Author Archives: Mark Pegram

Baby – Vitamin D!

Posted on by
Reply

In last post, I berated the researchers for only using 400 IU of vitamin D as an amount to study.  My reasoning was your body can make this amount in only a couple of minutes in the midday summer sun.  However, the reason this amount has been used; it is the amount required for a baby to not get rickets.  Think about a ten pound baby needing 400 IU or about 40 IU per pound of  body weight per day.  Since vitamin D is used throughout the body then the more your body weight the more you need.  Ratio of body weight to the amount required should be carried out as the baby increases with weight.

I just rechecked the amount suggested by the governments NIH dietary fact sheet.   This states that an infant 0-1 year old should get 400 IU per day for health.  It then says that a lactating mother needs only 600 IU per day.  So I guess they think that the mother can pass on 400 IU per day if she gets 600 IU?  The idiots!  Where is Dr. House when you need him?  If we follow the rule of thumb, then a one hundred twenty five pound mother should be getting – 125 lb x 40 IU = 5000 IU per day of D3.  At this level the mother may be able to pass along close to the requirement of the baby at 400 IU per day.  Actually Dr. Bruce Hollis actually states that a lactating mother should be getting at least 6400 IU to assure that the baby gets the required 400 IU.

The NIH guidelines are made up out of the minds of the IOM Food and Nutrition Board.  The tolerable upper limits for a baby is 1000 IU per day until six months and for the next six months the upper limit is 1500 IU per day.  If we follow our rule of thumb, then the tolerable upper limit for a lactating mother would then be 12500 IU per day. This seems right to me.  However, the guidelines state that the tolerable upper limit is 4000IU per day.  This number is used for anyone over nine years old.  It is like the government thinks when we hit nine, our body does not use anymore vitamin D with increased size – WOW!  I think the researcher’s brains just stopped growing when they reached nine.

My daughter consistently took 7500 IU of D3 per day during lactation.  She took five thousand IU’s one day and the next she would take 10,000 IU.  The baby thrived.  When she weaned the baby, she did not check to be sure the baby was getting vitamin D.  The baby started to have colds.  After two trips to the doctor, I convinced her to give the child supplements to assure the baby was getting between 400 to 1000 IU per day.  When that happened the child got well and once again thrived.  To accomplish this, she used vitamin D drops and put it in whatever liquid the child was consuming.

Always be sure that your baby is getting at least 400 IU per day throughout the first year of life.  Or better, be sure the baby gets at least 40 IU per pound of body weight per day throughout its life.  – pandemic survivor

How Much Vitamin D during Pregnancy

Posted on by
1

The proper question to ask is not how much vitamin D during pregnancy, but what is the proper serum level of vitamin D during pregnancy.  The reason for this is that every woman responds differently with serum level versus the amount of vitamin D they are getting from all sources.  This has to do with the response of the body to various life processes that are ongoing.

Dr. Hollis in one study on pregnancy and vitamin D reported that a woman taking 6400 IU of D3 per day had a measured serum level of vitamin D of 20 ng/ml instead of the expected result;  more than 50 ng/ml.  The woman came down with the flu the next day.  Whether it is a highly active need for vitamin D or a more long term need the body uses vitamin D at different rates.  The only way to tell for sure is to have your serum level tested.  The work of Dr. Hollis and Carol Wagner at MUSC has shown that in general pregnant women need around 4000 IU D3 per day to have a healthy baby and reduced complications.

What is the proper serum level?  This has become the sticky issue.  The IOM says that a level of 20 ng/ml is enough for 25(OH)D or the storage from of vitamin D in the body.  The Society of Endocrinology has stated that everyone should have a minimum of 30 ng/ml.  Grassroots Health has stated that the best level should be between 40 to 60 ng/ml.   Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council says that the level should be above 60 ng/ml to get the best health effects.  Are you confused yet?

The long established normal range for serum vitamin D, 25(OH)D, has long been used as 20 to 100 ng/ml.  This is what is expected from the general population.  People in a sunny country typically have a value in the range of 54 to 90 ng/ml (Grant and Holick).  I suspect that the best that you can do for your body and maintain health is to be as if you lived in a sunny country.  The studies that used only 400 IU of vitamin D and those that recommend this amount as adequate are well, quite frankly in the words of Dr. House –TV character, idiots.  The value of 400 IU D3 only represents about two minutes in the sun and most likely will not affect your health one way or another.  It disturbs me that we have spent huge amounts of money to study this amount of intake – we have been played by the researchers just so they have research money from the government.

