More on Vitamin D & Prostate Cancer

[John H. Gohde]

Published on Mar 19, 2013 with Bruce W. Hollis, Pd.D., Professor of
Pediatrics, College of Medicine Medical University of South Carolina

http://tinyurl.com/c3u8mrp

Taking 5,000 IU of vitamin D nine times a week is a physiologic dosage
with no down side. It is a watch and wait approach to preventing age-
related epithelial cancer throughout the body.

Obviously, vitamin D works on on your prostate!

One thing for sure is that everybody has to get serious about their
"D" intake.

[vittyguy]

"Taking 5,000 IU of vitamin D nine times a week is a physiologic dosage w
ith no down side."

Poor advice, it is blood level not intake that is the proper measure. The
heart disease risk comes when too little or too much vit d is present. To
my knowledge these same levels for risk of potential cancer have not been
established as they have for heart disease.

[John H. Gohde]

Who the fuck asked YOU? Certainly NOT moi.

Now perhaps if YOU were to focus?

[John H. Gohde]

On May 10, 7:09 pm, On or Close to Topic <trigonometry1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> As memory serves, he has had his blood values measured. You may complain about
> his view but don't assume "standard" behavior is better. I'll suggest he
> is less wrong than you are. Further, YOU are ignoring the vitamin K2 issue.
> Assuming you even know enough to said to be ignoring it and not just flat
> out ignorant? Do you know how K2 relates to vitamin D? Answer don't just dummy up.
>
> 5000 IU is a dose a young person gets with swim trunks and a tank top in
> the noon day sun in pretty short order.
>
> 'What is established' is a judgement call that some drag their feet on.
>
> PMID:  23193787
>
> editorials IMAJ • VOL 14
> •
> October 2012
> Quote
> Interestingly, one population-based
> randomized controlled trial found that
> calcium plus vitamin D supplementa tion decreased cancer
> incidence as a secondary outcome, and the dose of
> 1100 IU/day increased serum 25(OH)D
> from 29 to 38 ng/ml [13]. After 4 years
> of treatment, the supplemented group
> showed a 60% lower risk of developing
> cancer than the placebo group [13].
> However, in another randomized trial,
> the Women’s Health Initiative, no effect
> of calcium and 400 IU vitamin D/d........"
>
> 400 is just too little for an adult. Even 1100 IU per day
> is on the low end. but note the blood levels in the study
> group.
>
> Cite something......................Trig



Will the fucking morons on these ngs, kindly fuck Off.YOU are just a
bunch of pricks, to put it mildly. YOU are NOT fooling anybody.

Go waste somebody else's time.

I compose my own messages, thank you. In the future kindly post your
own links without trying to steal mine.

Published on Mar 19, 2013 with Bruce W. Hollis, Pd.D., Professor of
Pediatrics, College of Medicine Medical University of South Carolina

http://tinyurl.com/c3u8mrp

Taking 5,000 IU of vitamin D nine times a week is a physiologic
dosage

[John H. Gohde]

> Published on Mar 19, 2013 with Bruce W. Hollis, Pd.D., Professor of
> Pediatrics, College of Medicine Medical University of South Carolina
>
http://tinyurl.com/c3u8mrp
>
> Taking 5,000 IU of vitamin D nine times a week is a physiologic dosage
> with no down side.  It is a watch and wait approach to preventing age-
> related epithelial cancer throughout the body.

Paraphrasing Dr. Bruce W. Hollis in his above video presentation,
anything between 2 and 10,000 IU a day is considered by him as a
"physiologic dosage."

Further for those with a still functioning brain, Dr. Hollis was
obviously referring to his comment that people in Africa can produce
10,000 to 15,000 IU a day of vitamin D-3 from skin synthesize.
.
Don't like that THEN go complain to Dr. Hollis, directly. :)