Too Many Vitamins is A Bad Thing?

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Not in third world countries, and even in ours, I've read reports that the junk food we've been allowing our kids to eat are actually showing statistical evidence that there lifespans will be shorter than my parents generations. But we take alot of vitamins and more and more people eat fruits and salads. And we consciously manifest or co-create this reality, which is why I added the affirmation. On the one hand we need to know what they've done, on the other hand some of the asleep states people have is good for them, because they still see the world and lives more positive.

And the true effects of the depleted uranium have barely begun to surface, they're going to take years to mutate the species.



[edit on 24-1-2010 by Unity_99]

The latest data shows the same, steady increase in lifespan in most nations. The proposed reason third world countries aren't experiencing the same rate of increase is that they don't have access to modern medicine and rely on homeopathic or cultural medicine (or no medicine at all, in some cases).

Please show me the data indicating no increase or a decrease in American lifespans.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Question: Who funded the studies on the Vitamin C done? Was it Baxter? Eli Lilly? Glaxo-Klein? Was it independent research not funded by a pharmaceutical company? I have a hard time believing that the research coming out of these places is unbiased.

The articles I wrote for Naturalnews were with regard to teflon and PFOA, organic restaurants, and a chemical company that was adding things to food under the "food additives" label. I have no interest in selling information. I was simply a scouring the internet and literature for information regarding these issues and took provable facts and presented them. If bias is your reasoning for not listening to that website, I suggest you don't read anything paid for by the pharmaceutical companies either...because they aren't biased at all...right?

As much as I would love to link you to the JAMA to show the stats on people dying from adverse reactions to drugs under normal use, apparently there is a fee to look at the records. Is it not feasible to think that had these patients been drinking freshly juiced vegetables and fruits...and taught proper nutrition...that they may have a lower incidence of disease altogether?

I posted the information regarding deaths from vitamin over dose because it is a comparison to pharmaceuticals. What if we gave hospitalized patients vitamins along with their meds? Maybe feed them fresh organic fruits and veggies instead of jell-o and rolls? Let's INTEGRATE naturopathic medicine along with "modern" medicine and have them work hand in hand. So few doctors know anything about nutrition. They want to shove pills down people's throats and cover up symptoms instead of getting to the root cause of the disease. Why in the world can't we do both?

If the Japanese walk everywhere they go...then my guess would be they get plenty of Vitamin D from sun exposure. Their diet is varied and diverse with fruits and vegetables. Their increased intake of the fruits and veggies may provide an anti toxin effect and help to protect them from the mercury in the sea food. Again...they eat wild caught. While not perfect and certainly still higher mercury levels than would make me happy, that is preferable to the farm raised which seems to be the norm rather than the exception here in the U.S.

The rate of cancer in Japan is much lower than in the U.S....until you transplant someone from Japan to the U.S. Then they begin to eat the processed foods and nutrient deficient food that is sold here, and their risk and rate of disease sky rockets. So is it their diet? Is it their exercise habits? Maybe it's both. But us bloated, sick, diseased American's should sit up and take notice.

I am not speaking from total conjecture or from reading alone. I live this. We eat as organically as possible. We take supplements in our home. We drink freshly juiced fruits and vegetables. My children have not needed a doctor in years. They have never had an ear infection. They rarely get sick.
The only doctor I have needed in 7 years other than an ER doctor for x-rays after an accident was an OB. I have gotten my husband through swine flu, prostate infection, gallbladder attack, etc all by natural means.

As I said, you do what you wish. I could post a hundred references to show the studies regarding the effectiveness of vitamins. And you could post a hundred showing me the opposite.

I think there is a happy medium between the two. Modern medicine has been a massive failure in some aspects. They are great a putting people back together and sometimes their intervention is warranted. If people were taught proper nutrition however, I feel that the instance of cancer, diabetes, flu, etc would be dramatically reduced and ultimately quite a few doctors that throw pills at every symptom, would go out of business.

Originally posted by jenmckin
People have been scared to death to spend time in the sun so few people do any more without slathering toxic laden sunscreen on their skin. Chronic Vitamin D deficiencies are a wide spread problem and can cause a host of issues:

I don't take everything under the sun.

Was there any intention of a pun??

