Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Heart Attacks, Cancer and strokes. Preventative approaches -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Dodgy Ticker who wrote (19385)	5/29/2012 10:06:58 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39297

I sometimes have trouble reading these Euro tests. It looks like they are saying 60/80 is the best place to be. Which Dr Davis advocates. However, whose "60/80?" A 80 on Quest Diagnostics, which is the company Kaiser uses, is a 60 on Lab Corp. In this case, they are using a Denmark sample, where people get very little Vitamin D. I wonder how any of them get readings of 100/140 without enormous supplements. As Dr Cannell says, take a 5000IU capsule daily and don't worry about it.

To: The Dodgy Ticker who wrote (19385)	5/29/2012 11:02:31 PM
From: GuinnessGuy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39297

Robert, That is old news. It's called the U-shaped risk curve and it's only seen in the northern most countries like the Scandinavian ones. Reinhold Vieth gives a nice talk about this and offers what sounds me to be a terrific hypothesis on why this is observed. Basically wide swings in serum Vitamin D can be as risky as having constant low levels. So, for example, say a Swede takes off for a winter holiday in February and goes to a beach resort in say, Costa Rica, and he is out surfing almost every day around noon. His serum level could conceivably go from around 10 ng/ml to over 60 ng/ml in that one month. Now he goes back to Sweden and at some point in the not to distant future he's tests positive for some cancer. While they are at it, they check his Vitamin D level and it's out of sight at 60 or more ng/ml, and so they blame the vitamin D. Anyway, that's my interpretation of Dr. Vieth's explanation, but it would be better if you could slog through the video yourself. It's all very interesting and entertaining: youtube.com Sorry, I don't know when during the talk he specifically talks about this, but if you are pressed for time, start at 20 minute mark. Guinnessguy