This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

@ nz

i have been taking extra mag since nearly killing myself yesterday.. was just sniffing around google scholar re magnesium and trauma and ran across this, which rang a bell re calcification so i ran a search on tims and picked up the relevant nuance of your post last page http://www.thisisms.com/forum/chronic-c ... ml#p206284 :

Soft tissue calcification treated with local and oral magnesium therapy
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/21336 ... OP1to8t.16
Eighty patients with soft tissue calcification were treated: 24 suffered from myositis ossificans traumatica, 23 from calcific bursitis (Duplay's disease), six from osteoarthropathy of elbow joint after severe craniocerebral trauma, nine from calcification around the elbow joint after local trauma, 13 from calcification around the hip joint, and five from calcification in ligaments and tendons. Using a new method of treatment about 75% of patients were cured. Calcifications disappeared or diminished substantially. Very good functional improvement followed in affected joints. The treatment involved local application of MgSO4 under local anaesthesia into calcified areas for 2-20 weeks, together with peroral administration of Mg lactate for 4-6 months. There were no complications or side effects of this treatment.

NZer1 wrote:Different angle; Too Much Vitamin D?
Carolyn Dean MD ND | Sunday, March 10, 2013
A client emailed that he heard a doctor on a talk show recommending 5,000 IU of Vitamin D instead of the RDA.
Do your research before taking high dose Vitamin D.
http://drcarolyndean.com/2013/03/too-much-vitamin-d/

I think we are looking at a bit player in the picture of health by singling out Vit D levels. Nigel

Hello Nigel,
I started this thread to counter a "stop vitamin D thread". I shouted out FIRST STEP because not having sufficient vitamin D3 really harms pwMS. It is a first step and having looked at all the therapies pwMS could use I found Vit D3 to be the most cost effective therapy for pwMS. If you propose a different first step for pwMS please start a thread and we can debate your proposal.

To be clear: My research indicates that vitamin D3 is a steroid hormone vital for human health. Vitamin D3 influences the human immune system and probably protein expression by genes and possibly epigenetics.
The question for pwMS is simple: Take 5000IU/day of vitamin D3 at a cost of a few pennies/day or not.
Medics like Carolyn Dean have forgotten a guiding principle 'do no harm'. Blood levels of vitamin D3 in pwMS below 100nmol/L are probably doing harm.
Kind regards,
MarkW

PS: I recommend de-stenosis by an expert as well. I realise this is too expensive for many pwMS.

Hi Mark,
I look at any treatment on it's science and outcomes and hope that I learn along the way. Vit D is a bit part player in the big picture and to follow the thought that supplementing just Vit D3 is going to make a small or big difference in CCSVI treatments or MS needs to be balanced by looking at all aspects of Vit D interplays and involvement in many body systems.
The 'mono therapy' model of medicine that you are proposing doesn't stack up when we 'all' look at the big picture of interplays with Vit D3.
Improving health by looking at and understanding baseline synergies, using testing data and adjusting combinations is where we will benefit.
By using a mono therapy the actual bottom layer health issue is only masked and more difficult to confront/find and treat.
The model of medicine that is based in symptom management often creates more ill health and cost to the patients and never improves the long term Life Quality because degeneration is continuing with more masking of cause with each mono therapy added by the 'Health professional'.

Have a read of some work in this field such as Dr Jernigans book on Lyme Disease it crosses into the conditions we are talking about and available on line in an e-book form;
"Beating Lyme Disease, 2nd Edition" (http://hansacenter.com/store/)

;)
Nigel

A video that will give meaning to my comments and some insights where the CCSVI and de-generative disease knowledge train is headed;


;)
Nigel

Just FYI,

I've supplemented 6000 iu / day for the last 1-1/2 years and just found out I was low. Just increased to 10,000/ day.

PN

that is nuts pn

Hi MarkW: Trying to read through your thread. Interesting.

I have been taking 20,000 IU VD daily for the past 6+ years. I don't have my levels in front of me but they are usually over 300. After I get through your thread I would like to tackle Jimmylegs files as I need to understand my other levels better.

