"Every vitamin, additive, preservative and pesticide is poison." "Vitamin D is rat poison" . . .
The quantity of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol as a ratio of body weight which is required to kill a rat is vastly higher than the amount taken by humans in vitamin D3 supplements.
There's very little vitamin D3 in food, fortified or not. There is only a relatively small amount in multivitamin tablets, such as 5 micrograms (40 IU).
Most doctors are not aware that the body needs at least 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L = 1 part in 20,000,000) 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the bloodstream for the immune system to work properly. This is 2.5 times what most doctors think is adequate - 20 ng/mL, which is generally sufficient to supply the kidneys.
25-hydroxyvitamin D is is not vitamin D, it is a separate molecule with a different role in the body. The primary or sole function of vitamin D3 in the body is to be hydroxylated, primarily in the liver, over several days, into circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
Neither of these compounds are signaling molecules. They do not act as hormones. A hormone is a substance in the bloodstream (and the cerebrospinal fluid) which is created in one part of the body, so its level (concentration) in the bloodstream controls the behaviour of cells in distant parts of the body.
The kidneys hydroxylate 25-hydroxyvitamin D a second time to become 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol) which goes into the bloodstream at a very low level, such as 0.1 ng/mL, where it functions as a hormone to alter the behaviour of several cell-types which are involved in calcium-phosphate-bone metabolism.
This is the origin of the false belief that "vitamin D is a hormone". Calcitriol is a signaling molecule and can act as a hormone, as just described.
While many doctors generally understand that "vitamin D boosts the immune system", they tend to assume that by taking vitamin D3 supplements or by generating more of it in the skin, that this raises 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (which it does) and that this raises circulating (hormonal) calcitriol levels, which is true only to a very modest extent. Very few doctors or immunologists (and too few researchers who write about vitamin D) understand that the immune system does not use hormonal signaling and is unaffected by the very low, stable, level of circulating calcitriol.
Many types of immune cell rely on a good supply of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, diffused into the cell's cytosol (main compartment) through the cell's plasma membrane, to supply their intracrine (inside each cell) and paracrine (to nearby cells) signaling systems. For a proper explanation, please see this part of a long page in which you will find links to and discussion of many research articles concerning the dependence of the immune system on good levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#02-compounds . These signaling systems enable the cell to respond to its individual circumstances, which is crucial for the operation of the whole immune system. They are not hormonal (endocrine) signaling systems. They locally produce higher concentrations of calcitriol when they are activated, and this make them unaffected to any significant degree by the low, stable, level of circulating (hormonal) calcitriol.
To safely attain at least the 50 ng/mL level of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D, food and multivitamins can only provide a fraction of the vitamin D3 which is needed. It is possible, to generate it in the skin, but it is much harder for people with brown or black skin than for those with white skin.
Ultraviolet B light, around 297 nanometre wavelength, breads a carbon-to-carbon bond in 7-dehydrocholesterol, which is present in the skin, because it is one of the last steps on synthesizing cholesterol. This opens up a carbon ring and the resulting molecule changes its shape naturally and settles down into a configuration which is stable: vitamin D3 cholecalciferol.
Exactly the same process is used to manufacture pharmaceutical vitamin D3. The 7-dehydrocholesterol is created from wool fat and dissolved in a hydrocarbon liquid. The UV-B comes from large, specially constructed, mercury vapour lamps. See Industrial Aspects of Vitamin D by Arnold L. Hirsch in 2010: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/B978-0-12-381978-9.10006-X .
There are two problems with this UV-B skin exposure way of getting enough vitamin D3: Firstly, it is only naturally available in sufficient quantities in the middle of cloud-free summer days (far from the equator, or any time near the equator), without clothing, glass, sunscreen or excessive pollution attenuating it. The second and more fundamental problem is that these very same UV-B wavelengths always damage DNA, and so raise the risk of skin cancer.
To safely attain the 25-hydroxyvitamin D the immune system needs to function properly, the amount of vitamin D3 to take, per day, depends on body weight and obesity. Please see the recommendations by New Jersey Professor of Medicine Sunil Wimalawansa at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#00-how-much and in his article in Nutrients: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2997 .
