hi again, yep i only test for D3. will check out the deluca and prendergast links. interesting, the only time i got my serum level up to 149 was after i talked to the drug info centre at the hospital and they said 50,000 iu per day for 10 days, which i did, and it worked great (at getting the level up i mean, i don't know if it did anything for me in terms of edss). but i didn't keep taking the 4000IU per day and it drops right back down so i'm considering doing it again, what the heck. i've been taking 4000IU per day for quite some time now and i'm going to ask for more bloodwork at my annual appt coming up in october so that'll be good to find out.
i never went through my journals to try to correlate what i took with how i felt, except when cause and effect links are really startling. once i graduate i am going to go through it all properly and see what trends emerge.
will check out the direct-ms thing too but unless they're pretty new i think i'll find everything familiar. thanks!
This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support
Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.
all things vitamin D
Advertisement
by daverestonvirginia » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:42 am
Just a couple other points of reference for those that are interested. When I first had my vitamin D level checked it was just about 25nmol/L. That was in April after a long cold winter. I took 6,000 IU's a day for six months and also got some sun, in October I tested at 175nmol/L. Thinking I had over done it a little I switched to 3,000 IU's through the winter and in April tested at 80nmol/L. Decided to stay at 3,000 IU's through the summer, need to get checked in October again. My goal is to be at about 150nmol/L. I think if I stay to 4,000 IUs a day in the Winter and about 3,000 IUs in the Summer with some sun that might work for me, but as you can tell I am not quite there yet. It has been harder than I thought to get the dosage right.
-
daverestonvirginia - Family Elder
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:00 pm
- Location: Reston, Virginia
by jimmylegs » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:30 am
all very interesting, dave. i never knew my baseline because i was taking a few thousand a day for months before i got my first ever test, which was 72nmol/L. i've never been up to 175, to my knowledge, but i completely agree with targeting 150. i have never been so high consistently from test to test, so i haven't bothered testing my calcium levels yet. someday!
sounds like you are narrowing down what you need nicely, but it does take a long time! i'm getting checkin in october too. have been doing over 3000 but not quite 4000 per day over the summer, but have been working indoors most of the time. will report the results.
sounds like you are narrowing down what you need nicely, but it does take a long time! i'm getting checkin in october too. have been doing over 3000 but not quite 4000 per day over the summer, but have been working indoors most of the time. will report the results.
- jimmylegs
- Volunteer Moderator
- Posts: 9306
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm
Another Vit D article
by bromley » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:47 am
-
bromley - Family Elder
- Posts: 1887
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:00 pm
Massive Vitamin D intake advocated
by Nick » Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:48 am
Experts prescribe massive increase of vitamin D
Nursing, pregnant women need 10 times more than current recommendation,
says Canadian Paediatric Society
SHARON KIRKEY
CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
A move to feed pregnant and nursing women 10 times more vitamin D than they get today may still not be enough to protect their babies from chronic diseases, especially in obese women, a top expert says.
The Canadian Paediatric Society is recommending pregnant and lactating women consider taking 2,000 IU (international units) of vitamin D daily, especially during winter, to protect their babies from a litany of illnesses later in life.
The current Health Canada recommendation is 200 IU a day for adults under 50 — including pregnant and nursing mothers. Dr. Bruce Hollis, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric and nutritional sciences at the Medical University of South Carolina who has studied vitamin D in humans for 30 years, called the society’s new position statement “a remarkable change.” But he said many women of childbearing age, especially in Canada, are “absolutely deficient” in vitamin D. “To say (2,000 IU) daily will replete everybody probably isn’t totally accurate, and I say with confidence it’s not enough to ensure breastfeeding infants get enough (vitamin D) through human milk.”
Vitamin D deficiencies in early life have been linked with an increased risk of small babies, asthma, diabetes, autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and inflammatory bowel disease, dental malformations and the development of certain cancers.
In two U.S. government funded studies, Hollis is studying vitamin D supplementation of up to 6,000 IU daily in nursing women, and 4,000 units per day in pregnant women. So far “not one single adverse event” has been observed in women on the highest doses, he said.
The pediatric society says even experimental doses of up to 10,000 IU per day for five months in pregnancy didn’t lead to levels in the toxic range.
