vickie h
Thank you for telling me that.
You've made my day.
It's worried me that although there is good evidence that people with BC have better prognosis if 25(OH)D is higher rather than lower, I haven't seen much evidence that this knowledge is being applied as widely as it should.
I hope someone from the UK soon reports a similar response from UK health professionals.
It's a pity when the information is freely available in the public domain as at
Pubmed nobody appears to be applying that knowledge to the patients advantage.
I am very pleased to see that you have moved from 35 to 65ng.
35mg/mL is just, but barely adequate to meet daily needs.
It's a bit like living on welfare benefits, from hand to mouth financially, sure with a bit of crafty financial management people can make do, but at 65 it's more like having a reasonable amount of spare cash available in an instant access savings account.
If there is a threat or crisis, the funds are there to respond as needed.
While 50,000iu/daily is a substantial amount it's not totally out of order.
Some people have such a high pro inflammatory status that they seem to use up vitamin d3 faster than most.
What matters isn't the quantity you take, but the 25(OH)D it produces.
Some people with inflammatory conditions require large amounts initially but as the cause of the trouble is brought under control, a lower maintenance amount will be adequate.
Providing these large amounts are taken under medical supervision and 25(OH)D tests performed regularly the chance of getting anywhere near the 150ng/mL level above which adverse events have been recorded.
But those without the advantage of a vitamin d aware Oncologist can be absolutely confident that natural amounts, equivalent to those our skin would NATURALLY make, given the chance of full body non burning, midday sun exposure are providing the biologically equivalent form is used, will be totally safe.