Henry Lahore who has spent a great deal of time trying to put the facts together about vitamin D, has develop this web page specifically for mom’s and baby’s needs.  This is really a great resource – thanks Henry!  Overview Moms babies and vitamin D = Vitamin D: Before, During, and After Pregnancy    Also the home page index so that you may explore other vitamin D specifics – VitamindWiki Home Page  or www.vitamindwiki.com

Hormonal balance is the key to a happy pregnancy.  Adequate vitamin D3 is the key to this balance.  I love to be around women that are pregnant with a proper hormonal balance because they are so happy and full of love – the primary ingredient needed for health –  pandemic survivor

Vitamin D Safety in Pregnancy

Posted on by
1

The act of allowing a fetus to develop in the womb is wonderful and a blessing to and by humanity.  To the give the baby the best start in the world I suspect love is the most important ingredient.  However, giving the baby enough of the correct nutrients is also critical.  I have several friends that are pregnant and are concerned about whether the mother is getting enough of the correct nutrients.  So let’s look at the several things that modern medicine is ignoring that could have significant impact on a developing fetus and the mother and the safety.

It seems that modern medicine struggles with the two most important nutrients – vitamin D and iodine.  Vitamin A, vitamin B, vitamin D, and iodine work in a synergistic manager to allow the total expression of the genetic map.  The World Health Organization says that iodine deficiency is now accepted as the most common cause of preventable brain damage in the world.  I suspect most cases of postpartum depression are iodine deficiency because the baby took all that the mother had.  It is not just this nutrient or that nutrient; it is the combination of all nutrients working together.  Some day medicine will discover that using analysis of the variants is flawed and allows for too much misadventure.  The change to analysis of the means will give a much better picture of the influence of a substance and more importantly the interactions.

My daughter took an average of 7500 IU of D3 per day and had a wonderful experience as I described in this post: Pregnancy and Lactating Mothers.  The only misfortunate thing that happened was she had to change doctors because of incompetence of the doctor.

The best start to this exploration is to listen to Carole Baggerly of Grassroots Health interview Dr. Carol Wagner.  They discuss a recent study on the safety of vitamin D and pregnancy.  The study used 4000 IU per day of vitamin D3 as this is an amount that the IOM says is safe to use for supplementation without discussing it with your doctor.  D*Facts Pregnancy is really interesting as the women are giddy with the results showing reduction in complications.  I share their excitement.  Here is the video –D*Facts Pregnancy.

An act of love results as a blessing – pandemic survivor.

Venus Williams Poor Understanding of Nutrition Leads to Sjogren’s

Posted on by
6

I love tennis.  It is my sport of choice when I am not playing golf.  This year I have had an exciting time watching John Isner rising to the top of the tennis ranks.  What an athlete! – have you seen him shoot a basketball?  I love Isnerball – a unique approach to tennis that can only be used by a six foot ten inch athlete with an exceptional serve.  Now I am sad that another of my favorites, Venus Williams, has had to retire from the US Open because of Sjogren’s (pronounced sow-grins) syndrome.

The physical nature of tennis is extreme.  Nutritional conditioning of the tennis professional is of prime importance, especially those things that affect the energy systems as vitamin D, magnesium, and iodine.  The reason that I list these as primary is the vitamin D is not fully accepted by medical practice and the magnesium and iodine are difficult to measure and thus not used as markers for poor nutrition.

So how can I make this claim about Venus and her diagnosis of Sjogren’s syndrome?  It has been well established by research that the majority of autoimmune diseases are a reflection of the lack of the body’s primary weapon for immunity – vitamin D3.  Here is a paper that was published in 1990 from research in Denmark: “Abnormal Vitamin D metabolism in patients with Sjogren’s syndrome” -K Muller .  The really good thing about this study was that the levels of 25(OH)D3 and 25(OH)D2 were both measured.  Discovered was the patients with the autoimmune disease had a significantly lower level of 25(OH)D3.  In fact, 25(OH)D3 could not even be measured in nine of the patients.  At the end of the discussion the author’s make this statement – “It is unclear whether the changed vitamin D3 metabolism is related to the immunopathology of this disease or is merely an epiphenomenon.”  Based on research in the twenty one years since this publication, it is clear that low vitamin D3 levels are the culprit.

