Para prevenir ou tratar a infecção pelo coronavírus, administrando uma dose única de 600.000 UIs, para pessoas com 50 kg ou mais, o que corrige a deficiência de imunidade imediatamente e mantém a pessoa com níveis séricos no intervalo recomendado pela Endocrine Society (Estados Unidos) por 1 mês, após o qual a pessoa deve manter 10.000 UI por dia, artigo publicado:
For immediate normalization of vitamin D levels (so that levels remain within the reference range proposed by Endocrine Society in USA) for 1 month, an adult who has not been supplemented should take a single dose of 600,000 IU (six thousand international unities). This loading dose would be immediately absorbed by the subcutaneous fat tissue and will be slowly released into circulation throughout 30 days. Another loading dose may be repeated after 30 days If you start with 10,000 IU per day it will take as long as 60-90 days to achieve the normal range. Coronavirus is a public health emergency (!!!!!). Starting with 10,000 IU per day or giving a loading dose of 600,000 IU will certainly be the difference between death or life (respectively) por many thousands of people who are already infected (with initial symptoms or not) and will or will not progress into respiratory failure and death (respectively). Obese people may require more than 600.000 IU as a loading dose because they may have much fat tissue to absorb vitamin D and then release into circulation.
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract
infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual
Adrian R Martineau,1,2 David A Jolliffe,1 Richard L Hooper,1 Lauren Greenberg,1 John F Aloia,3 Peter Bergman,4 Gal Dubnov-Raz,5 Susanna Esposito,6 Davaasambuu Ganmaa,7
Adit A Ginde,8 Emma C Goodall,9 Cameron C Grant,10 Christopher J Griffiths,1,2,11 Wim Janssens,12 Ilkka Laaksi,13 Semira Manaseki-Holland,14 David Mauger,15 David R Murdoch,16 Rachel Neale,17 Judy R Rees,18m Steve Simpson,Jr19 Iwona Stelmach,20 Geeta Trilok Kumar,21 Mitsuyoshi Urashima,22 Carlos A Camargo Jr23
Faça download da publicação aqui:
CIENTISTAS CONVOCAM PARA UMA AÇÃO D*
[*PROJETO QUE TEM O PROPÓSITO DE SERVIR COMO UM MODELO DE SAÚDE PÚBLICA COM A VITAMINA D]
A DEFICIÊNCIA DE VITAMINA D É EPIDÊMICA
Sobre o assunto, assista também: Vitamina D3 – 10.000 UI diárias é vital para à saúde
Scientists’ Call to D*action
The Vitamin D Deficiency Epidemic
40-75% of the world’s population is vitamin D deficient.
The causal link between severe vitamin D deficiency and rickets or the bone disease of osteomalacia is overwhelming, while the link between vitamin D insuffiency and osteoporosis with associated decreased muscle strength and increased risk of falls in osteoporotic humans is well documented by evidencebased intervention studies.
There are newly appreciated associations between vitamin D insufficiency and many other diseases, including tuberculosis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, type-1 diabetes, high blood pressure, increased heart failure, myopathy, breast and other cancers which are believed to be linked to the non-calcemic actions of the parent vitamin D and its daughter steroid hormone. Based on the evidence we now have at hand, action is urgent.
It is projected that the incidence of many of these diseases could be reduced by 20%-50% or more, if the occurrence of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency were eradicated by increasing vitamin D intakes through increased UVB exposure, fortified foods or supplements. The appropriate intake of vitamin D required to effect a significant disease reduction depends on the individual’s age, race, lifestyle, and latitude of residence. The latest Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, 2010, indicates 10,000 IU/day is considered the NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level). 4000 IU/day can be considered a safe upper intake level for adults aged 19 and older.
It is well documented that the darker the skin, the greater the probability of a vitamin D deficiency. Even in southern climates, 55% of African Americans and 22% of Caucasians are deficient.
More than 1 billion people worldwide are affected at a tremendous cost to society.
A Scientists’ Call to Action has been issued to alert the public to the importance to have vitamin D serum levels between 40 and 60 nanograms/milliliter (100-150 nanomoles/liter) to prevent these diseases. Implementing this level is safe and inexpensive.