But if you feel that taking supplements is unnecessary or is of no use considering the average person's diet, then I suggest that you do more research.

Honestly, as I mentioned earlier, the simple act of consuming an unhealthy diet can render supplementation inert. Hormonal imbalances caused by diet will affect absorption/secretion of vitamins/minerals.

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Ha! No pun intended.

And I totally agree with you about the diet and supplementation.

If you wake up in the morning and have toast with jelly, mac and cheese for lunch, and then go home and have a big steak and baked potato...and then take a multi...there's no way it's going to help you at all. Yeah...you might not get scurvy (LOL), but you certainly aren't helping anything.

Question: Who funded the studies on the Vitamin C done?

The first two studies were conducted by the Mayo Clinic, known worldwide for producing legitimate, unbiased, top-notch medical research. Further studies have been conducted into ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and its role/ability in curing or treating many diseases. A simple PubMed search for ascorbic acid shows the 4000+ studies conducted worldwide with funding come from both private and public sectors.

I have no interest in selling information. I was simply a scouring the internet and literature for information regarding these issues and took provable facts and presented them. If bias is your reasoning for not listening to that website, I suggest you don't read anything paid for by the pharmaceutical companies either...because they aren't biased at all...right?

I don't read anything paid for by pharmaceutical companies. If I find a study that is produced by a lab known to partner with a company, or if the university has a poor history of reporting conflicts of interest, I look for other results to verify what the study demonstrated. Sometimes the results are valid, sometimes they aren't.

If a website is hocking some product or allows uncertified authors to post wildly ridiculous scientific claims, I tend to blacklist that website. Naturalnews is a good example. I skimmed the site, and what I found were internet nutters posting anything they wanted, and the site admins are all too happy to post it because the more pages they have, the more page-views they get and the more ad revenue they generate.

As much as I would love to link you to the JAMA to show the stats on people dying from adverse reactions to drugs under normal use, apparently there is a fee to look at the records. Is it not feasible to think that had these patients been drinking freshly juiced vegetables and fruits...and taught proper nutrition...that they may have a lower incidence of disease altogether?

I have a JAMA subscription and read the study that was mentioned in the article you linked earlier. It specifically states that the patient population used for the "deaths due to drugs" study were those who were hospitalized and listed in critical or intensive care. This would suggest that they have a weakened immune system due to some sort of infection or trauma, making ANY medication dangerous, despite being necessary for survival. It's simply the risk you take in trying to save someone. You can sit back and do nothing, essentially preventing the "death from drugs" statistics from going up (though the "Deaths from disease X" statistic would increase), or you can attempt to medicate them, with the risk that is may harm or kill them given their fragile state.

It's basically a catch-22. When I, or other doctors, do something good, we're hailed as healers. When someone falls into that 1% (or whatever the percentage is for the given treatment, some higher, some lower) that experiences an adverse effect or death, we're derided as poison pushers and villains. It's no different than people thanking god when good things happen, but blaming people when bad things happen. It's silly and immature.

What if we gave hospitalized patients vitamins along with their meds? Maybe feed them fresh organic fruits and veggies instead of jell-o and rolls?

We do that currently. Every hospital meal I've seen comes with choice of fresh fruit (unless they are diabetic or on some other sort of nutritional restriction) and choice of fresh juice. The other items are typically fortified with vitamins, as well.

Let's INTEGRATE naturopathic medicine along with "modern" medicine and have them work hand in hand.

I'm sure we, in the medical community, would be glad to do this once your naturopathic schools agree to a standard of curriculum and quality. Until it's standardized, I don't want you anywhere near my patients.

So few doctors know anything about nutrition. They want to shove pills down people's throats and cover up symptoms instead of getting to the root cause of the disease. Why in the world can't we do both?

So few naturopaths know anything about medicine. They want to shove the latest herbal fad down people's throats. Wow, grossly ignorant generlizations are fun!

If the Japanese walk everywhere they go...then my guess would be they get plenty of Vitamin D from sun exposure. Their diet is varied and diverse with fruits and vegetables. Their increased intake of the fruits and veggies may provide an anti toxin effect and help to protect them from the mercury in the sea food.

I have never heard of fruit or vegetables having any effect on the body's clearance of mercury. Source?
.