Moragh.

Hi Team, I think that PN's example and my own show that we are using more Vit D due to our health pattern rather than not getting any or not getting enough.
Somewhere back in the links there is research saying the same thing in techo words and I think we need to look at what state of Body, Mind and Belief makes us imbalanced and require a variety of supplements to few 'well', keeping in mind it is a patch and not dealing with an underlying issue at all.
If you stop the supplementing what happens?
Interesting article eludes to what is happening and it is personal understanding that cellular programming or memory is where we need to focus.
http://www.holistichelp.net/dysautonomi ... 9.facebook
It will be hard to grasp the concept and detail for us because we have been modelled by the Medical allopathic belief system and if in the 'Medical Trade' it has been the corner stone of the training and qualifications, excuse me I'm coughing I need to go and take some pills.

;)
Nigel

Some insights to general health issues that we all need to be aware of to enable us to correct health needs before disease rules our Life.
Most diseases have an origin and then are compounded by many patches we use to get through the tough times. These patches such as adding vitamin supplements, taking energy drinks allot, using antibiotics to shorten the inflammation cycle of the body, using all sorts of additives we assume will correct some type of perceived lack in our diet all mask an underlying issue that requires balancing at a different level to the 'drop a pill' mentality we have grown up with!
http://www.holistichelp.net/dysautonomi ... 9.facebook
Interesting conversation with Dr Jernigan on this
https://www.facebook.com/doctordavidjernigan under the comment "If a doctor neutralizes toxins as they are released into the body, are they still toxins? Do they cause horrible herx reactions? No! #NoHerx"

Edited:
10,000 IU/day is 250 µg/day. Conversion factor is 40 IU = 1 µg.
MarkW

Scientific Opinion on the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of vitamin D
EFSA Journal 2012;10(7):2813 [45 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2813
Abstract
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to re-evaluate the safety in use of vitamin D and to provide, if necessary, revised Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) of vitamin D for all relevant population groups. The ULs for adults including pregnant and lactating women, children and adolescents were revised. For adults, hypercalcaemia was selected as the indicator of toxicity. In two studies in men, intakes between 234 and 275 µg/day were not associated with hypercalcaemia, and a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 250 µg/day was established. Taking into account uncertainties associated with these studies, the UL for adults including pregnant and lactating women was set at 100 µg/day. Despite a continuing paucity of data for high vitamin D intakes in children and adolescents, the UL was adapted to 100 µg/day for ages 11-17 years, considering that owing to phases of rapid bone formation and growth this age group is unlikely to have a lower tolerance for vitamin D compared to adults. The same applies also to children aged 1-10 years, but taking into account their smaller body size, a UL of 50 µg/day is proposed. For infants, the UL of 25 µg/day based on previously available data relating high vitamin D intakes to impaired growth and hypercalcaemia was retained as limited additional evidence has emerged since the previous risk assessment. Data on vitamin D intakes from surveys in 14 European countries indicate that intakes in high consumers are below the revised ULs for vitamin D for all population groups.
© European Food Safety Authority, 2012

