Too Many Vitamins is A Bad Thing?

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

No, it's not. Did you not read the link? It's truly not too much vitamin-a. Please read the link.

I have read the link. You should also be aware that there is a difference in dosage when considering acute versus chronic toxicity. 4,000 IU.kg is the limit dosage for a healthy, functioning individual. If someone were to erad your message and follow your dosage, but had even a slight variation in hepatic function, they could have ill effects.

Be careful when giving medical advice.

[edit on 1/23/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


~106,000 People die from prescribed medications yearly in the US alone!
deaths

Times 25 years means 2.65 million, and that's only America.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

.


Nevermind the fact that the majority of everyday "convenience foods" contain chemical additives that literally prevent the proper absorption of the sparse nutrients they contain.

Source? The only additive with this effect I know of is olestra, and that is purely a result of increased water secretion, not necessarily interfering with the mechanisms of vitamin absorption. Also, all products containing olestra are required to be labeled as such (and are few and far between as it is).

That's when the real money comes in. Chronic deficiencies means chronic diseases and that requires prescription medication to "manage" your symptoms.

Not really. Vitamin deficiencies are only treated with prescription medications when there is resulting organ failure. Most often, we give people a multivitamin, advise them to continue taking them, and thank them for the ten or twenty dollar co-pay. That's it.

This idea of acute toxicity is ridiculous to the same effect as warning about water being toxic at too high of an amount. Yes, it's true but not before you ingest an inhuman amount.

It would be ridiculous if people didn't become acutely toxic from fat-soluble vitamins every year. Maybe you should go have a talk with these people you claim are already vitamin deficient. when they're finished vomiting on your shoes from the effects of the toxicity, I'm sure they'll be glad to listen to what you have to say.

And for the record, over the past 25 years there has only been 10 deaths alleged to vitamin use. And those 10 are alleged, unproven cases. This is compared to dozens of millions of deaths caused by prescription medications that where used as prescribed and as directed, over the same time period.

Deaths do not equal cases. Technically, there were very few deaths from gun shot wounds in my city last year. Of course, there were over ten thousand cases, some resulting in coma or permanent paralysis, but they weren't deaths so they don't count in your statistics, right?

Also, I would love to see your data on the "dozens of millions" of deaths caused by prescription medications. I've yet to find any such data.

[edit on 1/23/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Wow, speaking of massive, you are massively misinformed. I suspect you trust sources such as the American Medical Association, the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration for health related advise. I am truly sorry for that.

Perhaps you'd be willing to spend five minutes looking at the following 2 videos that deal with massive amounts of vitamins as therapy that effectively cure chronic disease.







And if you're really brave, go and watch the source from which these videos where taken. There you'll find the "data" that you'd so love to see and a whole lot more. I guarantee your perceptions will change.

reply to post by unityemissions


I should rephrase. Do you have a reliable source, one that isn't run by a malpractice attorney who also specializes in "asbestos and offshore injuries"?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Correct. That's for chronic toxicity! Acute means much more in a smaller time frame resulting in toxicity sooner. I gave all the data. If someone were to breeze by all but one of my posts, that's their err. I said and provided a quote which showed toxicity is lower in people with kidney or liver damage. I doubt the damage would have to be slight for such toxicity at such a low dose. The liver performs it's functions without noticeable malfunction until 70%+ has been destroyed.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


How about this one.

As for the phantom dangers of supplements touted by the pharmaceutical industry, many politicians feel that there's insufficient supporting evidence and no real need for government regulation. In fact, many legislators believe that the supplement industry's record of safety speaks for itself, and already far surpasses that of the pharmaceutical companies'. A transcript from an official hearing record of the Committee on Government Reform regarding the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act quotes Representative Dan Burton (R-IND), "As for the safety of supplements, an interesting comparison was published last year; 106,000 people die a year from prescription drugs; 42,000 a year from automobile accidents. It is more likely that you will be struck by lightening and die in this country than it is that you will die from using a dietary supplement, with just 16 deaths reported from that last year."

NaturalNews

and here's one I pulled up on google scholar:

Each year do: - about two millions get adverse effects to drugs and - 106,000 die in adverse drug effects (compare accidents 91,000) - 61,000 get drug-induced Parkinsonism - 16,000 are involved in automobile accidents due to drugs - 163,000 get drug-reduced memory - 32,000 get hip fractures caused by drug-induced falls - 6 millions abuse prescription drugs and - more than 100,000 die in overdose of drugs - 97,000 die in “medical accidents”

source

[edit on 23-1-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by StrangeBrew


I watched your videos, and have not changed my perspective, as you promised. This is because I have heard these claims before, and have heard the arguably more believable counter-claim.

