Hi-Dose D studies

[PointsNorth]

High-Dose Vitamin D Modulates Immune System in MS | Medpage Today

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/M ... osis/55470

[CureOrBust]

Unless the participants were 10kg, this study is NOT Coimbra. A commencing dose for Coimbra is generally presented as 1000iu/kg (ie 7 times the amount used in the above study if the participant was 70kg)

[AntonioBR]

Unless the participants were 10kg, this study is NOT Coimbra. A commencing dose for Coimbra is generally presented as 1000iu/kg (ie 7 times the amount used in the above study if the participant was 70kg)

There are people following Coimbra's protocol that takes only 20,000 IU D3/day.

Example: my aunt has rheumatoid arthritis and she takes only 20,000IU/day (she weighs 73 kilograms).

The Standard Dose (1,000 D3 x Weight in Kilograms) is used only for people with high Parathyroid Hormone (PTH) levels.

[CureOrBust]

When people are next to the maximum range or surpass it (like my brother) the first dose is the Standard dose (1000 IU D3 X weight in kilograms).

[AntonioBR]

When people are next to the maximum range or surpass it (like my brother) the first dose is the Standard dose (1000 IU D3 X weight in kilograms).

There is a criterion to follow the standard dose: high levels of Parathyroid Hormone (PTH)

Almost 1/3 of people don't use the standard dose.

[CureOrBust]

There is a criterion to follow the standard dose: high levels of Parathyroid Hormone (PTH)
Almost 1/3 of people don't use the standard dose.

That fact only further confirms the study is not Coimbra. In what I have read of the above study, there is NO mention of measuring the levels of PTH, which is clearly an important component of the protocol. But simply locking onto the dose, the starting dose for Coimbra would be around 70000IU, while their starting (and ending) dose was only 10000IU. Its totally different.

In another thread, you state 95% effectiveness. If you are now sating the above IS Coimbra, then you would also have to include results/effectiveness of studies that use this dose. I have not read anywhere where any study using the dose of 10000IU would even suggest anywhere approaching 95% effectiveness. If you are claiming the above is Coimbra doses, then the 95% should be altered to reflect such.

[AntonioBR]

There is a criterion to follow the standard dose: high levels of Parathyroid Hormone (PTH)
Almost 1/3 of people don't use the standard dose.

That fact only further confirms the study is not Coimbra. In what I have read of the above study, there is NO mention of measuring the levels of PTH, which is clearly an important component of the protocol. But simply locking onto the dose, the starting dose for Coimbra would be around 70000IU, while their starting (and ending) dose was only 10000IU. Its totally different.

In another thread, you state 95% effectiveness. If you are now sating the above IS Coimbra, then you would also have to include results/effectiveness of studies that use this dose. I have not read anywhere where any study using the dose of 10000IU would even suggest anywhere approaching 95% effectiveness. If you are claiming the above is Coimbra doses, then the 95% should be altered to reflect such.

I didn't claim that this study is about Coimbra Protocol.

For a study be recognized as that it needs to follow all the Protocol guidelines. And this study doesn't do that.

I only mentioned that these doses of 60,000, 70,000 IU, etc. can't be directly associated with Coimbra because all the patients have an individualized dose. Moreover, many patients don't follow the standard dose.

[CureOrBust]

I didn't claim that this study is about Coimbra Protocol.

Any studies posted in the Coimbra protocol forum will be seen as a study that supports the effectiveness and claims of the Coimbra protocol.
You didn't make the claim, but you disagreed with any statement I made that would imply it wasn't Coimbra, and as such that will imply you think it does support Coimbra.

For a study be recognized as that it needs to follow all the Protocol guidelines. And this study doesn't do that.

And as such my simple original statement was

this study is NOT Coimbra

As soon as I make any statement that 10000IU vit D studies are not a study on Coimbra, someone argues with me. I personally think posting these non Coimbra based Vit D studies in the Coimbra threads is highly inaccurate to the point of misleading.

[mrtmeo]

I didn't claim that this study is about Coimbra Protocol.

Any studies posted in the Coimbra protocol forum will be seen as a study that supports the effectiveness and claims of the Coimbra protocol.
You didn't make the claim, but you disagreed with any statement I made that would imply it wasn't Coimbra, and as such that will imply you think it does support Coimbra.

For a study be recognized as that it needs to follow all the Protocol guidelines. And this study doesn't do that.

And as such my simple original statement was

this study is NOT Coimbra

As soon as I make any statement that 10000IU vit D studies are not a study on Coimbra, someone argues with me. I personally think posting these non Coimbra based Vit D studies in the Coimbra threads is highly inaccurate to the point of misleading.

CureOrBust,
Your arguments make no sense.
Coimbra can't possibly do all the studies that back up his protocol, nor does any other established treatment require that all support come from the original protocol developer.
Folks use this thread to gain more PROVEN data from both personal experiences and the published literature to validate what is already working.