Here’s what Dr Garland’s study found:
Results: Serum 25(OH)D rose as a function of self-reported vitamin D supplement ingestion in a curvilinear fashion, with no intakes of 10,000 IU/d or lower producing 25(OH)D values above the lower-bound of the zone of potential toxicity (200 ng/ml). Un-supplemented all-source input was estimated at 3,300 IU/d. The supplemental dose ensuring that 97.5% of this population achieved a serum 25(OH)D [vit. D] of at least 40 ng/ml was 9,600 IU/d. Conclusion: Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity. [Emphasis mine]
It’s the serum level of vitamin D and not the dose that’s most important. In other words you will need to consume whatever it takes to obtain the proper serum levels; if it’s 6,000 IU fine, others may need twice that. The IOM fails miserably again with a one size fits all motto when taking a vitamin D supplement; dosing will be higher for obese women, everyone during the winter months, the elderly and those who never use tanning beds or get out in the sun as well as those people with darker skin color who require up to five times the exposure length for the same amount of vit. D. The most difficult to replete would then be an elderly, obese, black, female; her requirements will be much higher than a young, thin, white male. It is important to check a level after about 4 months on a particular dose and see where you are-knowing with confidence that you stand a better chance of having the Easter Bunny over for chicken and dumplings than ever getting toxic on any given normal dose. For example I had a level of 35 ng/ml taking 6,000 IU of vit. D3. I subsequently increased my dose to 10,000 IU for a serum level of about 80 ng/ml which nears the optimal anti-cancer level.
As you can plainly see my body responds differently than Dr Garland’s study subjects above. In my experience I have seen that many patients need to take at least 8,000 IU to get to a level over 50 ng/ml.
I understand that in medicine scientists and doctors on scientific committees always wish to underestimate-to be conservative so as not to get spanked later when new studies contradict current guidelines. But these folks at the IOM have a nefarious track record regarding some of the contentious subjects I cover in this book. They should be viewed less as objective scientists and more like the Council of Cardinals in Renaissance Rome: they know plenty but share little. The independent IOM members are too politically connected to be the final word on anything. This latest finding that never mentions vitamin D’s potential in the treatment or prevention of numerous cancers, autoimmune diseases and heart disease, or that other declaration not too long ago that vaccination has no disease associations is just another prime example of their shameless character. Let’s explore Dr Cannell’s article below. This will help shed light on the subject even if the IOM won’t.
Dr Cannell MD in 2008 in his COMMENTARY, Cod Liver Oil, Vitamin A Toxicity, Frequent Respiratory Infections, and the Vitamin D Deficiency Epidemic:
The doses of sunshine or oral vitamin D3 used in healthy children should be designed to maintain 25(OH)D levels above 50 ng/ml. As a rule, in the absence of significant sun exposure, we believe that most healthy children need about 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily per 11 kg (25 lb) of body weight to obtain levels greater than 50 ng/mL. Some will need more, and others less. In our opinion, children with chronic illnesses such as autism, diabetes, and/or frequent infections should be supplemented with higher doses of sunshine or vitamin D3, doses adequate to maintain their 25(OH)D levels in the mid-normal of the reference range (65 ng/mL) — and should be so supplemented year round.
Did someone say autism? Let’s imagine a scenario where we have a baby in utero who is severely deficient in vitamin D which is extremely common now that we use sunscreens. He or she is born without complications. Yet, as we have seen from my chapter on vaccines (which is now a book scheduled for publication in Oct of 2016), after a series of vaccinations the at-risk baby develops autism or ASD. It could very well be that both very low vitamin D levels in the baby-a direct result of sun avoidance policies- and intensive vaccine exposure are needed to produce this devastating disease. Of the more reprobate results the incorrigible IOM has generated, vaccines and autism stand out as a clear and distinct example of cooking facts to fit the occasion. Remember? In that study the result was already predetermined to exonerate the CDC and vaccine manufacturers from any vaccine/autism connection. Knowing the contrary facts that autism most certainly can be a consequence of vaccines, the IOM did what it was told and produced the expected stewed response which is “what Walt wants.” (See the chapter on vaccines for the full story. Walt was the head of the CDC’s vaccine program)
Looking at their new predetermined conclusions on vaccine safety, they tell us that vaccines are not associated with any diseases whatsoever even though the preponderance of science and rest of the world thinks otherwise. This isn’t serving the public or doing us any good. What would have been much better is opening up a line of inquiry regarding a possible relationship with neonatal hypovitaminosis D and vaccine toxicity. But since, in their minds, neither is unsafe we will have to sit this out until better minds prevail. In the meantime be cautious and do not take their word for it even if your doctor loves quoting them.