The benefit of an adequate vitamin D level to each individual will be better overall health and a reduction in illnesses and, ultimately, a significant reduction in health care costs. The benefit of adequate vitamin D levels to society/businesses is a more productive workforce and, lower health care costs.
The D*action project has as its purpose to serve as a model for public health action on vitamin D. It is a test bed for techniques, and for providing outcome evaluation at a community level.
10 January 2013
Non-migraine headache is associated with vitamin D deficiency, according to researchers in Norway.
Marie Kjaergaard, MD, and colleagues of the University Hospital of North Norway found that incidence of headache was 20% higher in participants with lower vitamin D blood levels than in those with the highest levels.
“High prevalence of headache has been associated with high latitude, thus suggesting a relation with vitamin D,” The authors explain. Before the study, no research had looked at a possible link between vitamin D status and headache.
The researchers performed a cross-sectional study based on questionnaires from 11,614 participants. They found that non-migraine headache was associated with low vitamin D blood levels as compared to participants with the highest serum vitamin D. The authors found no association between vitamin D and migraine headache. They conclude,
“Although adjustments were done for possible confounders, this finding may still reflect lifestyle rather than causality, and further studies are needed to investigate this.”
Vitamin D mostly comes from summer sunlight as well as certain foods.
Even if children get enough calcium from their diet, including through milk and yoghurt, without enough vitamin D, calcium cannot be properly absorbed.
Vitamin D also regulates cell growth, neuromuscular and immune function and reduction of inflammation.
The British climate may be responsible for some vitamin D deficiency. 90% of vitamin D intake comes from exposure of the skin to sunlight. Between October and March, there’s not enough UVB radiation in autumn, winter and early spring sunlight.
The body can store up vitamin D over the summer months, but the amount of UVB radiation necessary to produce vitamin D also depends on a child’s skin colour.
Those with lighter complexions need less sun exposure than those with darker skin. Some children may have less exposure to the sun because their skin is covered for cultural reasons. Others may miss out because of having to stay indoors or in hospital due to medical conditions.
A balance is important between getting children out on the sun enough for their vitamin needs while making sure their delicate skin is protected from sun burn or over exposure.
Experts advise exposing the skin to regular, short periods of sun during the summer months, without sunscreen, which blocks UVB rays. There is no official recommendation for time limits, but a short period unprotected in the sun can be around 10 to 15 minutes for most children. After that, the normal sun protection measures are needed. These include covering up and using sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of at least 15.
Vitamin D occurs naturally in some foods, including oily fish and eggs, and is added to some foods such as spreads and breakfast cereal.
Breastfed babies get their vitamin D from their mother’s breast milk, so it is also important for breastfeeding women to get enough vitamin D themselves. Pregnantand breastfeeding women are advised to take a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms of vitamin D for the needs of the mother and growing baby.
The Department of Health recommends supplement drops containing vitamin D for babies and children from six months to five years old.
This will give them their daily requirement of 7-8.5 micrograms of vitamin D.
Infant formula is fortified with vitamin D, so babies who have formula won’t need vitamin drops until they have less than 500ml (around a pint) of infant formula a day.
Check with your health visitor or GP if you have concerns.
If a breastfeeding mother didn’t have vitamin D supplements throughout her pregnancy, a health visitor may say the baby needs vitamin drops from one month old.
Women and children may qualify for free supplements containing vitamin D under the Healthy Start programme. Age-appropriate vitamin drops are also available from pharmacies and supermarkets
Are you one of those who believe plain milk is enough for your child’s nutritional needs? Have you ever thought about your child’sVitamin D levels? These findings are an eye-opener
Mark ‘yes’ if these situations are relevant to your child:
1. Your child barely plays out in the sun.
2. Off late your child tends to get tired easily & seems listless at times.
3. Your child complains of pain in his joints without reason.
If your answers are predominantly ‘yes’, then this recent 11-city survey conducted by Ipsos Research will be an eye-opener for you. The purpose was to understand the level of awareness about Vitamin D among mothers – whether they considered it important enough for their child, the misconceptions about it and the harm that would befall the child if they are found to be Vitamin D deficient. The response from the 2000 mothers who were spoken to for the survey, threw up some compelling insights.
