Posts filed under ‘Cancer’

The Pancreatic Cancer Scourge

The recent death of Patrick Swayze hit me hard.  He was younger than I, and has always seemed to me to be a person who stood up for honor and integrity.  But, what hit me hardest was how unnecessary it was.  The second hit for me was an oncologist praising Swayze’s two-year survival after diagnosis as an “achievement.”  Why did I find that so upsetting?  Read on, I think you’ll agree.

Current medical practice mandates aspirin for anyone who has “risk factors” for heart disease.  Just being older and male is now a risk factor, and almost all men over the age of 40 are now prescribed a daily aspirin.  Seems harmless, doesn’t it?  The truth, however, is far different.

As I pointed out years ago, the Nurses’ Longitudinal Health Study clearly showed an enormous increase in the risk for pancreatic cancer with aspirin use.  And, it didn’t even have to be daily!  An aspirin once or twice a week increased the risk 58%.  (See my article “An Aspirin A Day Can Give You Cancer” for more details.)

Have you heard anything about these appalling statistics?  I think not, because the information was quickly buried.  Why would people be encouraged to take a substance that causes an incurable disease?  Why are these facts being ignored?  I have my own opinion — particularly in light of the fact that vitamins and herbs (safe, natural substances) are continually characterized as “dangerous” and “deadly.”

I believe that the drug companies are criminally responsible for the deaths of millions of people — particularly when they ignore data from their own studies.  Protect yourself and your family.  Question every drug that is prescribed.  Look up potential side effects.  If you’re not clear, make an appointment to consult me regarding your health condition and learn what alternatives are available.  And remember:  What we hear in the media and read on the internet is heavily filtered by drug company interests, particularly on sites like WebMD.


September 18, 2009 at 5:24 pm 1 comment

Schlock “Science” Attempts to Debunk Vitamin D Effect on Cancer

The most recent (October 30, 2007) headline regarding vitamin D and cancer on WebMD reads as follows:  “Vitamin D May Not Cut Cancer Deaths.  Study Shows No Link Between Vitamin D Level and Cancer Deaths — Except for Colorectal Cancer.”  Sounds authoritative, doesn’t it?  But, if you dig a little deeper, you find out that this so-called “study” can hardly be termed a study at all.

In the first place, no study was actually done.  This is another one of those “mega-analyses” that go back over prior work and attempt to extract information that will support a point of view.  In this case, “health studies” between 1988 and 1994 were chosen involving people 17 years and older.  The only criteria for inclusion, apparently, was that — at the time of enrollment – participants had their serum vitamin D measured.  Those participants were then tracked through the year 2000 and, during those 12 years 536 of the 16,800 participants died of cancer.

No further vitamin D levels were ever obtained from the participants, nor were lifestyle or any other factors taken into consideration.  However, based on a single lab value taken 12 years previously, the authors of the study were considered expert enough to have an article accepted for publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute stating categorically that vitamin D level had no affect on cancer mortality in general.  However, they did find that people with the highest level of vitamin D at the study’s start were 72% less likely to die of colon cancer than individuals with low levels of the nutrient.  Nonetheless, the editors of the Journal commented that this beneficial result should not be taken at face value since “the relationship between nutritional factors and colorectal as well as other cancers is complicated.”  {Journal of the National Cancer Inst, Nov 7, 2007, vol 99, pp 1594-1602 [article] and pp 1563-1565 [editorial]}

And, this was published as a product known to cause precancerous lesions in lab animals was approved for over the counter use.  Yes, I am talking about Alli™ – the “weight loss miracle”!  (See my blog on Alli™ on this site.)  Those lesions I believe to be the result of the mechanism of action of Alli™ — it blocks vitamin D absorption!  And, the gut mucosa is an important step in the activation of vitamin D in the body.  Can’t anyone connect the dots?

So, what can we learn from this?  First of all, rigorous peer review standards do not apply when a researcher is attempting to discredit a natural substance.  Secondly, any positive findings must be greatly downplayed to avoid “misleading” the public into thinking there are positive actions they can take to protect themselves from devastating diseases such as cancer.