Naturally I don’t trust the IOM, why would I? Neither does any mom with a now autistic child, and a new nightmare career. Nor any truth seeker such as Dr Cannell who, on the Alex Jones Show ripped the IOM a new one. Dr Cannell hosts the Vitamin D Newsletter and is more knowledgeable on vitamin D than the entire committee. I think I’ll take his recommendations over the fluffy, perfumed IOM members in their “carriage and six” any day. Check out www.vitaminDcouncil.com
IN THE END WHAT IS THE BEST DOSE/SERUM LEVEL FOR VITAMIN D?
That level has been steadily changing upward from 30 ng/ml, then 40 ng/ml, then 50 ng/ml. At 50 ng/ml many investigators seem happy but it’s only based on current data. Dr Cannell makes the most sense while endorsing a level of 50 ng/ml as the most conservative choice he mentions that our sun-broasted ancestors had levels up to 70 ng/ml based on current blood samples of equatorial Africans.
However, if our bodies can generate up to 20,000 IU’s (some sources say 25,000 IU’s) from a full day at the beach, that could lead to a much higher serum level for the avid sunbather and maybe that’s where the real euphoria of sun worshiping comes in. The super feeling of well being from a day in the sun with the gradual transformation into something much different and better by summer’s end than the woodpile-hiding, shriveled, brittle, broken down mole-thing you were in the dead of winter.
As I mention in a previous blog on sun exposure, maybe it’s some of those yet to be studied sun molecules Dr DeLuca has been investigating that make you feel so damn good in the summer. Perhaps that euphoric feeling of vitality comes about in a synergistic way with those yet to be revealed sun-molecules and vitamin D when our serum levels hit 90 ng/ml or 100 ng/ml of 25(OH)D. Don’t forget that Dr Seneff of MIT has shown that only sulfated vitamin D is bio-active-same with cholesterol. Of course the only way our ancestors sulfated these skin sequents was through sunlight exposure. There again may be another interesting clue to this fascinating subject and a key to the synergy. I believe this is true and awaits discovery. In the meantime we can utilize some of the facts presented below.
Dr Zittermann makes several recommendations/observations from the Vitamin D Council website:
1. Vitamin D intoxication is rare while vitamin D deficiency is global.
2. Dr Hector DeLuca of UWM recently concluded that high blood calcium might occur in some people after prolonged intake of 25,000 IU per day.
3. Dr John Hathcock’s analysis of 20 publications showed no ill effects of using 10,000 IU/day.
4. High intermittent doses such as monthly dosing should be avoided.
5. According to the Institute of Medicine’s Food and Nutrition Board, the upper safe blood level for 25(OH)D (vitamin D) is 50 ng/ml. However, according to Dr Zimmermann, this recommendation “is not well documented.” Certainly, much higher levels are seen with sun exposure alone.[Emphasis mine]
Also from the same site:
Studies indicate that for proper health, serum vitamin D levels should be a minimum of 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L), with optimal levels falling between 50-80 ng/mL (125-200 nmol/L). These values apply to both children and adults. [Emphasis mine]
Top 10 facts about vitamin D and cancer
- Many studies have found solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) vitamin D is associated with reduced risk of breast, colon, and rectal cancer.
- A randomized controlled trial with 1,100 IU/day vitamin D3 plus 1,450 mg/day calcium found a 77% reduction in all-cancer incidence.
- Geographical studies have found reduced risk in mortality rates for 15-20 types of cancer in regions of higher solar UVB doses.
- Observational studies found risk of breast, colon, and rectal cancer falls as vitamin D blood levels rise to over 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L).
- Mechanisms have been proposed to explain how vitamin D acts to reduce the risk of cancer from starting, growing, and spreading.
- Those who develop nonmelanoma skin cancer may have produced enough vitamin D to reduce their risk of internal cancers.
- Those with higher vitamin D blood levels at time of cancer diagnosis had nearly twice the survival rate of those with the lowest levels.
- African-Americans have an increased risk of cancer in part due to lower vitamin D blood levels because of darker skin.
- Higher UVB exposure early in life has been found associated with reduced risk of breast and prostate cancer.
- Those diagnosed with breast, colon and prostate cancer in summer in Norway had higher survival rates than those diagnosed in winter.
Next week we will finally get to the facts on sunlight, sunscreens, skin cancer and malignant melanoma. This is a whopper and it is just the opposite of what you were told AND I have it fully documented from very credible sources.
 (Vitamin D Supplement Doses and Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D in the Range Associated with Cancer Prevention CEDRIC F. GARLAND) 02/20/2013
 Sunlight Robbery: Vitamin D and public health-is current UK public health policy on vitamin D fit for purpose? p. 2.
 Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 117(11):864-870. P. 5
Category: SUN EXPOSURE