First the good news. General awareness levels among the mothers were high: most of them correctly mentioned sunlight as a source of Vitamin D. They were aware that lack of this vitamin would result in weak bones in children. The good news however, ended there!
More worrisome were several startling disclosures, viz:
-Only 50 per cent of the mothers were aware of the crucial nutritional link between calciumand Vitamin D.
-Only 14 per cent mothers felt their children were calcium-deficient. The majority of them believed the milk they were providing their children was enough to store up Vitamin D levels in the body.
-Their awareness about other sources of Vitamin D (fish, fish liver oils, egg yolk, fortified dairy and grain products) was also very low.
-They didn’t know that apart from weak bones, lack of Vitamin D also results in skin-related issues, tooth cavities and poor concentration levels.
-Majority said they give milk daily to their children and in addition also provide them fruits, milk food drinks (MFDs) and interesting home-made food. Most mothers preferred MFDs over plain milk and also felt the quantity of milk their child was consuming was sufficient for calcium absorption.
So what lessons and questions does this insightful survey throw up? For starters, there is an urgent need to shore up awareness levels among mothers because most of them feel that the source of Vitamin D is restricted largely to absorption of natural sunlight. The truth is that this vitamin can be and needs to be made available to children in many other ways as well, given the kind of lifestyles many of them lead. Mothers also need to be educated about the health hazards that calcium deficiency leads to, and the right quantity of milk that needs to be consumed everyday for calcium absorption in the body.
The findings of the survey should prompt you to stop, take note and become more aware. After all, it is awareness that leads to empowerment.
This is the first of a 10-part series that will focus on the importance of Vitamin D for children. Keep watching this space for more
A Consumer connect initiative
by Brant Cebulla
The study, led by Professor Bahram Aminmansour and colleagues from Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, investigated whether vitamin D in conjunction with progesterone could improve recovery rates in patients with traumatic brain injury.
Currently, physicians have few drugs that are effectively neuro-protective after a traumatic brain injury. Progesterone has been identified as safe and effective, protecting the blood-brain barrier, and helping prevent cerebral edema, excessive inflammatory response, and necrosis. It also helps stimulate myelin formation, reduces free radicals, and helps prevent neuronal loss.
Recent studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency may worsen traumatic brain injury and reduce the effects of current treatment. Like progesterone, activated vitamin D is a neurosteroid and has proven to be effective aiding recovery in animal models, perhaps by mechanisms similar to progesterone, which is also a steroid hormone.
The researchers enrolled patients admitted for traumatic brain injury, treating them in less than 8 hours of admission. They randomized 60 patients into three groups, with 20 patients in each of the following groups:
The researchers used the Glasgow Coma Scale to assess patients, which is a 15 point scale that monitors severity of coma via eye, verbal and motor responses; the higher the score, the better the consciousness. Prior to treatment, the three group had equivalent scores of around six.
Three months after intervention, patients in the progesterone + vitamin D group had the highest mean scale rating at 11.27, followed by progesterone alone at 10.25 and then placebo at 9.16 (p=.001).
Furthermore, after 3 months, 35% of patients in the progesterone + vitamin D group made “Good Recovery,” as assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale, while only 25% met this assessment in the progesterone group and only 15% in the placebo group (p=.03). Ten-percent died in the progesterone + vitamin D group, compared to 20% in the progesterone group and 40% in the placebo group (p=.03).
The authors note that the progesterone + vitamin D group showed the most favorable results likely because of a variety of complimentary mechanisms, including vitamin D’s beneficial role in the immune system, its anti-inflammatory action and reduction of TH1 cytokines. Furthermore, vitamin D prevents intracellular hypercalcemia (not promotes).
The researchers conclude:
“The use of combined progesterone and vitamin D is reasonable in that vitamin D in combination with progesterone improves repair mechanisms of the central nervous system considering their common pathways, and also compensates other mechanisms, which are not performed by progesterone. This reduces the . . . probable failure of a single treatment.”
