Vitamin D is not in rat poison. And if you have difficultly taking vitamin d, it is most often due to being low in three other nutrients: Vitamin K, Vitamin A and magnesium. Taking these nutrients, being sure to use NATURAL VITAMIN A and not synthetic vitamin A or beta carotene, most often relieves unwellness from vitamin d. I discuss this in MANY MANY threads on the main site. Also, being low all of these nutrients possibly can explain your fibromyalgia symptoms as well. And Vitamin D2 (emphasis on the 2) is synthetic, Vitamin D3 is not. Which is why I insist on Vitamin D3. If you've taken D2 in the past, and taken it at the 'prescription dose' of 50,000 IU's per week (one 50,000 IU capsule per week) this is another likely reason why you feel terrible. Taking D3 and taking it in smaller doses is a way to prevent vitamin D side effects.

A compounding pharmacy can compound just about any nutrient. While the doctor WROTE a 'prescription', that is not really 'prescription vitamin d'. A doctor can write a prescription for just about anything, such as Tylenol. But that does not make Tylenol a prescription drug. Writing a prescription for things that are non-prescription is often just a way to get your insurance to pay for it. And going through a compounding pharmacy for a vitamin that is available over the counter is really just spending what was likely hundreds of dollars on something that would have cost just a few dollars. Seems a bit ridiculous to do something like that.

No, I never said that D2 and D3 can both be prescribed by a doctor. They can't. Only D2 can be (at least in the US- if you are in another country, that may not be the case). I confirmed this with a pharmacist. Injectable Vitamin D3 USED to be available in the US, but not any more. And Vitamin D 1, 25 levels are NOT 'Vitamin D levels', these are entirely different levels that have little relation to 25 OH D levels that measure the Vitamin.

And no, your D3 levels did not rise with D2. That is impossible. What almost certainly happened is that your doctor saw you were deficient and gave you a ridiculously inadequate dose of Vitamin D3, such as 1000 or 2000 IU's. Then he retook your Vitamin D level (25OHD) and said, "Oh, no, that Vitamin D3 didn't work. I'm going to have to give you a prescription". So he then gave you 50,000 IU's per week, which is about 7000 IU's a day, and that brought your TOTAL 25OHD level up and he then declared that you 'needed' the prescription in order to raise your levels, when all you needed was the proper dose of the Vitamin, not a different form. But I guarantee that if you look closely at your levels, your Vitamin D2 level was raised after you took the Vitamin D2, as was your TOTAL vitamin D. But your Vitamin D3 level was not raised by taking Vitamin D2. And it was raised by the higher DOSE, not because of the different FORM. If you had taken the same dose of D3, it would have also raised your total level.

And no, I've not contradicted myself. More complexity in an issue is not a contradiction. But yes, of course I've oversimplified. I couldn't possibly go into the ENTIRE subject of Vitamin D3 vs D2 in a single blog post. However, what I say is true, although there are exceptions as to who should TAKE vitamin d and who will respond at what dosages and why they don't. Also, if you have a high to high normal PTH level, then you might have parathyroid disease, and the issue of vitamin D becomes more complex because the body purposely tries to keep Vitamin D levels low in order to not have excess calcium deposition from the higher calcium levels, it's a protective mechanism. If you have high normal to high PTH levels, you should make sure you read <a href="http://www.parathyroid.com" target="_blank">www.parathyroid.com as they go into great detail about vitamin d in relation to parathyroid disease.

Ahh, but I think that you hit the nail on the head. It's the minerals that provide the benefit, not the alkalinity. So, is it 'really' beneficial to be alkaline? Or is it the minerals that give us the benefit? You mentioned that a 'modern person eating a nutrient dense diet who is overly acidic' might need buffering minerals, however, my answer would be that they are probably not eating a nutrient dense diet if they are 'overly acidic', and how did you measure this 'overly acidic' environment? And maybe the only reason that modern people need these extra minerals is that modern diets are denuded of these minerals, and so just need more minerals. But how did you determine that they 'need' to be buffered and 'need' bicarbonate? I can tell you when people need magnesium from their symptoms, but what objective or even subjective determination do you use to know whether people 'need' bicarbonate or to be more alkaline?

Interestingly, a ketogenic diet that is heavy in meats and fats and low in starches of any kind, also kills cancer. This is probably the MOST 'acidic' diet that anyone could possibly have. And ketones are highly highly acidic! They are 50 times more acidic than other molecules that effect pH.And the ketosis diet is proving effective at treating Alzheimers, seizures, diabetes, and even in reversing MS. So, if it's 'more healthy' to be more alkaline, then a ketosis diet should be ineffective at best, at worse, it should make them sicker. I'll probably be adding this information about ketones in the article since it's pretty relevant.

