This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

omgosh mark, that's a whole lotta lead
what about ordering some good quality stuff off the interweb?

Forgot all about the lead pellets in the ducks and pheasant I have shot and eaten, scary when you look back on all the ways we have picked up bad stuff along the way. DDT was used on my grandfathers farm. I was his shadow growing up. Wonder what that did ? Web shopping for supplements has been mind boggling, so many choices of suppliers. How do you know which ones to trust for quality ? Mark

_________________
Plant a BIG Garden Live in the Moment

if you find some specific things that look okay to you, post the link and i can check it out, others might chime in also.

btw, i don't find anything out there from the quickest of google searches, linking lead poisoning and ms.

Back to the D thread. Dr. Kerr looked at me (I am about as pale as you can be and not be albino) at my last visit and said that without question, my D levels were deficient. They had never seen anyone with MS with adequate levels without very high supplementation. I've been taking 1000 i.u. per day for about 3 years and don't get much sunlight. He prescribed 50,000 i.u. for 10 days with 50,000 1/week thereafter. He said to take it before my levels were tested.

Frankly, the D was making me feel sick, nauseaus and loopy, but I took it. Fastforward 3 weeks after my test results came in...Dr. Kerr's nurse called and said she had never seen this in an MS patient. My levels were too high- 166. She said not to continue with the D, and to get retested in 3 months.

So, because of my experience, I would have to suggest that everyone get their levels checked before supplementing with D.

.

166 is not too high *unless* you have hypercalcemia to go with it.
i could find the research to back that up in short order if anyone is interested.
250, that's probably getting too high and might cause concerns about hypercalcemia.
i have a paper that documents people up around 500, even up over 1000, those are the ones that have the serious excess calcium issues.

I've been wondering that myself.

I'm with jimmy, there's this recent vitamin D / MS study that shows high levels not associated with any problems:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17823429

Are guys talking about ng/mL or nmol/L? Make sure you're doing an apples to apples comparison.

.

ps the first time i megadosed D3 i knew my starting level was 72 (after months of supplementing at 3000-4000IU daily)
i did 50,000IU per day for 10d, per consultation with local hospital.
i had a followup test at 149nmol/L which was great as far as i'm concerned.
i kept up the 4000IU per day and eventually got sporadic about it.
at later tests i was down to 119, then 78.
this winter i have taken 25,000IU every week or two.
had the blood taken last week and in a couple of weeks will call the doc's office to hear if the results are in.
recently my roomie had to wait 2 months for her d3 numbers to come back (incidentally she was at 119 nmol/L which is also great!)
so, i may have to wait a while... the system is getting a little bogged down by all this newfangled preventative medicine!

px you make a good point but i am initially doubtful that momma went from seriously deficient to 414 nmol/L (166 ng/mL) on the regimen described, unless perhaps after the week-long megadose, the weekly 50K went on for quite some time.

i am however quite willing to believe that the average doc who's been telling people they're fine in the 70-80nmol/L range for the last couple of decades, would be freaked by a 166nmol/L result - unless they are right up on things, and also tested the calcium situation.

that said, mommasan, what's your units? did they do any calcium testing? how long were you on the 50K/wk after the initial megadose?

i have a great table comparing various studies of some truly idiotic d3 daily intakes over weeks months and years, with associated serum levels of d3, and where it was measured, the calcium level as well. these are not studies with big n values, but when you look at them side by side it's pretty interesting.


there are certainly statistical studies of risk in ms, for instance the military study, where the subjects in the highest quintile ie levels over 100 nmol/L had the lowest risk of ms.

.

Hi Jimmy. I don't know what my calcium levels were. But, I only did the additional 50,000 i.u. 1X per week for 2 weeks.