For those not suffering from obesity, this is 70 to 90 IUs per day, per kilogram body weight. For average weight adults, this is about 5000 IUs a day. This scary number is due to an IU being a very small amount: 1/40,000,000 of a gram. It is 0.125 milligrams = 0.000125 grams = 1/8000th of a gram per day.
A sheet of A4 office paper weighs about 5 grams. (Letter size is a little less.) If this were vitamin D3, it would ensure the average weight adult had enough 25-hydroxyvitamin D for their immune system to work properly for about 110 years.
This is a gram every 22 years - and pharma grade vitamin D3 cost about USD$2.50 a gram, ex-factory.
Without proper vitamin D3 supplementation, the great majority of the population has half or less of the 25-hydroxyvitamin D their immune systems need. This is why we have seasonal influenza, a COVID-19 pandemic, 11 million people a year dying from sepsis etc. Some people have only 1/10th of the vitamin D3 they need to be healthy.
Show me where Alex Jones and all your friends warn people about the amount of Ivermectin to take, which is the active ingredient in RAID and Roach Motels, and show me where they tell you how much D3 to take, which is the active ingredient in DCON "Kills Rats Dead". Then, show me how those help people for the Covid virus, which doesn't even exist.
Hi Chief, Thanks for mentioning, not quite correctly, that ivermectin is the active ingredient in cockroach poison baits. More on that below.
If you think I am against ivermectin or other early non-patented, inexpensive, effective, generally safe treatments for COVID-19 such as those analysed at https://c19early.com, then you haven't read my Substack https://nutritionmatters.substack.com or my currently active website: https://vitamindstopscovid.info or the first one I used to highlight the need for nutrition and approaches other than vaccines etc. for tackling COVID-19, from March 2020: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/ . I am not friends with anyone who promotes or defends the disastrously inept, corrupt and groupthunk mainstream response to COVID-19.
Of course SARS-CoV-2 exists. It seems you have taken up this weird "there is no such thing as a virus" cult, or at least some lesser denialist belief system: that there was no such thing as the virus which caused hundreds of millions of people to become ill with COVID-19.
I was a subscriber to Dr Sam Bailey's Substack and responded, in a comment, to her article https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-and-why-it-matters in which she stated that viruses do not exist and lamented that "there has been no direct response to the overall thesis". I wrote that the reason she doesn't get much in the way of response is that most people think her hypothesis is stupid. I added that I am one of those people and wrote, reasonably briefly, why her hypothesis is wrong. In short, if it were true, then we would have to be able to show reliably that every one of the invariably highly detailed journal articles on virology (I guess there are hundreds of thousands at least) over the last century or so, such as this one on the complex mechanical operations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41580-021-00418-x, are all the product of some mixture of fraud and delusion.
I later found (there was no notice of any of this) that she had deleted my comment, unsubscribed me and banned me from subscribing again. This is not the sort of response which a person would make if they were really interested in scientific debate.
Thanks for mentioning that ivermectin is used in cockroach bait traps such as RAID. A web search did not show up many results.
"Of the various avermectins, Campbell's group found the compound "avermectin B1" to be the most potent when taken orally. They synthesized modified forms of avermectin B1 to improve its pharmaceutical properties, eventually choosing a mixture of at least 80% 22,23-dihydroavermectin B1a and up to 20% 22,23-dihydroavermectin B1b, a combination they called "ivermectin".
"Abamectin was subsequently selected for development for crop protection and is currently sold commercially for control of mites and certain insect pests on several ornamental and horticultural crops in nearly 50 countries. Ivermectin, a 22, 23 dihydro semi-synthetic derivative of abamectin, has been developed widely for control of a variety of ecto- and endoparasites of animal health as well as for control of the causative agent of river blindness, Onchocerca "olvulus, in man. The structures of the avermectin natural products and semi-synthetic derivatives are shown in Fig. 1."