This is a repeat of a very old, and tired refrain.  Every piece of positive information regarding herbs and vitamins is met with the canard, “You must do scientific studies.”  Yet, when the study is actually completed and the data is positive, we are then treated to an attempt to discredit it as soon as possible.  There is truly no longer any integrity in medical research.  Almost all of it — even that conducted at large universities — is funded by drug manufacturers.  And, the agenda is plain.  Discredit natural remedies and promote “life saving”  drugs.  Because, if you never need a drug, the pharmaceutical industry will take a blow to its bottom line!

November 15, 2007 at 12:57 pm Leave a comment

Alli™ — Weight Loss Boon or Health Fraud?

I want to comment on the hype around Alli™, the newest, over-the-counter weight loss product.  I couldn’t believe it when it sold out all over the country on the first day of its release.  I would like to inject some sanity into the conversation.

Alli™ is a weaker version of Xenical™, a prescription medication that was introduced about 10 years ago.  I clearly remember the advertisements at that time:  A voice telling you “you won’t look like a supermodel,” while a picture of a model is clearly displayed on the screen.  Then, a picture of a pizza while the voice states, “of course, you can’t eat anything you want.”  And finally, in a very fast, tiny voice, the side effects, including fecal incontinence!  This was a masterful use of NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP).  NLP is the study of how people’s brains process information.  The two important rules to apply to the foregoing ad are these:  i) Your brain doesn’t hear negatives; it literally edits them out. And ii) your visual cortex overrides your hearing.  So, the message being communicated is exactly the opposite of the words!!  Talk about misleading!

Now that the product has been around for a while, people are beginning to catch on the side effects, which include:  increased gas and flatulence, oily stools and greasy excretions from the anus.  The package instructions include:  you may want to wear dark pants until you know how this medication will affect you, and you may want to take an extra set of clothes to work!! Excuse me?  Why would anyone subject herself to this indignity?  I suspect because Alli™ is being presented as an “easy solve” to what is really a complex problem.

More seriously, as far as I am concerned, Alli™ blocks the absorption of fat soluble vitamins, including Vitamins A, E and D.  Given the recent research on vitamin D and the increased risk of cancer because of a deficiency state (see my article on this topic.  Click on “Cancer” under “Categories” on the right.), the drug companies are creating a market for their expensive chemotherapy drugs!  Sorry for the cynicism, but it makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

The data on vitamin D is inescapable.  There is a direct relationship between serum vitamin D and the incidence of cancer of the breast, colon and prostate.  In fact, an animal study in 2006, linked the active ingredient in Alli™ to colon lesions believed to be the precursors to colon cancer. (Garcia S, da Costa Barros L, Turatti A, Martinello F, Modiano P, Ribeiro-Silva A, de Oliveira Vespúcio M, Uyemura S (2006). “The anti-obesity agent Orlistat is associated to increase in colonic preneoplastic markers in rats treated with a chemical carcinogen.”. Cancer Lett 240 (2): 221–4. Takayama T, Katsuki S, Takahashi Y, Ohi M, Nojiri S, Sakamaki S, Kato J, Kogawa K, Miyake H, Niitsu Y (1998). “Aberrant crypt foci of the colon as precursors of adenoma and cancer”. N Engl J Med 339 (18): 1277–84)  And, they want you to take this for life?!?

Last, but not least, the weight loss is nominal – only 5% of body weight.  So, if you weigh 250 lbs, you’ll lose 12½ lbs.  Great isn’t it?

A far better option is Coleus forskoli, which is in our herbal product Coleus Forte™.  The dose is two to three per day, based upon your response to the product.  A few people experience diarrhea, which can be handled by reducing the dose.  The side of effects of Coleus include:  lowering your blood pressure, improving your blood sugar by increasing insulin secretion, replacing body fat with muscle mass, inhibiting platelet activation (less clots), increasing the strength of contraction of your heart, while relaxing smooth muscle, and improving thyroid function.  The reason for these wide ranging effects is that Coleus acts directly to increase cyclic AMP, a major regulator of cellular metabolism.

Of course, you will have to watch your portion size and eliminate sugar and white flour (i.e., decrease refined carbohydrates in general).  But, that’s just a healthy approach to eating.  The only people who can’t take Coleus Forte™ are those whose blood pressure is too low to start with (people with severe adrenal problems) and those few people who find their gut becomes too irritable.  In my office, that’s less than 1% of the people who have tried it so far.

So, if you’re interested in a healthy approach to improving your body mass, call and ask for Coleus Forte™.  If you feel you need a more personalized program, you can schedule a consultation and I will be happy to create a personalized plan for you.