After years of telling people to screen out the sun, doctors are finding a host of reasons to load up on the “sunshine vitamin.”
First came cancer: In June, the Canadian Cancer Society for the first time recommended adult Canadians lower their cancer risk by taking 1,000 IU daily. The vitamin has been linked with a lower risk of cancers of the breast, lung and colon. Now, pregnancy: Vitamin D deficiency in mothers and babies continues to be a problem in Canada, particularly among aboriginal women, the pediatric society says, and infants under one are especially vulnerable if they are breastfed.
Hollis said vitamin D is important for brain development and to build tolerance against autoimmune diseases. It also protects the mother from uterine infections that can lead to pre-eclampsia — a common disorder that causes high blood pressure and can lead to poor fetal growth and fatal complications in moms and babies if not treated. Oily fish such as salmon and sardines contain vitamin D and the vitamin is in fortified milk and margarine. But food alone can’t provide sufficient vitamin D, especially in babies.
A daily vitamin D supplement of 400 IU per day has been recommended for breastfed infants in Canada for decades, largely to prevent rickets, 104 confirmed cases of which were reported in Canada between 2002 and 2004.
But the pediatric society says the emphasis now goes far beyond the debilitating bone disease, which requires just a small dose of vitamin D. Severe asthma in three-year-olds and an increased risk of Type I diabetes have been linked to low vitamin D status during fetal life. Still, Health Canada is refusing to budge, calling the pediatric society’s new recommendation “premature” and warning of health risks with taking too much vitamin D.
“They’re the only ones who seem to be saying it’s premature,” said Dr. John Godel, principle author of the new recommendation and professor emeritus in pediatrics at the University of Alberta. He said Health Canada made it clear at a meeting two weeks ago they were “quite loath” to recommend pregnant and nursing women boost their vitamin D intake 10-fold.
Health Canada has set the upper tolerable limit for adults at 2,000 IU a day from all sources of vitamin D, including milk and supplements.
Godel said “there is a lot of evidence” that even 2,000 IU daily isn’t enough, but that “even at 2,000 we found we were in trouble with Health Canada. “If we went to 4,000 (IU per day) right away we might run into problems and besides that, the evidence wasn’t all in at this time.”
The pediatric society recommends total vitamin D intake from all sources during the first year of life should be 400 IU per day in full-term infants and 200 units for premature babies, with an increase to 800 IU daily between October and April north of the 55th parallel (about the latitude of Edmonton).
They recommend pregnant and nursing women have their blood checked periodically to see whether they’re getting sufficient vitamin D. Hollis said that, for reasons that aren’t clear, obese people need much more vitamin D to maintain their levels.
As well, he said every breastfeeding infant “absolutely needs a vitamin D supplement” even if the mother is supplementing herself with 2,000 IU per day. He recommended vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, the kind produced in the skin in response to sunlight.
The pediatric society says infants and children should be exposed to sunlight for short periods, probably less than 15 minutes a day.
Cheers
Nick
Nursing, pregnant women need 10 times more than current recommendation,
says Canadian Paediatric Society
SHARON KIRKEY
CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
A move to feed pregnant and nursing women 10 times more vitamin D than they get today may still not be enough to protect their babies from chronic diseases, especially in obese women, a top expert says.
The Canadian Paediatric Society is recommending pregnant and lactating women consider taking 2,000 IU (international units) of vitamin D daily, especially during winter, to protect their babies from a litany of illnesses later in life.
The current Health Canada recommendation is 200 IU a day for adults under 50 — including pregnant and nursing mothers. Dr. Bruce Hollis, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric and nutritional sciences at the Medical University of South Carolina who has studied vitamin D in humans for 30 years, called the society’s new position statement “a remarkable change.” But he said many women of childbearing age, especially in Canada, are “absolutely deficient” in vitamin D. “To say (2,000 IU) daily will replete everybody probably isn’t totally accurate, and I say with confidence it’s not enough to ensure breastfeeding infants get enough (vitamin D) through human milk.”
Vitamin D deficiencies in early life have been linked with an increased risk of small babies, asthma, diabetes, autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and inflammatory bowel disease, dental malformations and the development of certain cancers.