How could a person who spends a significant amount of time in the sun be vitamin D deficient?  Dark skin tone and the use of sunscreen?  This is the issue and the IOM would say that she is not if her level of the storage form is 20 ng/ml or more.  Venus is just one of millions that are now in their twenties and thirties that are showing chronic disease from the fear of the sun touted for the last fifty years.  We now know that for health and great sport performance that 25(OH) D3 needs to be above 60 ng/ml.  I sincerely hope that Venus connects with a professional medical person like Dr. John Cannell, Vitamin D Council, and develops an understanding of the nutrition that she needs to come back to the sport.  I believe Dr. Cannell has an up and coming book on vitamin D sports nutrition.  If Venus does this, then we can expect to see her at the Australian Open in January.

If she gives in to the normal line of treatment, then who knows what the results will be.  The first course of action is a drug that is used to treat malaria, hydroxychloroquine.  I find this just sad because of the side effects.  Venus, take some vitamin D3 and drink some quinine or tonic water, supplement with magnesium and iodine and get back on the courts.

John Isner, if you are reading this then get your vitamin D level tested.  I look forward to you winning a couple of majors real soon.  I love Isnerball! – pandemic survivor.

Heart Arrhythmias, Mg and Ca in Balance!

Posted on by
4

Vitamin D3 is extremely important in the maintenance of a healthy heart.  Also of importance are magnesium and its extreme importance in maintaining the ‘electrical balance’ in the heart.  I know of two women that had years of heart arrhythmias and were on medications without success of solving the issue.  Both of these women within a day of supplementing with magnesium discovered that the arrhythmia was gone.  Two different cardiologists in two different cities were simply applying the knowledge that they had without success.

It is not like this is new information and that it is not published in the medical science.  This evidence was published in 1978:

Relationship between death-rates from coronary heart disease and the average dietary calcium/magnesium ratio in several countries

Karpmannen, H., Pennanen, R. and Passinen, L. 1978. Adv. Cardiol. 25: 9-24

You may read the full paper at Magnesium Online Library and many other papers: http://www.mgwater.com/minerals.shtml

As you can see from the graph, the closer that magnesium and calcium intake are balanced, the lower the rate of death from cardiovascular heart disease.  I am not sure why there is such a resistance to following the science in treating heart patients.  I suspect that one of the very real issues is that there is no mainstream test to measure cellular magnesium.  If you are deplete in magnesium, it can take six months to a year to raise the cellular level to a desired value with regular supplementation.  However, to my knowledge there is no test to tell if you are replete at the cellular level.  The importance of the cells being filled with their need for magnesium is that magnesium is the mineral of choice of the one thousand to two thousand mitochondrial bodies in each cell.  The mitochondrial bodies are your energy engines that take the food you eat and convert it into energy that your body can use.  That is the ADP –ATP cycle for those of you with knowledge of biology.

More importantly is the balance of magnesium and calcium.  The body uses over twenty five percent of the energy produced to keep magnesium and calcium on the correct sides of cellular membranes for health.  If you do not have enough magnesium, then the mitochondria cannot provide the energy you need.  I suspect that most if not all sudden heart events are triggered by a need of magnesium at the cellular level.  This may include sudden infant death syndrome.  Since there is not a standard test for cellular magnesium, it most likely will not even be found during autopsy.  If you have had a pace maker installed, be sure to ask your cardiologist about magnesium.  I have nagged my wife repeatedly, a clinical chemist, to develop this test.  I am sure that if it was easy she would have.

We typically get enough calcium in our diets.  We do not have enough magnesium in our diets.  As you can see from the graph, it is obvious that in Japan there is adequate magnesium and thus the lower rate of death from heart disease.  Also the need for healthy bones is to have enough magnesium, vitamin D3, and vitamin K2 to direct the calcium to proper function.  One cardiologist that has it right is Dr. William Davis that writes the popular Track Your Plaque Blog.   You may read an article on magnesium from his blog here: http://www.trackyourplaque.com/blog/2010/02/magnesium-and-arrhythmia.html  His inquirer had a similar experience with heart arrhythmias as the people I know.  I hope that he writes more soon on how much magnesium is needed.