The "megadose vitamin C" myth started with Linus Pauling, who was not clinically trained. His results have yet to be reproduced by any clinical lab, casting a great deal of doubt on his work.

Now, don't misunderstand, vitamin C has been shown to have a GREAT deal of protective effects in preventing cancer, mostly by shielding a cell's DNA from damage, the triggering event for neoplasm development. However, there is absolutely NO data, NO proof, and NO precedent for vitamin C being "selectively toxic" to cancer, as your first video claims.

Ascorbic acid and its salts (AA) are preferentially toxic to tumor cells in vitro and in vivo. Given in high enough doses to maintain plasma concentrations above levels that have been shown to be toxic to tumor cells in vitro, AA has the potential to selectively kill tumor cells in a manner similar to other tumor cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. Most studies of AA and cancer to date have not utilized high enough doses of AA to maintain tumor cytotoxic plasma concentrations of AA. Data are presented which demonstrate the ability to sustain plasma levels of AA in humans above levels which are toxic to tumor cells in vitro and suggests the feasibility of using AA as a cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agent.

Ascorbic acid IS selectively toxic to tumors

and another:

Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: Action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues

Yes, it does...

yet another:

Selective Toxicity of 6-Hydroxydopamine and Ascorbate for Human Neuroblastoma in Vitro: A Model for Clearing Marrow Prior to Autologous Transplant

AA+6-Hd

[edit on 23-1-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by InertiaZero


Using C as an example is not good as very high doses, such as 1-5 grams a day are what some people, usually people who are healthy, take daily. You can't possible get too much of it, by drinking orange juice and taking a vitamin pill.

Codex Alimentarius does try to suggest people take very little nutrients in their bodies because they work for teh annanunuki bankers and pharmeceuticals.

I'd rather "overdose" on vitamins thank you.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by Unity_99]

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Correct. That's for chronic toxicity! Acute means much more in a smaller time frame resulting in toxicity sooner. I gave all the data. If someone were to breeze by all but one of my posts, that's their err. I said and provided a quote which showed toxicity is lower in people with kidney or liver damage. I doubt the damage would have to be slight for such toxicity at such a low dose. The liver performs it's functions without noticeable malfunction until 70%+ has been destroyed.

Assuming a peripheral portion of the liver were damaged, you're right, it can function near full capacity at 70%. This is where I get frustrated, though. You seem to have little physiologic education. What happens if a critical region of the liver is damaged? Thsi is absolutely possible (and common) in cases of hepatic cancer, cancer metastasis, and cirrhosis. If a critical region were damaged, you could see a marked decrease in liver function with as little as 5% tissue damage, with little to no outward effects. Couple this with any sort of fluxuation in renal clearance, often seen in liver conditions due to improper nutrient and electrolyte balance in the blood, and you're well within toxic levels of vitamin A.

Basically, do not give medical advice on these boards, even if you're a trained professional.

[edit on 1/23/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by unityemissions


Your first source is a commercial website trying to sell products, and your second site is an old textbook that doesn't clarify if those adverse effects were due to the drugs themselves, or interactions with other drugs, improper dosage, etc.

Please, just find a plain old, peer-reviewed paper that shows the "dozens of millions" of people who have died every year. I guaranteed, if that statistic were true, there would be grad students across the globe writing about it, especially in countries where Pharma companies have no lobbying power (namely, those who force the companies to bargain for prices in their healthcare system).

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


What makes you think they don't?

I don't have a medical license, and I make no recommendations here. I gave my personal experiences and opinions, backed by facts. It seems to me that if a critical area of the liver were damaged, sure that would be enough to cause liver disfunction. It's a bit different from "the slightest" and "critical"...I think, no?

I don't have access to peer reviewed journals. Not a student, and not rich enough to afford the fees. I get mostly abstracts only, though some sites are kind enough to offer free full articles.

reply to post by unityemissions


If you use pubmed.gov, you'll find that a great deal of articles published are free. Just type in your query, click search, and once it pulls up your results, look to the right of the screen. There should be a link called "Free Full Text". Click that, and it will filter your results so that all the studies shown are free to view the full paper. Once you click a paper's name, there should be a link on the right side of the screen with a small logo saying "Free Text", that should let you download the PDF< or give you the link to do so.