In two U.S. government funded studies, Hollis is studying vitamin D supplementation of up to 6,000 IU daily in nursing women, and 4,000 units per day in pregnant women. So far “not one single adverse event” has been observed in women on the highest doses, he said.
The pediatric society says even experimental doses of up to 10,000 IU per day for five months in pregnancy didn’t lead to levels in the toxic range.
After years of telling people to screen out the sun, doctors are finding a host of reasons to load up on the “sunshine vitamin.”
First came cancer: In June, the Canadian Cancer Society for the first time recommended adult Canadians lower their cancer risk by taking 1,000 IU daily. The vitamin has been linked with a lower risk of cancers of the breast, lung and colon. Now, pregnancy: Vitamin D deficiency in mothers and babies continues to be a problem in Canada, particularly among aboriginal women, the pediatric society says, and infants under one are especially vulnerable if they are breastfed.
Hollis said vitamin D is important for brain development and to build tolerance against autoimmune diseases. It also protects the mother from uterine infections that can lead to pre-eclampsia — a common disorder that causes high blood pressure and can lead to poor fetal growth and fatal complications in moms and babies if not treated. Oily fish such as salmon and sardines contain vitamin D and the vitamin is in fortified milk and margarine. But food alone can’t provide sufficient vitamin D, especially in babies.
A daily vitamin D supplement of 400 IU per day has been recommended for breastfed infants in Canada for decades, largely to prevent rickets, 104 confirmed cases of which were reported in Canada between 2002 and 2004.
But the pediatric society says the emphasis now goes far beyond the debilitating bone disease, which requires just a small dose of vitamin D. Severe asthma in three-year-olds and an increased risk of Type I diabetes have been linked to low vitamin D status during fetal life. Still, Health Canada is refusing to budge, calling the pediatric society’s new recommendation “premature” and warning of health risks with taking too much vitamin D.
“They’re the only ones who seem to be saying it’s premature,” said Dr. John Godel, principle author of the new recommendation and professor emeritus in pediatrics at the University of Alberta. He said Health Canada made it clear at a meeting two weeks ago they were “quite loath” to recommend pregnant and nursing women boost their vitamin D intake 10-fold.
Health Canada has set the upper tolerable limit for adults at 2,000 IU a day from all sources of vitamin D, including milk and supplements.
Godel said “there is a lot of evidence” that even 2,000 IU daily isn’t enough, but that “even at 2,000 we found we were in trouble with Health Canada. “If we went to 4,000 (IU per day) right away we might run into problems and besides that, the evidence wasn’t all in at this time.”
The pediatric society recommends total vitamin D intake from all sources during the first year of life should be 400 IU per day in full-term infants and 200 units for premature babies, with an increase to 800 IU daily between October and April north of the 55th parallel (about the latitude of Edmonton).
They recommend pregnant and nursing women have their blood checked periodically to see whether they’re getting sufficient vitamin D. Hollis said that, for reasons that aren’t clear, obese people need much more vitamin D to maintain their levels.
As well, he said every breastfeeding infant “absolutely needs a vitamin D supplement” even if the mother is supplementing herself with 2,000 IU per day. He recommended vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, the kind produced in the skin in response to sunlight.
The pediatric society says infants and children should be exposed to sunlight for short periods, probably less than 15 minutes a day.
Cheers
Nick
-
Nick - Family Elder
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:00 pm
by jimmylegs » Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:36 pm
just diggin in my files and ran across this photocopy from my nutrition appointment last year (sorry, bad table format):
Study IU/d duration D3 (nmol/L)
1995 Byrne et al: 800 4-6 months 60-105
1995 Byrne et al: 1 800 3 months 65, 80
1990 Honkanen et al: 1 800 3 months 57-86
1977 Stamp et al: 10 000 4 weeks 105
1982 Davies et al: 10 000 10 weeks 110
1977 Stamp et al: 20 000 4 weeks 150
1987 Schwartzman & Franck: 50 000 6 weeks 320
1978 Davies & Adams: 50 000 15 years 560
it keeps going after this and the data is not perfect (e.g. extrapolated for 1977, 1982, 1977; also inconsistency of calcium info) but after 50,000, meh. there was one really extreme one - 300,000IU per day for 6 years, serum d3 1692 nmol/L.