The rate of cancer in Japan is much lower than in the U.S....

False. Japan has higher rates of cancer per 100,000 than the United States.
Cancer Rates (Death and Incidence) - Japan

So is it their diet? Is it their exercise habits? Maybe it's both. But us bloated, sick, diseased American's should sit up and take notice.

Most likely their genetics, as the Japanese have a higher rate of cancer than the US white population.

My children have not needed a doctor in years.

I haven't been (other than for physicals and vaccinations) in nearly 6 years, and I don't take supplements. You understand the germ theory, right?

As I said, you do what you wish. I could post a hundred references to show the studies regarding the effectiveness of vitamins. And you could post a hundred showing me the opposite.

The only difference would be that my sources would be from laboratories worldwide, reproducible, and verifiable. Yours would be from a handful of small research groups, and mostly anecdotal in nature.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
However, there is absolutely NO data, NO proof, and NO precedent for vitamin C being "selectively toxic" to cancer, as your first video claims.

Perhaps you should do your research before spouting such nonsense.

Cancer

In 2005 in vitro (test tube) research funded by the National Institutes of Health indicated that vitamin C administered in pharmacological concentrations (i.e. intravenous) was preferentially toxic to several strains of cancer cells. The authors noted: "These findings give plausibility to intravenous ascorbic acid in cancer treatment, and have unexpected implications for treatment of infections where H2O2 may be beneficial."[11] In 2006 the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a case study of three individuals that demonstrated that intravenous vitamin C might subdue advanced-stage cancer, though the authors concede that spontaneous remissions have been known to occur.[24]

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
However, there is absolutely NO data, NO proof, and NO precedent for vitamin C being "selectively toxic" to cancer, as your first video claims.

Perhaps you should do your research before spouting such nonsense.

Cancer

In 2005 in vitro (test tube) research funded by the National Institutes of Health indicated that vitamin C administered in pharmacological concentrations (i.e. intravenous) was preferentially toxic to several strains of cancer cells. The authors noted: "These findings give plausibility to intravenous ascorbic acid in cancer treatment, and have unexpected implications for treatment of infections where H2O2 may be beneficial."[11] In 2006 the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a case study of three individuals that demonstrated that intravenous vitamin C might subdue advanced-stage cancer, though the authors concede that spontaneous remissions have been known to occur.[24]

Please see my further post, explaining that there is a huge difference between in vitro and in vivo. Those claiming that it is selectively toxic were referring to administering the vitamin to actual patients.

Perhaps you should do some more reading before spouting nonsense, as well.

If you took double the recommended allowance for a few weeks, you would begin experiencing symptoms of acute toxiticity.

Who says? Where are you getting that info from?

I think your wrong about this.. by governments own admission, the RDA is only designed to stave off certain diseases that are easily preventable, not to give us a state of health. There are many studies that say our RDA is lots lower than it should be.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
However, there is absolutely NO data, NO proof, and NO precedent for vitamin C being "selectively toxic" to cancer, as your first video claims.

Perhaps you should do your research before spouting such nonsense.

Cancer

In 2005 in vitro (test tube) research funded by the National Institutes of Health indicated that vitamin C administered in pharmacological concentrations (i.e. intravenous) was preferentially toxic to several strains of cancer cells. The authors noted: "These findings give plausibility to intravenous ascorbic acid in cancer treatment, and have unexpected implications for treatment of infections where H2O2 may be beneficial."[11] In 2006 the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a case study of three individuals that demonstrated that intravenous vitamin C might subdue advanced-stage cancer, though the authors concede that spontaneous remissions have been known to occur.[24]

Please see my further post, explaining that there is a huge difference between in vitro and in vivo. Those claiming that it is selectively toxic were referring to administering the vitamin to actual patients.

Perhaps you should do some more reading before spouting nonsense, as well.

Would you like the loan of a dictionary?

One of these studies was on intravenous vitamin C.
A substance delivered intravenously is in vivo, not in vitro.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Did you read the first link that I put up about Linus Pauling?

"The Mayo Clinic tried to refute this research but failed, as they used low, oral doses, making their results invalid. In their own cancer paper, the NIH researchers claimed that Pauling and Cameron's use of the IV route was "serendipitous", implying that Pauling did not know the difference between injected and oral doses. In fact, Pauling had written explicitly about this difference, so the NIH criticism was misplaced."