October 26, 2007 at 8:55 am 3 comments

Vitamin Propaganda Continues

I am completely disgusted and seriously alarmed by the tenor of “health news” of late.    Have you noticed?  Everything is aimed at discrediting vitamins.  Never mind that the studies are seriously flawed.  Never mind that other studies show the importance of vitamins to human health. The drug companies (the entities who finance “medical” research in this country) have an agenda — creating doubt about vitamins in the mind of the average American.  Then, when the UN Codex goes into effect (yes, it’s still in the works and its implementation is being negotiated), there will be no hue and cry.

One Sunday morning in February of this year (2007) was an excellent example.  I had Fox News on and their medical specialist was reviewing the latest medical “news.”  The featured stories included the “dangers” of antioxidants, the uselessness of garlic and, oh yes, the safety of estrogen replacement therapy!  I think what made it so powerful to me was the juxtaposition of stories, combined with the news items I have seen that have been completely overlooked by the media that demonstrate just how important vitamins are to human health.  So, let me debunk this morning’s news and fill you in on some very interesting data.  This letter is quite lengthy, but I think the information too important to shortchange.

First, the “dangers” of antioxidants: One of the media outlets actually ran a headline “Vitamins Can Kill!”.  Isn’t yellow journalism wonderful? Now to the facts.   The study is a statistical analysis of previously done research.  Since the numbers in the study are so large, it is considered the ‘best’ study done.  The statisticians substitute quantity as their primary criterion, rather than the quality of the data.  And, if you read the report, you will find that the analysts massaged the statistics to get the result they were looking for. When they first did their analysis the results were neutral.  So, they threw out one-third of the studies in order to demonstrate a very small increase in mortality among people taking anti-oxidants. They didn’t even respect their own standards!

And, as if that weren’t clue enough to their bias, there was also no control for health status or for whether the anti-oxidants were being taken singly or in combination.  Or, even what form or what quality of the anti-oxidants the participants were taking.  Why are these parameters important?  First of all, many people in our culture only turn to vitamin therapy when they are very sick or dying.    Obviously, there is a higher death rate among sick people than well people of the same age!  That’s a ‘duh’!  But, it wasn’t considered important enough to be taken into account.    Secondly, several studies indicate that anti-oxidants work in concert with each other.    Taking them as single items — the medical, drug-based model — results in aberrant outcomes.  They either don’t work as well, or cause unexpected problems.  A good example was the Finnish study from the 1980’s that indicated problems with anti-oxidants.  It was then revealed that Finland has no naturally-occurring selenium in its soil.  And, selenium is crucial to the activity of vitamin E.  But, no selenium supplementation was included in the study.  (For a more detailed discussion, you can access two articles I wrote “Finnish Anti-Oxidant Study” and “Sorting Out The Anti-Oxidant Controversy” on our web site under the Heading “Vitamins .”  Just click “Treatments” on the green navigation bar, and then click on Vitamins on the left hand side.)

However, the point of the most recent anti-oxidant study wasn’t clarity, although the study’s primary author insists that it was.  I think the conclusion of the study’s author says it all,  “The governments of the world now have the responsibility to inform people of these results. They have been too slow in the past in requesting that health supplements are properly evaluated, and allowing these products to be added to foods. People have been buying these supplements and foods advertised as having these supplements added under the impression that they
are good for them, when in actual fact they are harmful. Any potential health supplements should not be allowed to be added to foods unless they have been shown to be beneficial, or at least proven not to be harmful.” (emphasis added)  In the article on Medscape, the author commented that the study’s author said that food supplements should be regulated in the same way as medical products.  (The article can be accessed through a Google search: antioxidants + JAMA + 2007; click on Antioxidant Vitamins May Increase Mortality).

I believe the whole point is to accustom people to government regulation of their health options.  We are facing a concerted effort to make all herbs and supplements by prescription only.  (For more information on this, you can go to )

At the end of the Fox News segment on this anti-oxidant research, the doctor trotted out the old canard about getting everything you need from food.  Given the amount of data about the degradation of the nutrient content of our food supply, this is laughable.  Remember the recent study showing that fresh produce at the supermarket has the same nutrient content as frozen or canned produce?    And, the fact that in the 1940s, government studies indicated that freezing reduced nutrient content by 98% and canning by 99%?  Anti-oxidants are very sensitive to light, heat and oxidation.  So, they are readily destroyed by our handling and storage procedures.  So, where does that leave us?  Back to choosing the right supplements for our personal needs via a customized blood chemistry panel.