don't have the book's details, but i imagine it's not hard to look up the studies themselves to check up on details
Study IU/d duration D3 (nmol/L)
1995 Byrne et al: 800 4-6 months 60-105
1995 Byrne et al: 1 800 3 months 65, 80
1990 Honkanen et al: 1 800 3 months 57-86
1977 Stamp et al: 10 000 4 weeks 105
1982 Davies et al: 10 000 10 weeks 110
1977 Stamp et al: 20 000 4 weeks 150
1987 Schwartzman & Franck: 50 000 6 weeks 320
1978 Davies & Adams: 50 000 15 years 560
it keeps going after this and the data is not perfect (e.g. extrapolated for 1977, 1982, 1977; also inconsistency of calcium info) but after 50,000, meh. there was one really extreme one - 300,000IU per day for 6 years, serum d3 1692 nmol/L.
don't have the book's details, but i imagine it's not hard to look up the studies themselves to check up on details
- jimmylegs
- Volunteer Moderator
- Posts: 9306
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm
Vitamin D study from ECTRIMS
by dignan » Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:33 am
An abstract about the Canadian vit D study from ECTRIMS. If these results hold up, will they be enough to at least convince the regulators to increase the recommended daily intake of vit D? Probably not...
A phase I dose-escalation trial of vitamin D3 with calcium supplementation in patients with multiple sclerosis
J.M. Burton, S. Kimball, R. Vieth, A. Bar-Or, H.M. Dosch, L. Thibault, S. Kilborn, C. D'Souza, M. Ursell, P. O'Connor (Toronto, Montreal, CAN)
Background: There is good evidence for a relationship between vitamin D nutritional status and development of multiple sclerosis (MS), which could explain the geographic pattern of MS prevalence. A potential mechanism is Vitamin D3’s regulatory effects on the immune system. The evidence suggests Vitamin D3 may benefit MS patients, but first, a safe and effective dose must be determined.
Objective: To characterize the safety profile of high-dose oral vitamin D3 in MS, we conducted a phase I dose-escalation trial with calcium supplementation in MS patients.
Design: In a prospective controlled 52-week trial, patients with clinically definite MS were matched for age, gender, disease duration, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, Disease Modifying Drugs, and MS subtype, and randomized to treatment or control groups. Treatment group patients received escalating doses of Vitamin D3 starting at 4,000 IU/d and escalating over 28 weeks to 40,000 IU/d, spending approximately 6 weeks at each dose. Patients were then maintained on 10,000 IU/d for 12 weeks, followed by a down-titration to 4,000 IU/d for 8 weeks, and a final 4-week washout period. Calcium (1200mg/d) was given orally throughout the trial. Twenty-five treatment patients and 24 matched controls were enrolled. The primary endpoint is change in serum calcium concentration in the treatment group over the 52-week period. Secondary endpoints are change over the trial in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), parathyroid hormone, urine calcium:creatinine ratio, liver enzymes and creatinine/urea. Baseline and end-of-trial EDSS, Ambulation Index and relapse rate will be measured in all patients. Serum cytokines, lymphocyte responses and matrix metalloproteinases will be compared over the Vitamin D3 escalation in treatment patients and between treatment and control groups.
Results: At 9 months, 17/25 treatment patients have received 6 weeks of 40,000 IU/d of Vitamin D3 and are now in the 10,000 IU/d maintenance phase. There is no significant difference between groups in age, disease duration, relapse rate, prior Vitamin D3 dose, baseline serum calcium or 25(OH)D. Serum calcium has remained in the reference range (2.2-2.6mmol/L), with no significant differences over escalating doses. Mean 25(OH)D increased from 73.5 +/- 26.4mmo/L at baseline to 402.1 +/- 123.0 mmol/L at 40,000 IU/d (p<0.001).
Conclusions: The results thus far suggest high-dose Vitamin D is safe and tolerable in MS patients.