Aminmansour B et al. Comparison of the administration of progesterone versus progesterone and vitamin D in improvement of outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury: A randomized clinical trial with placebo group. Adv Biomed Res, 2012
Cada vez mais médicos e publicações especializadas são incisivos quanto à dose mínima diária PREVENTIVA de Vitamina D3, que é de fato um indispensável hormônio para a saúde humana: 10.000 UI por dia.
Ao contrário do que é alardeado por alguns, e mesmo muitos médicos desinformados, 10.000 UI diárias não é mais considerada “superdosagem” é sim dosagem mínima para efeitos preventivos na saúde das pessoas.
Apenas interessará em desinformar quanto a este fato, aqueles que lucram em promover doenças, dentro da própria medicina, do seu meio gestor, da indústria farmacêutica e dos governos no Brasil. Esta necessidade representa nos dias atuais um legítimo caso de saúde pública, eis que a falta desta vitamina-hormônio tem caráter epidêmico. Em consequência disto, cada vez mais pessoas de todas as idades estarão adquirindo doenças autoimunes, como esclerose múltipla, parkinson, alzheimer, e centenas de outras.
“Now most real vitamin D experts agree that the minimum 25(OH)D serum level for optimum health and immunity from disease should start at 50 ng/ml. With these recent discoveries, many are taking four to ten thousand iu of vitamin D3 supplements daily, unless they’re under the sun relatively bare-skinned and often.”
(NaturalNews) Severe vitamin D deficiency influences heart health: study
Mainstream medicine has promoted the merits of vitamin D’s bone health and rickets prevention for decades. For that level of health protection, a low RDA (recommended dietary allowance) was established of 600 iu (international units) daily while a vitamin D blood level at 20 ng/ml (nanograms/milliliter) was considered normal.
Now most real vitamin D experts agree that the minimum 25(OH)D serum level for optimum health and immunity from disease should start at 50 ng/ml. With these recent discoveries, many are taking four to ten thousand iu of vitamin D3 supplements daily, unless they’re under the sun relatively bare-skinned and often.
A few courageous heart specialist MDs are breaking through the cholesterol smoke screen scam asserting that arterial inflammation is the root of all cardiovascular issues and heart disease (http://www.naturalnews.com).
A lot of this inflammation is the result of poor diets. But vitamin D also provides a measure of protection against inflammation of all types (http://www.naturalnews.com).
With the link of inflammation to heart disease, it’s no wonder that recent studies are pointing to increased heart disease mortality among those vitamin D deficient.
These studies were conducted on patients in hospitals and clinics that handle coronary problems. The most recent was conducted in Brazil at and published in PubMed online in November of 2012. (Sources   below)
They were divided into two groups: Those with serum D levels at or under 10 ng/ml, considered severely deficient, and those with 20 +/- 8 ng/ml, closer to normal. A higher percentage of those patients severely deficient died in the hospital than those mildly deficient.
The researchers concluded, “… severe vitamin D deficiency is independently associated with in-hospital cardiovascular mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes.” In other words, your chances of dying in a hospital after a heart attack are greater if you’re vitamin D deficient.
In September of 2012, Science Daily reported a Danish study conducted by the University of Copenhagen and the Copenhagen University Hospital. This study involved more than 10,000 Danes whose vitamin D levels were established between 1981 and 1983 and tested again with follow-up readings since then.
Lead researcher Dr. Peter Brondum-Jacobsen reported: “We have observed low levels of vitamin D compared to optimal levels are linked to 40% higher risk of ischemic heart disease [reduced blood supply], 64% higher risk of heart attack, 57% higher risk of early death, and no less than 81% higher risk of death from heart disease.” (Source  below)
Another study reported by Science Daily in 2009 took place at the Heart Institute at Intermountain Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah (USA). This time almost 28,000 patients of 50 years or older age with no prior history of heart disease had their vitamin D blood levels measured periodically.
The levels were divided into very low, low, and normal. This time the normal standard was relatively high at 30 ng/ml. They found that those with very low levels of vitamin D were twice as likely to have heart failure than those with normal levels.