Until modern medicine comes up with a way to test for cellular magnesium, then you are on your own to assure your intake level is high enough.  I think Krispin, a nutritionist, has it correct.  Read her take on magnesium requirements and why: http://www.krispin.com/magnes.html  The really good thing about magnesium is that it takes about three time more than you need to reach bowel tolerance.  Magnesium is an excellent laxative. The upper side of intake is 4.5 mg of magnesium per pound of body weight per day.

It is difficult for me to believe that Japan has a death rate from heart disease that is 5 times lower than the US and the medical profession acts like it is clueless.  Arrhythmias, muscle cramps, and hard stool, you need to act quickly – pandemic survivor.

Happy on the Islets of Langerhans

Posted on by
Reply

The recent news about how beneficial that vitamin D is to the pancreas reminded me of my friend Gus.  Gus is of Greek decent, a retired stone mason, and well, a real character.  Gus loves the Lord.  Now that he is retired, his hobby is making rounds with a doctor that specializes in pulmonary functions.  As the doctor treats the patient medically, Gus prays for their recovery.  Now there is a doctor that understands that life is not just a bunch of chemicals contained in an epidermis.

Gus has learned what it means to be living ‘fat’ in America.  His love of pasta, biscuits, and pancakes has caused him to become slightly overweight and headed directly to type II diabetes.  He was telling me about how he was researching which drug he should take to control his blood sugar.  He was not happy about all of the side effects.

I suggested that he work with his doctor to try to heal his pancreas before diving into the world of drugs.  He decided to maintain his serum 25(OH)D between 60 to 80 ng/ml (this took 15,000 IU of D3 per day in Gus’ case as he is a big guy), take in at least 3 to 4.5 mg per pound of body weight of magnesium as a chelated type each day and lay of the dense carbs.  Staying of the carbs was the real issue.  I at least convinced him to give up the biscuits and pancakes, but the pasta is another story.  Gus loves his pasta.

In a few months Gus was elated as his blood sugar had returned to normal without having to take any drugs.  His doctor was amazed as well as I discovered that Gus’ sugar had been very high.  What can I say, Gus is one happy guy.

There on the Islet of Langerhans, beta cells are dancing happily around in the sunshine and it’s a good day.  – Pandemic Survivor

Fall in Cancer Rates Will Baffle NCI

Posted on by
5

As more people start to supplement with vitamin D, the cancer rates will fall drastically.  This will leave the National Cancer Institute without an explanation.  Their position that vitamin D has no significant effect on cancer will confirm that NCI is not an institute of government to promote strategies that reduce cancer, but an institution to maintain the large cancer industry.  How can I make this claim – let’s explore.

NCI’s lack of understanding is plainly shown in their table of items that they consider to significantly increase the incidence of cancer: Trends at glance from NCI.   Of course the things that they consider to be the most significant are tobacco, red meat, fat consumption, obesity, and exposure to the sun.  Following the table you also notice that their claims of diagnosis and treatment are significant in their estimation of what is important for survival from cancer and the reduction of incidence.

The reduction in all cancer mortality has dropped from 215 per 100,000 in 1991 to 178 in 2007.    The drop can be contributed primarily to the reduction in the use of tobacco and the decrease in lung cancer.  Further down the page you can see from the graph that most of the reduction has occurred from the reduction in lung cancer death in males.

Treatment to give us significant reduction in death from cancer has not been effective.  The only exception to this is the treatment of stomach ulcers with antibiotics and bismuth.  This treatment has cause death from stomach cancer to plunge by seventy percent.  Not because we are better at treating cancer, but more effective by medically preventing cancer.  The incidence of cancer has increase from 396 per 100,000 in 1975 to a peak in 1992 of 510 to the 2007 incidence 473.   Again, the rate of death has not dropped from treatment but from decreased incidence for various reasons.  The significance of the 1970’s was when we declared a war on cancer with the National Cancer Act of 1971 that was signed into law by Richard Nixon.  This act gave NCI significantly broaden powers “in order to carry out the national effort against cancer.” 

