VITAMIN D CONFUSION?
I have been a big fan of Dr. John Campbell since the early Covid days. He began as a supporter of the vaccines, the masks, social distancing and most of which has been shown to be incorrect over time.
What I liked about him is that he slowly came to his senses, changed his mind, and talked about it. He was honest. And helpful. And courageous.
Now, this vitamin D article is a bit confusing so I will do my best to simplify.
Both the U.S (600 IU), the U.K.(400 IU) and Canada (600 IU but 800 IU if over 70 years of age) recommend very low amounts of vitamin D daily.
John is reporting in this video on a study done 11 years ago (2014) that shows conclusively that the recommended daily dose is way wrong.
He goes over the numbers and explains why the correct daily dose is 8,895 IU NOT 600 IU (in USA or 400 IU in UK).
That is a MASSIVE difference. A big error almost 15x under for USA, 22x under for the UK. Ooopsy.
This raises certain questions. Do they want people to get sick? Or are they being pressured by the pharmaceutical companies? Why? Because these levels are way too low. Vitamin D is a critical factor in MANY diseases!
A healthy (slim) young, light skinned person, in a bathing suit, on a sunny day in the summer, would make (naturally) about 10,000 IU of vitamin D3 in less than an hour. That tells us that 10,000 IU is safe because nature gives us that much in ideal situations.
However, we do not always live in ideal situations.
If you are old, overweight, dark skinned and live above the 37th degree latitude (north) or below (south) and you cover your entire body with clothes (in the winter)—you will become deficient in vitamin D.
Now, I cannot advise you what amount of vitamin D to take, but I can tell you what I take. I am old, slim, live in a dark and rainy city, so I take between 10,000 – 20,000 IU daily in the winter months.
When my skin (psoriasis) was very bad (affecting about 90% of my body with a combination of plaque and guttate psoriasis) I actually took 40,000 IU vitamin D3 (softgel) plus K2mk7 400 mcg, and eliminated ALL dairy. I did this for six weeks. At the end of that six weeks my skin was completely clear.
That was over 11 years ago.
I now occasionally stop taking D3 for a week or so but because my psoriasis is effectively gone:
-
- I now generally stay between 10,000 to 20,000 IU of D3 softgel
- I now use 200 mcg k2mk7.
- I eliminated dairy initially but I can now have a wee bit of dairy: A little goat yogurt. The odd ice cream cone in the summer. Dairy is dangerous to your psoriasis.
- If you are just starting our protocol you would be wise to eliminate dairy altogether, unless you like having psoriasis.
Get our full freedom from psoriasis protocol here
Anyway, I have no idea why all three of these countries (U.S., U.K., Canada) are recommending levels of D3 that are almost useless (and manufacturers limited by law in potency of Vitamin D sold). What do you think?
[editorial edits by Michael]
VIDEO POST NOTES FROM HIS CHANNEL
3.28M subscribers
A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D (2014) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4210929/ US, nearly 15 times too low UK, 0ver 22 times too low IOM calculation 600 units (15 mcg), 97.5% of people will achieve 63 nmol/L (25.2 ng/ml) Correct calculation 600 units (15 mcg), 97.5% of people will achieve 26.8 nmol/L (10.7 ng/ml)
Requirements based on correct calculation 8,895 IU of vitamin D per day may be needed to accomplish that 97.5% of individuals achieve serum 25(OH)D values of 50 nmol/L or more.
The “Average” vs. “Individual”
Mistake Canada studies Diet gives 232 IU of vitamin D per day Institute of Medicine (IOM), RDA vitamin D 600 IU per day, (aged 1 to 70 years) Now called the National Academy of Medicine https://nam.edu UK is even worse https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/ UK, 400 iu or 10 mcg 600 iu per day to achieve serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels of 50 nmol/L or more in 97.5% of healthy individuals. Levels of 50 nmol/L or more have been shown to benefit bone health and to prevent disease and injury. The IOM based their RDA for vitamin D on an aggregation of 10 supplementation studies, (32 dose protocols) carried out during winter months, at locations above 50th parallel IOM regressed the 32 study averages, dose: plasma ratio On the basis of this, IOM estimated that 600 IU of vitamin D would achieve an average 25(OH)D level of 63 nmol/L Requirements based on correct calculation 8,895 IU of vitamin D per day This dose is well in excess of the current RDA of 600 IU per day and the tolerable upper intake of 4000 IU per day.
The public health and clinical implications of the miscalculated RDA for vitamin D are serious. With the current recommendation of 600 IU, bone health objectives and disease and injury prevention targets will not be met.
We recommend that the RDA for vitamin D be reconsidered to allow for appropriate public health and clinical decision-making. The Big Vitamin D Mistake https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5541280/
Explanation of the statistical error The “Average” vs. “Individual” Mistake
The Institute of Medicine’s goal was to find a vitamin D dose that ensures 97.5% of individual people reach a healthy blood level (50 nmol/L). The statistical error occurred because the IOM analysed the averages of different studies rather than the data of individual participants. They looked at 10 studies and took the average blood levels achieved in those studies. They calculated a statistical range (Confidence Interval) based on those averages. They found that with 600 IU, 97.5% of the study averages would hit the target.
The Problem
There is much less variation between “averages” than there is between “individuals.” By using the averages, the IOM accidentally “smoothed out” the data. They assumed that if the average person in a study was fine, then almost everyone was fine.
The Classroom Analogy
Imagine you want to ensure every student passes a test. The IOM method They looked at the average scores of 30 different classrooms. They set a curriculum so that 97.5% of classrooms would have a passing average. The Reality Even in a classroom with a passing average, there are students who fail. The Correction To ensure 97.5% of students pass, you have to look at the lowest-performing students, not the class average.
The Consequence
When the authors of this paper re-calculated the numbers using the variation of individuals (rather than study averages), they found that the current RDA of 600 IU does not cover 97.5% of the population. Instead, it only ensures that 97.5% of people reach a blood level of 26.8 nmol/L (far below the target of 50 nmol/L). To actually get 97.5% of the population to the healthy target of 50 nmol/L, the math suggests you would need a dose of 8,895 IU per day.