And, what about garlic? The latest study being bandied about states unequivocally that garlic does not affect cholesterol levels.  This study flies in the face of hundreds of other studies that demonstrate the value of garlic for a multitude of cardiovascular health factors, including:  reduction of arterial plaque formation, reduction in LDL cholesterol, reduction in age-related increases in aortic stiffness, modest reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, platelet inhibition (i.e., a reduction in clot formation), increased fibrinolytic activity (again, reduced clot formation), and reduction in rancidity of the oils in the blood.  Garlic has been called “phyto-HDL” and “herbal warfarin,” but without the side effects.  So, why the dichotomy in the results? Here’s the story.

The problem with this most recent study is that the wrong forms of garlic were used. The study used three types of garlic: raw in sandwiches, garlic powder or powdered Kyolic, an aged garlic which is marketed as odor free.  Why is this a problem?  First of all, the active ingredient in garlic is the smell!  So, obviously, the Kyolic product cannot be considered therapeutic.  It is useless for any of the health benefits of garlic — anticoagulation, cholesterol effects and antibiotic effects.

The mechanism by which garlic produces effects impacts the other two forms of garlic chosen. Once garlic is crushed (chewed or powdered) it releases two chemical precursors that combine in an alkaline environment to produce the active substance.  The alkaline environment in the digestive tract is the small intestine.  The first stop when you swallow is the stomach, which is extremely acid; and the acid destroys the chemical precursors, essentially eradicating any therapeutic effect that garlic might offer.  And, drying garlic to create powder, also damages the allicin.

What you need to know is that, in order for garlic to offer therapeutic effects, it must be in an enteric-coated tablet that dissolves in the small intestine.    Any study done on other forms of garlic is destined for failure. Which, when you think of it, is very convenient if your goal is to discredit a natural agent in favor of expensive — and toxic — drugs. Since there is plenty of information about the correct form of garlic available in the literature, I can only conclude that the study design was deliberately chosen to achieve the desired result.

Third, the Fox News segment addressed the “safety” of estrogen therapy. The doctor was highlighting a study on transdermal estrogen therapy, i.e., patches.  The point of the study was that transdermal delivery reduces the risk of strokes and blood clots. Hunh?  Does everyone in the country suffer from memory loss?  Or, do the commentators just assume we’re stupid?

The news about estrogen-replacement therapy (HRT) is that it is carcinogenic!  All of the studies demonstrate that estrogen therapy increases the risk of breast cancer.    And, this information has been available for years!  Just consult my web site under “Health Conditions,” “Women’s Health” for a series of articles dating back to the 1990s about the risk of cancer with HRT.  Yet, when I did a recent on-line research on this topic, all of the articles I found relating to estrogen therapy and cancer focussed only on endometrial cancer.  Do you remember the drop in cancer rates in this country, particularly breast cancer over the last year?    This was mostly due to women stopping HRT on their own.  Many doctors are urging women to disregard the risk of cancer and continue HRT for its supposed “benefits.”  And, the drug companies are funding many studies to find rationalizations for continued use of hormone prescriptions, because the loss of revenue is seriously affecting their bottom line.

There are many herbal, safe alternatives to menopausal symptoms.  However, the protocol is individualized for each woman.  If you want help, please call the Clinic and schedule a consultation to deal with menopause.

I would like to give you much of the more positive vitamin news that offsets this sort of propaganda; however, space is becoming a problem.  So, let me just give you one example of important news that never made American headlines. The study was conducted in Canada and published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics.  It found that children born of mothers who took a daily multivitamin containing folic acid had a much lower risk of common childhood cancers.  The statistics are as follows — a 47-per-cent lower risk for neuroblastoma (the most deadly form of childhood cancer), a 39-per-cent lower risk for leukemia (the most common form of pediatric cancer) and a 27-per-cent lower risk for other brain tumors,such as medulloblastoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumors.  These results are extremely powerful, statistically.  Why haven’t we seen them heralded in every newspaper in the land?  What’s more important than reducing the risk of childhood cancers?  But, I’m afraid positive news regarding vitamin supplementation doesn’t fit the media model.