Exposure to the sun is a real interesting case of how far off NCI’s understanding of what causes cancer.  Supposedly the reduction of exposure to the sun and the use of sun screens will reduce the rate of melanoma.  In the last fifty years the fear of the sun with the constant reminders of doctors, in particular dermatologists, the melanoma rate has grown from 8 per 100,000 in 1975 to 22 in 2006.  What is more interesting is the database of cancer rates that has been kept by the state of Connecticut. From Ed Gorham’s 2008 presentation of Skin Cancer/Sunscreen – The Dilemma, slide 47, we see that as sun reduction and sunscreen use has increased the rate of melanoma has increased.   If you or someone you know has melanoma, it would be to your advantage to watch this presentation through Grass RootsHealth and UCSD public tv. Video presentation: Skin Cancer/Sunscreen the Dilemma

With several studies already in showing a reduction of cancer greater than seventy percent with marginal use of vitamin D3, the reduction of the incidence of cancer will be significant as the population becomes more aware.  Not only will cancer be prevented by the use of vitamin D, but treatment of cancer will improve significantly as blood serum for vitamin D is taken to the level of life guards in the summertime. The National Cancer Institute will make all kinds of claims until it has become obvious the blunder that they have made since the early ‘70’s.

You know what is really interesting is the understanding of the tobacco industry and vitamin D.  I suspect the tobacco industry would never have been attacked if they had known the significance of vitamin D and cancer.  The NCI claims there have only been epidemiological studies done for vitamin D3.  This is also true for all the claims that have been made against tobacco.  Why the aggression against tobacco and no proclamations about vitamin D.  One causes cancer and the other prevents and maybe helps to heal it – follow the money!  (A high serum level of vitamin D is no excuse to keep using tobacco.  Any addictive substance is not a good thing.)

So can we make a prediction about the rate of incidence of cancer?  If the numbers follow the studies about vitamin D and cancer, then as the population gets an average serum level above 40 ng/ml, we can expect the cancer incidence to drop by greater than seventy percent from all causes.  Seven out of ten people that you know have cancer would not have had that result.  What happens to the medical economy if that occurs?  After all, it is not only cancer that vitamin D3 impacts, it is heart disease and diabetes as well, the other two large killers.  I am sure this scares the leaders at NCI, HHS, and the medical industry as if they were facing a mountain base-jump with no parachute.

Keep your serum level of vitamin D3 high if you have concerns about cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.  Go into the sun, but do not get sun burned.  – Pandemic Survivor

Increased Vitamin D Reduces Heart Disease

Posted on by
Reply

So you have been feeling low in energy and have issues with your heart and your doctor wants to put you on statin drugs to help keep your cholesterol low and low dose aspirin.  Maybe you just need a good dose of sunshine.  But how much sunshine do you need or perhaps a better way to ask the question is how much vitamin D do you need?  A newly published report states that just 600 IU of vitamin D per day had a significant impact on reducing heart disease.  So if 30 minutes in the mid day summer sun with sixty percent of your skin surface exposed allows your body to produce 15,000 IU, to get to 600 IU would only take 1.2 minutes or 72 seconds.  Here is the report:  Heart risk lower in men who get enough vitamin D :   Reuters June, 2011 or from a couple of years ago: Low vitamin D level linked to heart disease  US News November, 2009

Now if this were a patentable drug, there would be extreme headlines and multiple commercials on tv every hour touting what a wonderful drug had been discovered.  So what the medical folks are telling us is if we spend less than two minutes in the midday sun we will reduce heart disease.  So how much time do we need to spend in the summer sun to eliminate heart disease?  It seems that if we keep our vitamin D3 25(OH)D level above 70 ng/ml there is significant increase in our general level of health.  So what does 70 ng/ml represent as far as sun exposure?  This is the average of people that live in a sunny country.