As an example, a search for "ascorbic acid cancer" resulted in 3758 hits, with 788 of those offered free, many from the latest publication cycle (end of 2009).

Now, go out there and find me an article showing the "dozens of millions" of deaths from proper use of prescriptions meds.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

It seems to me that if a critical area of the liver were damaged, sure that would be enough to cause liver disfunction. It's a bit different from "the slightest" and "critical"...I think, no?

Not at all. The liver has several critical functions, which are maintained by the tiniest bit of tissue in the organ. If such a region were damaged, the patient may not feel any effects for days, sometimes weeks. In the meantime, their electrolyte balance and renal clearance would be affected drastically.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Okay...context is needed here. I understand that the slightest critical damage will result in liver dysfunction. What I was trying to point out is that you implied that any of the slightest liver damage would cause this. You didn't mention this slight damage being in a critical area, initially.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Luckily, I don't have to back the claim. I didn't make it.
Thanks for the info on pubmed.gov. I tried to use that once, and thought a fee was required. Well ya learn something new everyday.

I hope you understand that valuable journals like the journal of Orthomolecular Therapy is purposefully excluded from pubmed. Lots of valuable jewels aren't in that directory.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Okay...context is needed here. I understand that the slightest critical damage will result in liver dysfunction. What I was trying to point out is that you implied that any of the slightest liver damage would cause this. You didn't mention this slight damage being in a critical area, initially.

Damage to critical regions, leaving non-critical regions unharmed, is common a many liver conditions (which I listed above). This is why basic medical physiology is a necessity when talking about these things. If you don't understand the order, and disorder, of an organ, how can you even begin to claim that chemical X or Y won't hurt the patient?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Luckily, I don't have to back the claim. I didn't make it.

Bah, sorry. I got your post confused with a post by someone else. I apologize completely =)

Thanks for the info on pubmed.gov.

I tried to use that once, and thought a fee was required. Well ya learn something new everyday.

I hope you understand that valuable journals like the journal of Orthomolecular Therapy is purposefully excluded from pubmed. Lots of valuable jewels aren't in that directory.

Pubmed actually does a good job of including pretty much everything. It even has a few occult journals. All that's required (to the best of my knowledge) is demonstrating a lack of conflicts of interest, a regular publishing schedule, and a publication review process open to all peers, rather than a select few. If a certain journal isn't in the database, it's most likely because they haven't met all of those criteria yet. Of course, not being in the "inner circle" of the database, I'm not entirely sure why a journal is given the boot, so I can't say with 100% certainty why a journal isn't listed.



[edit on 1/23/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

[edit on 1/23/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Because I don't need to know, silly. I follow the work of those whose job it is to know these things. I can't be a professional in everything, but I can follow the work of great researchers in many fields and gain a general understanding. It's not simply me claiming that it takes much more than 7,500iu of vitamin-a to cause toxicity in most circumstances, it's many people. I provided a link. Would you like several more?

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Because I don't need to know, silly. I follow the work of those whose job it is to know these things. I can't be a professional in everything, but I can follow the work of great researchers in many fields and gain a general understanding. It's not simply me claiming that it takes much more than 7,500iu of vitamin-a to cause toxicity in most circumstances, it's many people. I provided a link. Would you like several more?

I don't dispute that your dosage is fine, FOR YOU. Your physician (or whomever prescribed the dosage, be they a homeopath, nurse practitioner, etc) obviously took into account your current status and deemed it safe. But making a blanket statement that such a dosage is safe is not a responsible means of conveying nutritional information. That is my point.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Allow me to rephrase then: Unless you're dying of renal failure or have critical liver damage, 7,500iu will be quite safe for the individual. Happy?

Sheesh. A shot of vodka would probably be much more toxic than this.

B complex is the only vitamin that is expelled by the body in urine if it is not used, all others are toxic including C.
Most people get enough vitamins from the foods they eat. For drinkers and Rx takers it's recommended to replenish B complex because it's not produced naturally.

Further, ask your doctor to prescribe for you prenatal vitamins, you can get a 30 day supply for $4 at Walmart and they are high grade and contain folic acid. I usually break them in half and take one a week or when I'm feeling like I haven't eaten well.

I just discovered vitamin E sticks for skin. Great for sensitive face skin and healing wounds. And mineral make-up seems better than talc because talc is also toxic.