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to re-evaluate the safety in use of vitamin D and to provide, if necessary, revised Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) of vitamin D for all relevant population groups.
Vitamin D derives from the diet but can also be synthesised in the skin under the influence of UV‑B radiation. Serum 25(OH)D concentration is a good marker of vitamin D status, but can only be used as a biomarker of vitamin D intake in people with low exposure to sunlight. Following ingestion of large doses of vitamin D, the concentration of 25(OH)D in serum increases, while that of the active metabolite 1,25(OH)2D is unchanged or even reduced. Very high serum 25(OH)D concentrations may lead to hypercalcaemia, which is considered the critical effect of excess intake of vitamin D. Hypercalciuria can be associated with hypercalcaemia, but it can also occur without.
For the derivation of the UL, the occurrence of hypercalcaemia and hypercalciuria has been assessed in studies using daily or weekly supplementation of vitamin D for several weeks to months. The shorter-term studies were generally performed in seasons of low sun exposure. Study populations were not generally vitamin D-deficient, and two studies were conducted in subjects with a high vitamin D status at baseline. Study populations included whites, African Americans, young men, pre- and postmenopausal women, elderly nursing home residents, and overweight and obese adults. It was concluded that vitamin D at doses up to 275 µg/day does not lead to persisting hypercalcaemia or hypercalciuria in adults.
Long-term health outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer, fractures and kidney stones) were also considered, but no studies reported an association between vitamin D intake and increased risk for adverse long-term health outcomes. Studies reporting on an association between 25(OH)D concentration and all-cause mortality or cancer were inconsistent. When 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with an increased risk for adverse long-term health outcomes in some studies, there was a wide variation in 25(OH)D concentrations associated with the adverse effect. It was considered that 25(OH)D concentrations cannot be used to characterise the risk for adverse long-term health outcomes.
In adults, a daily vitamin D dose of 250 µg/day (range 234-275 µg/day) was considered to reflect a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). This value was based on only two studies of short duration (up to five months) in small samples of healthy young men with minimal sun exposure. To take into account the uncertainties associated with this value, an uncertainty factor of 2.5 was chosen, and the UL was established at 100 µg/day. It was considered that the UL of 100 µg/day for adults also applies to pregnant and lactating women. This UL is supported by two studies in pregnant and lactating women, both using doses of vitamin D2 or D3 up to 100 µg/day for several weeks to months, which did not report adverse events for either the mothers or their offspring.
For infants, there is historical evidence on retarded growth from a study in which infants received various regimens of vitamin D exceeding 45 µg/day up to one year of age, although another small study using doses up to 54 µg vitamin D/day until about five months of age did not show such an effect. More recent intervention studies using doses up to 25 µg vitamin D/day (plus the amount ingested via fortified infant formula) for up to five months after birth did not indicate that these intakes are associated with hypercalcaemia in infants. As new data from intervention studies in healthy infants have not become available since the previous risk assessment by the SCF (2003), it was decided that the UL of 25 µg vitamin D/day previously derived for infants from 0 to 12 months of age should be retained.
For children and adolescents aged 10-17 years, there is limited evidence from two studies showing that vitamin D intakes at doses up to 50 µg/day do not lead to hypercalcaemia. While there are no studies at higher intakes, it was considered that there is no reason to believe that adolescents in the phase of rapid bone formation and growth have a lower tolerance for vitamin D compared to adults, and a UL of 100 µg/day for adolescents aged 11-17 years was proposed.
For children aged 1-10 years, no new data from intervention studies have emerged since the previous risk assessment. It was considered that there is no reason to believe that children aged 1-10 years in the phase of rapid bone formation and growth have a lower tolerance for vitamin D compared to adults, and, by taking into account their smaller body size, a UL for vitamin D of 50 µg/day was proposed.
Data from European populations indicate that vitamin D intakes from all sources in high consumers are below the UL for all population subgroups (i.e., about 25 %, 75 %, 30 % and 8 % of the UL for adults, infants, children and adolescents, respectively).

pn, can u pls post me your entire regimen or potentially direct me to somewhere you have posted the same previously?

hi moragh, feel free to ask any questions you might have over in the regimen thread i'll be around

Jimmylegs said:

i have been taking extra mag since nearly killing myself yesterday..

Goodness! That sounds scary, and I hope you're o.k.! Please take care. We couldn't manage without your nutritional research and assistance!

Nigel said:

I think we are looking at a bit player in the picture of health by singling out Vit D levels. Nigel

Wow Nigel, Interesting perspective but I can't agree with you. I'm one of those people who can't afford CCSVI and I'm hanging my hopes on the fact that small studies have shown that there are fewer new lesions and dramatically fewer relapses in people who take high dose vitamin D. That's nothing like a "bit player" to me. And there's no comparison with respect to the side affects profile of vitamin D versus the side affects profile of the injectible and oral prescription drugs.

Vitamin D is my personal hero in my struggle to save my life. I take it very very seriously. I've read the small studies that show its effective. I hope for larger studies, but I'm not holding my breath given that there's no financial incentive to prove that Vitamin D works for MS and a HUGE financial incentive to prove it doesn't work.