Odd about the fresh fruit & veggies in the hospitals...maybe it depends on where you live. Every time I've ever been in the hospital having a baby (which is the only reason I've ever been in a hospital), I'm never offered a piece of fresh fruit...maybe in a foil peel back container...certainly not organic. The juice again is in a foil topped container...certainly not fresh & certainly not organic.

Have I said anything about shoving herbs down anyone's throat? Nope. I have talked about nutrition only. Do I think lavender oil helps headaches. Yes. Why? Because I've tried it. Do I think lemon balm/melissa helps cold sores? Yes. Why? Because I've seen it work. I don't recommend any new herbal "fads". But on the flip side, I've never met ONE doctor that didn't try to stick me with a needle or give me a pill, my family a pill, my friends a pill. If I have a kidney/UTI, they want you on antibiotics that caused me massive imbalances...with no regard to probiotics to help regulate the system. The next time, I took D-Mannose powder & was better in 24 hours with no side effects. It wasn't a gross generalization. Do doctors you know ask their patients about their diets BEFORE prescribing something? If you do, you must live in a different part of the country than I do.

Vitamin C has anti toxin properties. Mercury would be considered a toxin would it not?

Archives of Pediatrics NY, Volume 69, Number 4, April, 1952, p 151-155.
William J. McCormick

I'm sorry...Japan has lower rates of CERTAIN TYPES OF CANCER. Like breast cancer...& they eat certain types of fresh vegetables that have natural ability to fight these types of cancer: broccoli, cabbages, kale, cauliflower, radishes....

www.imaginis.com...

Yes, I understand the germ theory.

As opposed to what? That I think that germs are spontaneously generated out of rags in the corner? You don't think that their nutrition and supporting their immune system has helped keep them healthy? They go to the grocery...they come into contact with people that sneeze & cough every day? Yet my kids don't get sick but MAYBE once a year? And that they've never experienced one of the most common childhood ailments, an ear infection? Could their diet not have something to do with it?

You have no idea what references I would post or for a fact that they would be anecdotal in nature. Talk about conjecture. It seems to me that any time a legitimate study is done that is for nutrition & treating the body naturally, some lobby or funding body (including the AMA, CDC, FDA..etc which all have committee members that own stock in pharmaceutical companies) fights madly to discredit the doctor that does the research or work quickly to show that the research was done improperly. I also take my research from all over the world and it's certainly not a handful of sources I would cite.

I know what I've seen with my own eyes. We aren't going to agree. I certainly think that modern medicine has it's place. What I don't agree with is the blanket teachings in medical school & in the medical community regarding Natural medicine. If I had an MD out beside my name, I feel you would be more inclined to take my opinion seriously.

I'm not going to waste the rest of my evening arguing with someone on the internet. People can do their own research and make their own decision.

Really important news to cancer patients. Instead of very toxic chemotherapy, vitamin C in very large doses, 100,000 mg and higher, is safe, causes no damage to the body or healthy cells, and has very good results, given in IV.


Megadoses of Intravenous Vitamin C Cancer Treatment

and


Megadoses of Intravenous Vitamin C Cancer Treatment

No wonder the elite and drug companies hate the health food industry and vitamins.

And then there's vitamin D.


Vitamin D ( What They don't what you to know )

The list is so long of things it protects us from because it regulates cells, systems and organs throughout the body. It works by turning your genes on and off.

note that the sunblock has actually increased cancer because the chemicals in it, block the rays that are beneficial and help prevent cancer, and don't block the dangerous ones!

Vitamin D activates your immune system. Strengthens teeth as well.
60% decrease in cancer. Zaps cancer cells. Take at least 1 gram a day. Experts suggest at least 2000 IU for most kids, 4000 for most adults!! so take more than a gram. And food is the non recommended way because we need large amounts of it, and you can't eat enough food to achieve this.

One thing I am learning to do now, is how to make my own vitamin C using organic fruit. I'm not sure about the D though.

