol [ - or 25(OH)D] blood test, for this SUB-GROUP would, it seems to be at levels considered low ( - either as inadequate or insufficient) for those in the portion of the population not so affected.

[As clear as . . . . . . . mud ? ? ? It is, it seems for most of the UK medical profession, sadly at present ! ! !].

Just ONE more viewpoint of this complex endo-immunological bio-landscape to consider !

Warm regards to all, on a sunny cold autumn afternoon,

Epictetus x

Sat 7 Nov 2015

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "

Last edited by

8 Replies

oldestnewest
  • Sorry - Page not found :-)

    Also 2006 was a long time ago - in terms of research that is !

  • I think this link works - hopefully it goes to a page from which you can download the paper!

    gov.uk/government/publicati...

  • Thanks Rod - too much to read tonight !

  • Thanks Marz & Rod - have now edited the corrupted link in the original !

  • Hi Marz,

    ( - somewhat of a belated response, I know but . . . . ) that's the point . . . . . as LONG ago as 2006 ( - and much earlier, probably !) there are credible views on "you can have 'too much' of a 'good thing' " !

    However, I'm not aware that Vieth recognises the group of the population for whom even raising (nominally or superficially) "low" or deficient calcidiol levels COULD be ( - & has empirically found to be) harmful . . . . . . in the longer term, . . . . . . if not quite soon after starting supplementation. Having now personally experience this effect . . . . . . . I know it to be real !

    So, whatever range Vieth was recommending for in 2006 and subsequently, that as far as I know did/does not take into account those with the "vit D dysfunction". Will be pleased to be correct on this, as appropriate ! ;~))x

    Have a lovely day in Crete !

  • I think what I meant was that - there has been so much more recent research done on VitD - which does not seem to mention a downside - ONLY benefits....so perhaps that is how it is - just good stuff.

    I have written to Grassrootshealth.net and they replied. I asked about the TH1 and TH2 situation. Said it wasn't a problem :-)

    grassrootshealth.net

    Why not drop them a line and see what they say......

  • Ahhh thanks Marz . . . . . if we all keep plugging away, . . . . . . a bit at a time . . . . . the situation will improve . . . . . . its bound to !

    Have interestingly found another important contact for south UK on the above link:

    Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, United Kingdom

    Benjamin Jacobs, M.D. His details are at:

    rnoh.nhs.uk/health-professi... may be worth seeing it he knows anything about the intriguing "vit D dysfunction" ! ! !

    However, sadly ( - it may be said ?) he too is dealing with the "classical" effects of "vit D" to do with bones in the main (I'd tentatively assume, initially) . . . . . rather than the immunological and other issues . . . . . . which are of great importance too, it seems.

    Have also deduced their list of specialists is somewhat out of date . . . . . . as Martin Hewison, formerly at Birmingham ( - still on their list on left !) is no longer there . . . . . to my disappointed ! [Understandably, perhaps . . . . . considering the weather, let alone the "girls" he's left for California over a year ago ! ! ! Seem to recall a song about the latter, but not one about the climate . . . . or the probability of earthquakes !]

    Any chance of seeing your enquiry and Grassroot's response to it . . . . . either on a new thread ( - may be helpful/of interest to others, too ?) . . . . . . or alternatively on a PM, . . . . . as you wish ! I don't know what they mean re. Th1/Th2 by "its not a problem". Do they not understand they is a body of opinion suggesting it is ONE significant diagnostic criteria ( - perhaps not ?).

    Take care, Marz !

  • . . . . and also on the left margin of your link, Marz in the column Panel International Scientists is:

    Inova Comprehensive Cancer

    Donald L. Trump, M.D.

    - hmmmm, surprising . . . . would have thought he was rather busy with this Presidential campaign ( - as if he'll win ? ? ?) ! ! ! Fact, . . . . . stranger than fiction ? ;~)z

You may also like...