As I mention in the last paragraph, I think that the advice of those who promote an alkaline diet is good for the most part (except the alkaline water nonsense), I just don't think that their conclusions are based in fact (it makes you more alkaline). And while I've 'heard' that cancer does not live in an alkaline environment, I've seen no actual research that this is true, and the fact that the ketosis diet has been shown to cure or stave off the growth of cancer, somewhat debunks this idea. Interestingly, a study that I read long ago that I can't seem to locate now, showed that green smoothies increased the acidity of the stomach, which is why they can help to relieve heartburn, as does apple cider vinegar and hydrochloric acid tablets. So, if green drinks INCREASE stomach acid, where are we getting this information that they make you more alkaline? And why does apple cider vinegar and HCL tablets improve health? As does drinking lemon juice, Kombucha tea, and lactofermented foods, all of which are acidic. Interestingly, one of the reasons that one takes probiotics is to increase the number of bacteria in the gut that not only help to lactoferment (more acid) in the gut, but they also produce fatty ACIDS and butyric ACID, both which are very healing and anti-inflammatory. So, a healthy stomach is highly acidic, and a healthy gut biome is designed to produce more acid!

Plus, again, when you say it 'can't live in an alkaline environment' what does that even mean? The blood pH does not go out of a range between 7.35 to 7.45, so how are they measuring this 'alkaline environment' when urine and saliva are not accurately telling us what the alkalinity of body fluids is? I think that one would need to define what body fluids are alkaline in order to support this hypothesis, because urine, for instance, is often the exact opposite of the body fluids. For instance, if urine is alkaline, could the body be RIDDING itself of excess alkalinity because it's TOO alkaline and needs to be more basic? So measuring the waste products of the body may actually be entirely counter-intuitive. The body may be wanting MORE acid, not less, if it's elimination fluids are alkaline. No one has really answered these questions.

What we DO know is that you cannot change the blood pH without getting very very sick, and I have not seen anyone do direct measurements of lymph fluid in order to claim that 'cancer can't live in an alkaline environment'. And since blood and lymph would (presumably) be bathing the cancer, then those would be the fluids that we would need to measure as 'alkaline' or 'acid' to say that 'cancer can't live in an alkaline environment'. And since we know that blood is 7.35- 7.45, then we'd need to measure the pH of lymph fluid that bathes the cancer. As of yet, I know no one that has done that. They seem to translate 'alkaline urine' into 'alkaline environment' in the body, and this is not necessarily true, and actually may be exactly the opposite of reality.

Thanks for the thought provoking question.

And these factors can be modified by the nutrition that one takes into the body. :)

Until you have 'optimal' levels as outlined on the Normal Vitamin D Levels page.

Please see my pages on http://www.easy-immune-health.com/worsening-bone-... Worsening pain of any kind can be expected after starting vitamin d therapy. Sometime even after levels have been normal for up to six months. It has NOTHING to do with diabetes and your doctor was just making that up as there is no scientific basis for his belief. In any case, if it WERE a sign of diabetes, there would be no need to stop the vitamin d because of that.

The best way to know if you are magnesium deficient is by symptoms. You are 'still' magnesium deficient in my book since I consider anything lower than 2.0 'deficient'. That is the level that cardiologists like to keep heart patients at or above. So, regardless of how much you are taking now or what your levels are, unless your symptoms have improved, then I'd still consider you magnesium deficient. Please see my page on Magnesium Dosage to determine the correct dosage for you.

Yes, Aggression IS the central core around which political philosophy is constructed, but you are so immune to most forms of violence, especially those enacted by government, that you can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak. But these are the examples of governments and their core principles of aggression:

Communism: A small group of powerful people can force everyone to do anything that they want with the idea that equality is the most desired end result
Dictatorship: The government is one guy, and he gets to decide on what the use of force will be and who it will be used by and against.
Democracy: A majority of the people can decide what force to be used and who it will be used against.
Fascism: A small group of people can decide what force to be used and who it will be used against.
Libertarianism: A small group of people can decide what force to be used and who it will be used against (with the idea that maximum freedom is desireable).

Voluntaryism is the only governmental philosophy whereby the use of force is abhorred. All others just use and delegate the initiation of force to their own needs, as they please. It is the CORE component of every political system. You just can't see it until you get out of that paradigm where force and violence is normal.

Bizarre Logic Noor and author,
To say that a certain principle is 'useless' because it doesn't answer ALL questions of what to do in certain situations or that some people disagree on specific points makes EVERY principle, political system, or government useless. There is no possibility of one system answering all questions cleanly and with no controversy. That is silly.

As for pushing someone out of the way of a bus that is going to kill them, well, most people would not even think about it before pushing their friend out of the way. That's what humans do. Having said that, we have 'good samaritan' laws for a reason. Some assholes sue others for damages in just such situations. So, even our system of justice has not solved that conundrum and none will.

As for pushing someone out of your boat in the middle of the ocean, what are those people DOING in your boat in the middle of the ocean? If you invited them, then you have an obligation to get them back to safe harbor before kicking them off (you entered into a contract with them by inviting them onto your boat). If they were pirates who landed there in the middle of the ocean, they you have every right to kick them off and let them die. Where is the controversy here? How is this even an issue to discuss?

And that some people ("Hell, even warmongering neocons don't consider war to be necessarily 'aggression") twist the definition of aggression to be 'not agression' isn't a failure of the principle, but the idiots who need to justify their violence.

Where is the failure of this principle because 100% of people haven't decided beforehand how it will work exactly in every single situation imaginable? Apparently, you want an excuse to commit violence against others. And a good way to do it is to bash anyone and/or discredit anyone who advocates non-aggression on principle.