From 3mnoseyella's channel info on the video

Dr. John Cannell on vitamin D
Vitamin D prevents osteoporosis, depression, prostate cancer, breast cancer, and even effects diabetes and obesity. Vitamin D is perhaps the single most underrated nutrient in the world of nutrition. That's probably because it's free: your body makes it when sunlight touches your skin. Drug companies can't sell you sunlight, so there's no promotion of its health benefits. Truth is, most people don't know the real story on vitamin D and health.
Vitamin D is produced by your skin in response to exposure to ultraviolet radiation from natural sunlight.
The healing rays of natural sunlight (that generate vitamin D in your skin) cannot penetrate glass. So you don't generate vitamin D when sitting in your car or home.
It is nearly impossible to get adequate amounts of vitamin D from your diet. Sunlight exposure is the only reliable way to generate vitamin D in your own body.
A person would have to drink ten tall glasses of vitamin D fortified milk each day just to get minimum levels of vitamin D into their diet.
The further you live from the equator, the longer exposure you need to the sun in order to generate vitamin D. Canada, the UK and most U.S. states are far from the equator.
People with dark skin pigmentation may need 20 - 30 times as much exposure to sunlight as fair-skinned people to generate the same amount of vitamin D. That's why prostate cancer is epidemic among black men -- it's a simple, but widespread, sunlight deficiency.
Sufficient levels of vitamin D are crucial for calcium absorption in your intestines. Without sufficient vitamin D, your body cannot absorb calcium, rendering calcium supplements useless.
Chronic vitamin D deficiency cannot be reversed overnight: it takes months of vitamin D supplementation and sunlight exposure to rebuild the body's bones and nervous system.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Unity_99]

reply to post by InertiaZero

Seven years ago my partner was diagnosed with a Lymphatic cancer.
Yesterday was given the all-clear.

We achieved it without resorting to conventional medical treatments...
...but maintained use of medical diagnostics.

Maintaining optimal levels of all 'essential nutrients' was part of the solution...
...the body can not recover without raw materials.

We investigated and applied several alternative methods...
...each with properties that induced apoptosis, increased alkalinity or produced anti-fungal effects...
...some persistent objective indicators were finally arrested using iodine and sodium bicarbonate methods (google Tullio Simoncini).

Vitamin and Mineral supplementation is necessary to fill the gaps in personal nutrition...
...and don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

Just to reply to the original topic....

I have been mega-dosing for quite a while now. I don't know of any toxic problems that I can associate to it at this time. As a matter of fact I did have some relief to my hernia type symptoms in my groin area after mega-dosing vitamin D.

You have to remember our foods aren't all that great at providing nutrients these days. Soil has become depleted. I think supplementation is warranted, even if you are eating organic.

To give you an idea. I have been taking 6 one a day type vitamins every day in addition to my other non-multi's. I am the guinea pig to test out this supposed toxicity of vitamins and minerals.

This being said, I would still like to know what optimum dosages are for each vitamin and mineral, in general. I know we all may have a little different requirement.

The key ones I am noting, you know, seeming to be the ones that I really felt something with are Vitamin D and MSM. Vitamin D helped with my mood, months ago, as well, when I started mega-dosing. MSM is the shiz in larger doses. Think beyond joint health with MSM, it is much more than that. Vitamin D, those tiny dosages, like the 400 IU, I don't think they are worth buying if you want some good results. I found the 5000 IU ones at Wal-Mart, I take two of those a day. I get even more D from my calcium supplement. Apparently, some people can get 10,000 IUs from just 15 minutes in the sun. And, I get piles of Calcium.

The ones that I'm a little unsure about really mega-dosing are selenium and iron. They have been reported to be toxic in large doses. These two are the ones that really scare me a bit.

Honestly, I think anything has a potential to be toxic to some degree in "excessive" amounts. So, therein lies the question, what are the optimal amounts, what is too much? The RDAs don't seem big enough for excellent results. That seems certain.

Mega-dosing seems to be helpful to people.

And, one thing I am darned sure of, is you can't mega-dose this crap medicine that Big Pharma wants to shove down our throats.

Again, I'm Mr. Guinea pig, follow my example at your own risk. Just a disclaimer, I'm quite supportive of mega-dosing.

Troy


[edit on 30-1-2010 by cybertroy]

[edit on 30-1-2010 by cybertroy]