I have first hand experience of the media bias from just last year.  Remember the West Nile Virus scare, and my recommendations concerning Medi-Herb St. John’s Wort for both prevention and treatment?  I prepared a press release, in an effort to disseminate what I considered to be vitally important information.  We contacted several media outlets, and no one would put it on the air.  Their reason?  Nothing that was not AMA approved got air time!  If that doesn’t sum it up, I don’t know what does.

Other important information about the role of vitamin E taken prenatally to reduce the incidence of asthma in children and the benefits of fish oils in pregnancy can also be found on our web site or on my blog,  Space prevents me from elaborating on them  further in this letter.

So, what can you do?  Become an educated consumer.  Read every news article with a skeptic’s eye.    Use my web site or blog, and others like them for analyses of “news articles.”     And, take care of yourself and your family by obtaining a personalized, blood chemistry-based nutrition program from our clinic.

April 2, 2007 at 12:16 pm Leave a comment

Estrogen & Cancer/GERD Meds/Fish Oils & Pregnancy — At Last!!

This last couple of weeks (December 2006) have presented me with an interesting (and unusual) experience.  After 20 years in practice — validation from medical research!  And, not just on one issue — but, on multiple issues.  Usually, I feel like a lone voice, crying out in the wilderness!  So, pardon me if I crow a little.  Also, I’d like to share these important issues with you.

The first issue:  Estrogen and cancer risk.  It’s been almost a year since the initial announcement that estrogen therapy increases a woman’s risk of cancer.  This is true even of bioidentical hormones, which many doctors have turned to as an alternative to Premarin®.

A new analysis of federal cancer statistics, presented Thursday, December 13, 2006 at a scientific conference called the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed a 7.2% drop in breast cancer over the last year as women stopped taking hormone replacement therapy.

This most recent announcement came as no surprise to me.  I remember in the late 1980s and early 1990s doing presentations on the risk of estrogen therapy.  At one event at Whole Foods Market, an audience member challenged me by asking, “Don’t you have any more recent data?”  I explained to her that human physiology hasn’t changed in 10,000 years.  So, the age of the data was not a factor.  Now, we have hard evidence that estrogen is extremely carcinogenic.

Unfortunately, the medical profession has no alternatives to offer menopausal women.  I have studied this subject in depth and have a variety of herbal alternatives.  These herbs are not estrogenic.  More importantly, as a woman I appreciate the fact that herbal medicine treats each of us as individuals.  And, what works for one woman may not work for another.  So, at the RFHC, we customize a program for your individual metabolism.

If you have an interest in a non-hormonal approach to menopausal relief — including insomnia, hot flashes and vaginal dryness — you can schedule a consultation at the office.

The second issue:  Prilosec®, Nexium® and Zantac® (and other similar drugs used to suppress acid production in your stomach) increases osteoporosis, and the risk of hip fracture.  (JAMA, December 27, 2006) This finding is a “duh!”  You may have heard me carrying on about using Tums®  (an antacid) for calcium supplementation — which is a complete joke!  You cannot absorb calcium in an alkaline environment.  So, anything that decreases stomach acid inhibits calcium absorption.  Ipso facto, osteoporosis!

I will reiterate what I have said hundreds of times — actually, I feel like a broken record — supppressing stomach acid is exactly the wrong approach to gastroesophageal reflux (GERD).  For the stomach to empty, you need a pH of 1 or 2 in the stomach.  That’s a LOT of acid.  When you have inadequate stomach acid, pressure builds up in the stomach and the upper, esophageal sphincter opens because it is the weaker of the two valves — resulting in heartburn.

In some instances, problems in the lower gut — yeast overgrowth, allergies, and parasites — cause excessive peristalsis in the gut and upward pressure that causes the reflux.

The key:  finding out what is causing you to have symptoms, and then addressing them.  For some, a bowel cleanse program is the key; for others, it’s a simple matter of taking digestive aids.  At the RFHC, we can determine what you, personally, need.

And, I predict that the next problem with these drugs will be a documented increase in stomach cancer.  Low stomach acidity is a known risk factor for stomach cancer.  I just think these drugs — which have the highest sales volume in the U.S., followed closely by pain killers — are dangerous.