I've read the recent study that found that MS interferon injectibles raise vitamin D levels and only are effective in people whose vitamin D levels are raised significantly. What the heck is that about? I'd much rather take the natural, inexpensive and multi-talented (for lack of a better word) over the counter D3 than inject myself daily (or weekly) with a prescription drug. But that's just my choice. I truly do respect everyone's right to choose, and also everyone's right to believe in the treatment that they have have chosen (I want all of us to have the very real benefit of the placebo affect on our side)!

We are all mortal and we're all doing our best to take care of ourselves given a limited knowledge base and a daunting disease. We evolved with much more D3 in our system than what we office dwellers and far from the equator folks now have access to from the sun. From what I've learned about D3 so far, it seems to be the real deal... Not the only deal, but a major player...

Just my opinion (and I hope I'm right!)

Disclaimer: I am not a health care professional. Please do your own research and consult the health care professionals of your choice before making your own independent decisions about your health.

Moragh wrote:Hi MarkW: Trying to read through your thread. Interesting.
I have been taking 20,000 IU VD daily for the past 6+ years. I don't have my levels in front of me but they are usually over 300. After I get through your thread I would like to tackle Jimmylegs files as I need to understand my other levels better.
Moragh.

Hello Moragh,
I suggest a target level of 150nmol/L of D3 in blood. Your results suggest that a dose of 10,000 IU/day would be correct for you. I recommend that you change from 20K to 10K in stages not just halve your dose. I have not found any results for the change in D3 blood levels while reducing D3 dose. The human body stores vitamin D so it may take many weeks to get to 150nmol/L. Regular testing of D3 in blood would be ideal (eg every month) if your health system allows this at no cost to you or that cost is not an issue. The are many variables in D3 levels: location, sun bathing, sun screen use, diet, before you consider supplementation levels.
300nmol/L in blood is not toxic but you should check that your calcium, zinc, magnesium levels are within average range for healthy humans.
Kind regards,
MarkW

PointsNorth wrote:Just FYI,
I've supplemented 6000 iu / day for the last 1-1/2 years and just found out I was low. Just increased to 10,000/ day.
PN

Hello PointsNorth,
I do not think your decision is "nuts" pn. I would say it is not a logical next step but I am English. My approach would be to look at the type of vitamin D you have been taking (they are not all the same). When Jimmylegs and I talk about vitamin D we are talking about vitamin D3 in an oil solution. I think Jimmylegs still uses a pipette to measure her dose. I recommend a soft gelatin capsule filled with D3 in olive oil as an easy to use, bioavailable formulation. Many strengths are available for a few dollars a year. What are you taking ???
10,000 IU/day is not a problem for most pwMS but you need to check you levels of magnesium, calcium and zinc if your blood D3 level does not move above 125nmol/L.
As with Moragh, do more testing if that is available to you.
Kind regards,
MarkW

NZer1 wrote: ..................... Vit D is a bit part player in the big picture and to follow the thought that supplementing just Vit D3 is going to make a small or big difference in CCSVI treatments or MS needs to be balanced by looking at all aspects of Vit D interplays and involvement in many body systems. The 'mono therapy' model of medicine that you are proposing doesn't stack up when we 'all' look at the big picture of interplays with Vit D3........
Have a read of some work in this field such as Dr Jernigans book on Lyme Disease it crosses into the conditions we are talking about and available on line in an e-book form; "Beating Lyme Disease, 2nd Edition" (http://hansacenter.com/store/)
Nigel

Hello Nigel,
I disagree with you. Vitamin D3 is not a bit player in human health, please reveiw the whole picture.
To avoid doubt with other readers the recommendation is:
FIRST STEP-Vit D3 min for pwMS=125 nmol/L in blood.
This not a mono therapy idea, just a first step. Next steps depend on what is available to the person with MS.
Not everyone with MS responds to antibiotics or a special diet. I use the Wheldon Protocol but that does NOT work for all pwMS.
The broad evidence says that the vast majority of pwMS benefit from Vitamin D3.
Kind regards,
MarkW