The Mystery of Vitamin D3 Sulfate

When I first heard about vitamin D3 sulfate from the work of Stephanie Seneff,  I was not sure what to think of her proposals.  Vitamin D3 sulfate does the real work in our biological systems to fight off chronic disease.  However, from a strictly chemical biological basis, it did seem to make sense.  The distinction between vitamin D2 and D3 is extremely important and the distinction between vitamin D2 and D3 sulfate is even more important she writes.

Consider this abstract from the 1980 paper: “Synthesis and Biological Activity of Vitamin D3-Sulfate” (pdf)  by Reeve, DeLuca, and Schones  – University of Wisconsin.

Vitamin D­3-3Bsulfate has been synthesized using pyridine sulfur trioxide as the sulfate donor.  It has been shown to be pure by high performance liquid chromatography and spectral methods. Unlike previous reports, the product has been identified unambiguously as the 3B-sulfate ester of vitamin D3 by its ultraviolet, nuclear magnetic resonance, infrared, and mass spectra.  The biological activity of vitamin D3-sulfate was then determined in vitamin D-deficient rats. Vitamin D3-sulfate has less than 5% of the activity of vitamin D3 to mobilize calcium from bone and approximately 1% of the ability of vitamin D3 to stimulate calcium transport, elevate serum phosphorus, or support bone calcification.  These results disprove previous claims that vitamin D3-sulfate has potent biological activity, and they further do not support the contention that vitamin D-sulfate represents a potent water-soluble form of vitamin D in milk.

Here you have the world renowned research of DeLuca at the University of Wisconsin, the bastion of vitamin D research, saying that vitamin D3 sulfate is not potent biologically.  This is in direct opposition to what is stated by Stephanie Seneff.  I believe that Seneff is correct and in this case DeLuca is just wrong.  He is wrong because of his assumption vitamin D3 sulfate does not move calcium around that it is not biological active.  After all, isn’t this the thing we are after to fight chronic disease? – A form of active vitamin D that does not spike serum calcium.

What has happened?  At one point DeLuca stated that the University of Wisconsin had not published beneficial results for vitamin D so that others would not beat them in the race to develop marketable vitamin D analogs.  Is that what is going on?  Or is this just scientific ineptness?  Could vitamin D3 sulfate be the natural molecule that fights heart disease through building muscle strength, fights off kidney disease, allows the immune system activity in fighting cancer to not be stopped by enzymatic action, stimulates the beta cells in the pancreas to fight type I and II diabetes, and fights brain disease by breaking up amyloid plaques – all of this without disturbing the delicate balance of serum calcium?

Only when the research institutions have the best interest of the tax payers and other contributors of funding in mind instead of maintaining a highly profitable institution will research breakthroughs occur to allow leaps in medical technology.  Until this is resolved, the best thing that you can do for your health is to be sure that your body is getting enough of the proper nutrients so that chronic disease does not find a home in your biological systems.  – Pandemic Survivor


7 thoughts on “The Mystery of Vitamin D3 Sulfate

  1. Hi
    Thx much for the article.

    Apart from sunlight, what other options do we have for sulfate synthesis?

    Also, will taking a sulphate, like ferrous or copper sulphate along with d3 help in synthesis??

  2. Pingback: Cancer in a new Light - WeeksMD

  3. Stephanie is correct. A positive charged D3 Sulfate does a lost more than we know. A small charge of B Ray activated the D. There is four part – d -3-sulphate -+.. the body has to find all four to work. Some people have a hard time to get D let alone produce a D3 and then light may be reduced so they don’t have it activcated.
    +D3 with K2 plus chosterol (plaque) activated calcium

  4. Nobody should sunbathe, unless their body is covered from snout to tail with thick fur. Sunbathing is unnatural for the naked ape as lying on a subbed. Our ancestors were working when they went out in the sun, gathering, foraging, scavenging (hunting replaced scavenging much later). When you’re outdoors you should be working your muscles, building up a sweat, getting oily and greasy. And you should be in your natural state, unclad or skyclad. Don’t want to live as our species has evolved over millions of years to live? Then don’t. Be a slave to modernity, live your live in thrall to others, be miserable and die unhappy. Choose. We all have a choice, however much we try to make excuses.

    • Consider that there is a lull of waking hormone in the middle of the day, coinciding with the time at which there is maximal UV-B penetration, and the day is warmest. All of this urges a hunter-gatherer to take a rest. I would argue that sunbathing may have been the natural activity in the middle of the day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s