ECTRIMS link
A phase I dose-escalation trial of vitamin D3 with calcium supplementation in patients with multiple sclerosis
J.M. Burton, S. Kimball, R. Vieth, A. Bar-Or, H.M. Dosch, L. Thibault, S. Kilborn, C. D'Souza, M. Ursell, P. O'Connor (Toronto, Montreal, CAN)
Background: There is good evidence for a relationship between vitamin D nutritional status and development of multiple sclerosis (MS), which could explain the geographic pattern of MS prevalence. A potential mechanism is Vitamin D3’s regulatory effects on the immune system. The evidence suggests Vitamin D3 may benefit MS patients, but first, a safe and effective dose must be determined.
Objective: To characterize the safety profile of high-dose oral vitamin D3 in MS, we conducted a phase I dose-escalation trial with calcium supplementation in MS patients.
Design: In a prospective controlled 52-week trial, patients with clinically definite MS were matched for age, gender, disease duration, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, Disease Modifying Drugs, and MS subtype, and randomized to treatment or control groups. Treatment group patients received escalating doses of Vitamin D3 starting at 4,000 IU/d and escalating over 28 weeks to 40,000 IU/d, spending approximately 6 weeks at each dose. Patients were then maintained on 10,000 IU/d for 12 weeks, followed by a down-titration to 4,000 IU/d for 8 weeks, and a final 4-week washout period. Calcium (1200mg/d) was given orally throughout the trial. Twenty-five treatment patients and 24 matched controls were enrolled. The primary endpoint is change in serum calcium concentration in the treatment group over the 52-week period. Secondary endpoints are change over the trial in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), parathyroid hormone, urine calcium:creatinine ratio, liver enzymes and creatinine/urea. Baseline and end-of-trial EDSS, Ambulation Index and relapse rate will be measured in all patients. Serum cytokines, lymphocyte responses and matrix metalloproteinases will be compared over the Vitamin D3 escalation in treatment patients and between treatment and control groups.
Results: At 9 months, 17/25 treatment patients have received 6 weeks of 40,000 IU/d of Vitamin D3 and are now in the 10,000 IU/d maintenance phase. There is no significant difference between groups in age, disease duration, relapse rate, prior Vitamin D3 dose, baseline serum calcium or 25(OH)D. Serum calcium has remained in the reference range (2.2-2.6mmol/L), with no significant differences over escalating doses. Mean 25(OH)D increased from 73.5 +/- 26.4mmo/L at baseline to 402.1 +/- 123.0 mmol/L at 40,000 IU/d (p<0.001).
Conclusions: The results thus far suggest high-dose Vitamin D is safe and tolerable in MS patients.
ECTRIMS link
-
dignan - Family Elder
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 2:00 pm
by Frank » Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:11 am
Is there a reason why they give Calcium together with the Vit D3?
Does one need more Calcium when supplementing Vit D3?
Thanks
--Frank
Does one need more Calcium when supplementing Vit D3?
Thanks
--Frank
Treatment: Gilenya since 01/2011, CCSVI both IJV ballooned 09/2010, Tysabri stopped after 24 Infusions and positive JCV antibody test, after LDN, ABX Wheldon Regime for 1 year.
- Frank
- Family Elder
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
by jimmylegs » Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:22 am
hi frank, D3 needs calcium to work with. it's counter-intuitive, but you take the calcium to keep your blood calcium down while you take vitamin D.
my understanding is, that a finding of hypercalcemia indicates that high D3 is pulling calcium from the bones into the serum.
the study above helps allay this concern by demonstrating that very high doses of D3 (accompanied by daily calcium supplementation) failed to induce hypercalcemia. it's very useful to know that 1200mg of calcium can keep even such high doses of D3 from elevating serum calcium.
i have a chart of vitamin D3 studies from the 80s, showing that 50,000IU/d of vitamin D3 for 6 weeks took the serum calcium well outside the top end of the reference range.
my understanding is, that a finding of hypercalcemia indicates that high D3 is pulling calcium from the bones into the serum.
the study above helps allay this concern by demonstrating that very high doses of D3 (accompanied by daily calcium supplementation) failed to induce hypercalcemia. it's very useful to know that 1200mg of calcium can keep even such high doses of D3 from elevating serum calcium.
i have a chart of vitamin D3 studies from the 80s, showing that 50,000IU/d of vitamin D3 for 6 weeks took the serum calcium well outside the top end of the reference range.