And, finally, the third issue:  Fish oils during pregnancy!  This is a huge win for all pregnant women and their babies.  FINALLY, it has been demonstrated that babies born to women who take fish oil supplements in the last trimester of pregnancy have better neurological development.

The study (performed in Australia) found a significant advance in hand-eye coordination among toddlers whose mothers took fish oil supplements during the second half of pregnancy compared with those who did not.

There was also improvement in brainpower and vocabulary among children exposed to fish oil supplements in the womb, says the study published on Thursday online in the medical journal Archives of Disease in Childhood.  And, as an added benefit, mother’s who took fish oil supplements had lower blood pressure and a lowered incidence of post-partum depression.

I have only been giving fish oil supplements to pregnant and nursing mothers for 20 years!  Two caveats, however:  Do not take cod liver oil for this purpose.  Cod liver oil is higher in vitamins D and A than in Omega 3 oils, which are what are needed for brain development.  And, be certain of the quality of your fish oil supplements.  The product should be certified mercury-free.  The products we carry at the RFHC meet stringent quality requirements.

Happy New Year!  I hope 2007 will be even better for you and your family than 2006!

January 21, 2007 at 9:06 am Leave a comment

Vitamin D Benefits

The recent news reports regarding Vitamin D are very interesting. Prior to this, the media has hyped the notion that vitamin D is “toxic” and shouldn’t be taken in high doses. However, Robbins, et al, Pathologic Basis of Disease clearly states that vitamin D toxicity begins at 1,000,000 IUs per day. The U.S. standards for vitamin D (400 I.U.s daily) are ridiculously low, and are based upon the minimum value that was shown to prevent rickets, a serious deficiency disease, causing softening and deformity of the skeleton in children. Now, cancer specialists are changing these standards. The new recommended dose to maintain health is 1,000 IUs (25 mg) per day. That’s 10 8-oz. glasses of milk daily! Obviously, a supplement is much simpler, particularly for those of us who are either allergic to milk or lactose intolerant. Some of the benefits of natural Vitamin D include:

  • protection from cancer of the colon, breast, ovarian and other cancers;
  • lowering insulin resistance, which is one of the major factors leading to heart disease;
  • repair of lung tissue thus preventing lung disease;
  • protection against high blood pressure by regulating serum calcium levels;
  • and regulation of the immune system, which has an impact on auto-immune diseases such as diabetes and multiple sclerosis.
  • All of this is in addition to the prevention of rickets in children and osteoporosis in the elderly.

There is an interesting article in The Independent, a British publication. The article points out that the campaign to reduce skin cancer by using sun blockers has unexpected side effects — a deficiency in vitamin D which contributes to increased rates of some cancers and osteoporosis. This is particularly a problem in parts of the world where there is little sunshine in the winter months. Researchers at the University of San Diego in California, after reviewing 63 scientific papers on the link between vitamin D3 and cancer published between 1966 and 2004, concluded that people living in the northeastern US, where there is less sun, and African Americans with darker skin were more likely to be vitamin D deficient. They found a correlation with higher cancer rates in these populations, as much as a 50% increase. The reason scientists are paying attention is that the difference is so huge, statistically. But, of course, the media is now featuring other “experts” who maintain that anything over 2,000 IUs of vitamin D per day can damage the kidneys and liver. This is, of course, based upon the side effects of synthetic vitamin D, which is not what the research is recommending. The recommendation is for natural vitamin D, also known as D-3, which is the form I have been using for years. By the way, synthetic vitamin D (D2) is no longer listed in the Physicians’ Desk Reference. Too toxic — I suspect. The problem with media coverage is that almost all reporters are ignorant of the distinctions I discuss in this article. Reporters simply look for controversy; there is no such thing any more as factual, scientific reporting without finding someone — no matter what their axe to grind — to oppose the information being presented. It’s exhausting, don’t you think? While we haven’t known all of this information, the alternative health care community has long stated that the American population is relatively vitamin D deficient. If you have had a personalized nutritional program prepared by me using your blood chemistry, you are aware that I often prescribe relatively “high” doses of vitamin D (15,000 to 45,000 IUs per day), with no adverse effects; I know, because I’ve monitored these higher doses carefully. So, we’re again finding that optimum nutrition based on your blood profile provides more benefits than you might expect.

December 29, 2005 at 7:16 pm Leave a comment