So what are the cardiologist saying about all of this?  Two examples:

Dr. William Davis, cardiologist in Milwaukee, writes the five most important things to prevent heart disease:  “The five most powerful heart disease prevention strategies”

Dr. Joe Prendergast, an endocrinologist in California, has reported in the past that by treating his patients with vitamin D and L-arginine, the heart disease reduced in his small town to the point that the three physician cardiology practice moved to another location because of lack of business.  Endocrine Metabolic

So just maybe a proper amount of vitamin D, iodine for your thyroid, eliminate wheat, enough omega 3’s, enough L-arginine or other nitric oxide source like niacin, and some fun exercise and you will have a healthy heart.  Where is all the stuff about the drugs and medical procedures that you need?  Find a cardiologist or endocrinologist that understands the science and you are on your way to health.  What about the government agencies that we pay to protect us?  You have to decide that one on your own. – Pandemic Survivor

Bisphosphonate and Vitamin D Interpretation makes me LAUGH

Posted on by
Reply

The article in the LA Times from June 6, 2011:  “Vitamin D levels should be higher in people taking certain osteoporosis drugs, experts say.” 

Experts really have a way sometimes of justifying just being.  I AM AN EXPERT they shout at the top of their lungs when in reality they are no better than the average Joe.  The only thing that makes them an expert is the amount of time that they have spent on a particular subject.  This does not however improve their ability for logic.  This ‘blinders on’ focus can sometimes yield results that they want rather than what is observed.

The logic behind the statement that vitamin D levels need to be higher to allow the drug to work is absurd.  It is not that the drug is working better; it is that vitamin D without the drug is giving you stronger bones at a higher density.  Take our drug with vitamin D they say when all you need is an adequate amount of vitamin D.  Now you know why the IOM FNB on vitamin D and calcium reported such low requirements for vitamin D.  It was about being able to give you drugs.

Last October I reported on the warning about bisphosphonate drugs and how dangerous they are per the FDA warning.  “Bone Fractures Suspected with Anti-osteoporosis Drug”  In that report I show where Veronica Mocanu reported an average of 28 percent increase in bone density when women took 5,000 IU of D3 per day for a year.  Typical of a bisphophonate drug is less than 3 percent increase in bone density per year.  Now which component of the combination is increasing bone density.  It is obviously the vitamin D.  The bisphophonates will just cause you health problems.  I would like to confirm that finding of twenty five plus percent yearly increase in bone density as I have had two different women report to me that is exactly what happened to them.  The good part of this is that their doctor stopped hassling them about taking bisphophonates.

I am always in for a good laugh!  – Pandemic Survivor

Endocrine Society ‘Thumbs Nose’ at IOM for Serum Vitamin D Levels

Posted on by
Reply

Endocrine Society ‘thumbs their nose’ at the IOM in announcing new clinical practice guidelines for vitamin D.  The IOM’s Food and Nutrition Board for vitamin D and calcium announced in November 2010 that the population had adequate vitamin D as long as the level of 25(OH)D was maintained at or above 20 ng/ml.  The new minimum by the Endocrine Society was established at or above 30 ng/ml for bone health.  The IOM made a big deal of the fact that they considered bone health only, but obviously got that wrong.  The Endocrine Society was initiated in 1916 to “to promote sound development and curb abuses” in relation to the new developments being made for the endocrine system.

Press Release:  Endocrine Society Announces New Clinical Practice Guidelines for Vitamin D

Medscape Article: Endocrine Society Issues Practice Guideline on Vitamin D

The Paper in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism:  Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

I am very concerned that the Endocrine Society perpetuated the myth that vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 are acceptable for deficient patients.  This was done obviously to protect themselves from years of saying that D3 and D2 were equivalent in the human body.  This position has been firmly held by Dr. Michael Holick for his work in bone health.  It may be okay when considering bone health at serum levels below 50 ng/ml.  However, when getting the body up to levels of vitamin D found for people in a sunny country or levels necessary to protect against chronic disease like cancer and heart disease, vitamin D2 can begin to cause damage to the body, and this is the confusion in the literature.

The good news is that empathy for the patients being treated has been considered and not just the economic farming for the medical institutions.  This war of words that are played out in press releases and medical journals has now been going on for over eighty years.  We will get to the correct understanding eventually, but how many people have to die to maintain the profits of the medical/medical insurance industry?

For the best results in preventing disease, kept your serum 25(OH)D above 60 ng/ml.  There have been no cases of toxicity with a level below 200 ng/ml or people taking less than 30,000 IU of  D3 per day.    – Pandemic Survivor