- jimmylegs
- Volunteer Moderator
- Posts: 9306
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm
Basal Cell Carcinoma and Vitamin D?
by cheerleader » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:19 pm
Welp,
here's a puzzle for the vitamin D/sunshine folks. My active, outdoorsy Californian husband, dx with MS 3/07, saw a dermatologist and had three spots of basal cell carcinoma removed from his face and abdomen. He got alot of sunshine as a kid, and burns easily since he is very fair and freckled. Looks like he got too much sunshine...on his skin.
He's fine, the basal cell areas were surgically removed (ouch), and because he got prompt treatment, he should be OK.
My husband has had optic nerve drusen (fatty deposits) since childhood. He has no peripheral vision and very bad night vision. Perhaps his level of vitamin D was affected by the sunlight taken in through the eye, and not just the skin. Maybe his drusen blocked those all important light rays from hitting the retina.
So here's my thought...perhaps it's also the amount of sun which reaches the brain thru the eye via melanopsin (a light detecting protein in the eye), that can affect vitamin D levels.
I know, I'm wandering...but I still think sunshine/vitamin D/the pineal gland and melatonin are in the MS equation.
enough rambling,
AC
here's a puzzle for the vitamin D/sunshine folks. My active, outdoorsy Californian husband, dx with MS 3/07, saw a dermatologist and had three spots of basal cell carcinoma removed from his face and abdomen. He got alot of sunshine as a kid, and burns easily since he is very fair and freckled. Looks like he got too much sunshine...on his skin.
He's fine, the basal cell areas were surgically removed (ouch), and because he got prompt treatment, he should be OK.
My husband has had optic nerve drusen (fatty deposits) since childhood. He has no peripheral vision and very bad night vision. Perhaps his level of vitamin D was affected by the sunlight taken in through the eye, and not just the skin. Maybe his drusen blocked those all important light rays from hitting the retina.
So here's my thought...perhaps it's also the amount of sun which reaches the brain thru the eye via melanopsin (a light detecting protein in the eye), that can affect vitamin D levels.
I know, I'm wandering...but I still think sunshine/vitamin D/the pineal gland and melatonin are in the MS equation.
enough rambling,
AC
-
cheerleader - Family Elder
- Posts: 5122
- Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:00 pm
- Location: southern California
by cheerleader » Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:32 pm
oh, yeah...
and how about this in the news today?
Overnight shift to be classified as probable cancer cause....
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/29/ni ... index.html
more with sunshine/melatonin/health....
ok, I'm done
ac
and how about this in the news today?
Overnight shift to be classified as probable cancer cause....
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/29/ni ... index.html
more with sunshine/melatonin/health....
ok, I'm done
ac
-
cheerleader - Family Elder
- Posts: 5122
- Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:00 pm
- Location: southern California
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- all things vitamin b12
1, 2, 3, 4, 5by CureOrBust » Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:52 am - 64 Replies
- 10375 Views
- Last post by THX1138
Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:37 pm
- all things vitamin b12
-
- all things vitamin E
by NHE » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:16 am - 5 Replies
- 3262 Views
- Last post by jimmylegs
Sat Dec 27, 2014 11:31 am
- all things vitamin E
-
- things that stimulate immune system
by Maledicte » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:13 pm - 3 Replies
- 1386 Views
- Last post by NHE
Fri May 18, 2012 6:40 am
- things that stimulate immune system
-
- Vitamin C and MS ???
1, 2by Shayk » Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:39 pm - 18 Replies
- 11469 Views
- Last post by notasperfectasyou
Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:10 pm
- Vitamin C and MS ???
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed
This site does not offer, or claim to offer, medical, legal, or professional advice.
All treatment decisions should always be made with the full knowledge of your physicians.
This is MS does not create, endorse, or republish any content. All postings are the responsibility of the poster. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners. All users must respect our rules for intellectual property rights.
This is MS does not create, endorse, or republish any content. All postings are the responsibility of the poster. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners. All users must respect our rules for intellectual property rights.