Comparing very low D levels to normal, the low end patients were 78 percent more prone to strokes and 45 percent more likely to incur coronary artery disease. Overall, very low levels of vitamin D appeared to manifest twice as much heart failure as normal D levels. (Source  below)
It’s impossible to overdose vitamin D from sun exposure. But it’s remotely possible that supplementing heavily over time with D3 might even create heart problems. This can be avoided by also taking vitamin K2, especially the MK-7 variety (http://www.naturalnews.com/027832_vitamin_K_osteoporosis.html).
Sources for this article include:
A team of researchers at McGill University have discovered a molecular basis for the potential cancer preventive effects of vitamin D. The team, led by McGill professors John White and David Goltzman, of the Faculty of Medicine’s Department of Physiology, discovered that the active form of vitamin D acts by several mechanisms to inhibit both the production and function of the protein cMYC. cMYC drives cell division and is active at elevated levels in more than half of all cancers. Their results are published in the latest edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Although vitamin D can be obtained from limited dietary sources and directly from exposure to the sun during the spring and summer months, the combination of poor dietary intake and sun avoidance has created vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency in large proportions of many populations worldwide. It is known that vitamin D has a wide range of physiological effects and that correlations exist between insufficient amounts of vitamin D and an increased incidence of a number of cancers. These correlations are particularly strong for cancers of the digestive tract, including colon cancer, and certain forms of leukemia.
“For years, my lab has been dedicated to studying the molecular mechanisms of vitamin D in human cancer cells, particularly its role in stopping their proliferation,” said Prof. White. “We discovered that vitamin D controls both the rate of production and the degradation of cMYC. More importantly, we found that vitamin D strongly stimulates the production of a natural antagonist of cMYC called MXD1, essentially shutting down cMYC function.”
The team also applied vitamin D to the skin of mice and observed a drop in the level of cMYC and found evidence of a decrease in its function. Moreover, other mice, which lacked the specific receptor for vitamin D, were found to have strongly elevated levels of cMYC in a number of tissues including skin and the lining of the colon.
“Taken together, our results show that vitamin D puts the brakes on cMYC function, suggesting that it may slow the progression of cells from premalignant to malignant states and keep their proliferation in check. We hope that our research will encourage people to maintain adequate vitamin D supplementation and will stimulate the development of large, well-controlled cancer chemoprevention trials to test the effects of adequate supplementation,” said Dr. White.
This work was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the National Cancer Institute/Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.
UK – Official new data shows that today’s eggs contain more than 70 per cent more vitamin D and double the amount of selenium than when previous analyses were carried out 30 years ago.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Today’s eggs also contain around 20 per cent less fat, more than 20 per cent less saturated fat, around 13 per cent fewer calories and more than 10 per cent less cholesterol than previous surveys suggested. An average medium egg now contains 66 calories (compared to the previous figure of 78 calories) and an average large egg 77 calories (previously 91 calories).
The data, produced by the UK Foodcomp project consortium, funded by the Department of Health as part of their rolling programme of nutrient analysis surveys, provides the first update on the nutrient content of eggs since the 1980s.
Professor Judith Buttriss, Director General of the BNF, explained: “This is the latest in a series of analyses from the DH-funded UK Foodcomp project that provide up to date information on the composition of the food we eat. These particular data reinforce the contribution to essential nutrients that eggs can make as part of a varied diet, for people of all ages.”
The new analysis, part of which is being presented at The Nutrition Society’s Summer Meeting on 18 July, found that two medium eggs can provide around two-thirds of the RDA (Recommended Daily Amount for EU labelling purposes) for vitamin D. The additional vitamin D found in eggs is particularly significant in the light of evidence suggesting that a large proportion of people in the UK have an inadequate supply of this vitamin.
It has been suggested that, in addition to the well-established role of vitamin D in bone health, this nutrient may also play a role in the immune system and beneficially influence the incidence of some cancers, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
“This is a very welcome finding at a time when there is rapidly accumulating evidence that a lack of vitamin D could be a risk factor for a number of chronic diseases,” says Cath MacDonald, independent nutritionist.
The increased selenium content of eggs is also of public health significance as UK selenium intakes have declined in recent years alongside a switch from North American to European wheat. Selenium is important in protecting cellular components such as DNA, lipids and proteins against oxidation.
The new analyses reveal that an average medium egg now contains around 177mg of cholesterol, although it is now acknowledged that cholesterol in foods such as eggs does not have a significant effect on blood cholesterol in most people. All major UK heart and health advisory bodies, including the British Heart Foundation, have already removed the previous limits on egg consumption linked to their cholesterol content.
The changes are believed to be the result of improvements to hens’ feed, an increase in the ratio of white:yolk in an average egg, and improved analytical methods since the last official Government analyses were carried out in the 1980s. Vegetable oils replaced meat and bonemeal in UK hens’ feed in the 1980s and it is believed that better quality oils, together with other enhancements to hens’ feed, have improved the hens’ absorption of fat-soluble vitamins and the take-up of nutrients.
Paul Finglas, coordinator of the UK Foodcomp project at the Institute of Food Research, said: “The results from this project are important for monitoring the quality of our national diets through surveys such as the Department of Health’s National Diet and Nutrition Survey, and show the benefits of private:public partnerships working together to support new research projects.”
For a table summarising the update on the nutrient content of eggs, please click here.
TheMeatSite News Desk
Sobre Vitamina D, assista ao vídeo do Programa Sem Censura:
“In conclusion, this study suggests that vitamin D supplementation and sun exposure prior to breast cancer diagnosis helps with survival and reducing the size of breast tumors. Here, levels above 30 ng/mL were better than lower levels.”
July 17, 2012 — Brindusa Vanta, MD
A new study confirms that healthy blood levels of vitamin D are important in women diagnosed with breast cancer and it also reveals new findings regarding the benefits of vitamin D for this condition.
In this study, featured in the May 2012 issue of Carcinogenesis, a group of scientists out of Catholic University Leuven in Belgium evaluated the relation between vitamin D status and breast cancer. They wanted to know if vitamin D status at the time of diagnosis correlates or influences tumor characteristics, survival, and cancer relapse. Furthermore, they wanted to know if any of this was influenced by vitamin D related genes.
The researchers performed blood tests on 1800 early stage breast cancer patients at the time they received the diagnosis (before starting any treatment). They evaluated the blood levels of vitamin D (25OHD levels) and looked at the specific genes related to vitamin D pathway.
25OHD levels of >30 ng/mL were classified as “high” and were observed in 35.9% of the participants. 31.7% of women had “intermediate” 25OHD levels- between 20-30 ng/mL and 32.4% of the women had “low” 25OHD levels, classified as <20 ng/mL.
They made the following observations:
1. Low levels of 25OHD serum were significantly associated with larger tumors (at the time of the diagnosis) and high levels of 25OHD levels were associated with smaller breast tumors. This is the most remarkable finding, because previous studies did not show the link between vitamin D levels and tumor size.
2. High blood levels of vitamin D at the time of diagnosis were significantly associated with a better overall survival and disease-specific survival. Basically this means that women with low serum 25OHD levels at breast cancer diagnosis have an increased risk of death from any (breast cancer related or unrelated) cause. There was noted some improvement in the disease-free interval as well.
3. It is already known that the incidence of breast cancer is higher in postmenopausal women (60 % of women diagnosed with breast cancer are menopausal). Vitamin D deficiency is also more common after menopause.
This study found that high levels of vitamin D significantly improved the disease outcome among postmenopausal women (compared with those women who had low levels of 25OHD).
4. Researchers also found that that vitamin D related genes significantly influence the serum levels of 25OHD, but did not correlate with tumor size or survival.
This fits with past research nicely. Past studies have found:
An increased risk of developing breast cancer with higher latitude, low sun exposure and low vitamin D status.
A meta-analysis indicated a slight decrease in breast cancer risk following preventive vitamin D intake.
A large randomized, placebo-controlled study from Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) showed that supplementation with vitamin D and calcium reduced the risk of breast and colorectal cancers.
In conclusion, this study suggests that vitamin D supplementation and sun exposure prior to breast cancer diagnosis helps with survival and reducing the size of breast tumors. Here, levels above 30 ng/mL were better than lower levels.