Fig 1 shows that ivermectin has radical R25 (on the 25th carbon) being the same as in either the -1 or -2 forms of the avermectin A and B structures depicted in the figure. Ivermectin's R5 is the same (OH) as avermectin B's R5, but not avermectin A's (OCH3). The X part of the ivermectin molecule (between carbons 22 and 23) is stated to be "-CH2-CH2-" which is differs from the X of the -1 and -2 forms of avermectin, respectively "-CH=CH-" and "-CH2-CH-" where the second carbon (23) also bonds to an "OH". As best I can tell, this means that ivermectin differs from avermectin B (AKA "abermectin") which is mixture of avermectin B1a and B1b, by (ivermectin) having an OH and an H bonded to the second carbon (C23) of the X structure while for avermectin B, this carbon bonds to two hydrogens.
The Wikipedia page for ivermectin cites Omura and Crump 2014: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.pt.2014.07.005. Fig 1 of this article depicts the ivermectin molecule (both B1a and B1b forms) having a single bond between C22 and C23, while the original avermectin molecule has a double bond between these two carbons.
"Hydrogenation of avermectin B1, using Wilkinson’s catalyst [RhCl(PPh3)3], selectively reduces the double bond at C22–23 (in red) to a single bond to form the more effective ivermectin."
On this basis I think that ivermectin is not the same chemical as the abermectin or avermectin b1 used on cockroach bait. However, this additional oxygen and the change of a double bond to a single are very small changes to a sprawling molecule which makes me think of the International Space station after a century or two of extensions.
So it seems that ivermectin is a more effective form of the abermectin B1 used in cockroach baits.
"Ivermectin was found to bind selectively and with high affinity to glutamate-gated chloride channels, commonly found in invertebrate nerve and muscle cells."
"Resultant increased cell membrane permeability with respect to chloride ions causes hyperpolarisation [the neuron becomes incapable of firing, which is a depolorization of the voltage across its cell membrane] of the cells, resulting in paralysis and death of the parasite. Compounds of this class may interact with other ligand-gated chloride channels, such as those gated by the neurotransmitter gamma-amino-butyric acid (GABA). However, mammals only possess glutamate-gated chloride channels in the brain and spinal cord and as the avermectins have a low affinity for other mammalian ligand-gated channels and do not usually cross the blood–brain barrier, they are very safe for mammals."
This "usually" is important. Ivermectin would be toxic to vertebrates if it crossed the blood-brain barrier, though not as toxic as to invertebrates, since it only has a low affinity for the neurons' chloride channel proteins, whereas it has a high affinity for those in invertebrate neurons. I recall reading that a very small fraction of humans have a genetic variation which enables these large molecules to cross the BB barrier, and so into the cerebro-spinal fluid in which brain and spinal neurons are bathed, so causing cause harm or death. I don't have a reference for this handy.
While this is a very small number compared to the hundreds of millions of people who have used ivermectin, with success, to prevent or treat debilitating parasitic infections, that number is not zero. I guess that short of genetic testing, there is no way of predicting who these people are.
The fact that the avermectins are toxic for invertebrates does not mean they are similarly toxic for humans.
Since most people, worldwide (less so equatorial countries), has only a fraction of the 25-hydroxyvitamin D their immune systems need to function properly, the best treatment by far for all those with COVID-19 was to boost their 25-hydroxyvitamin D level safely over the 50 ng/mL the immune system needs, in 4 hours or less, with a single oral dose of about 0.014 mg per kilogram body weight calcifediol (another name for 25-hydroxyvitamin D), which is about 1 mg for an average weight adult. This is the recommendation of Jew Jersey based Professor of Medicine, Sunil Wimalawansa: "Rapidly Increasing Serum 25(OH)D Boosts the Immune System, against Infections - Sepsis and COVID-19" https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2997 and https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#4.7 .
However, pharmaceutical grade calcifediol, while not expensive (https://vitamindstopscovid.info/04-calcifediol/#04-faes), is very difficult to obtain except by prescription in Spain, Italy and some nearby countries (Georgia, at least). Ivermectin was very widely used and so was widely available. I am sure it saved many lives and would have saved the lives of millions of people if it had been properly used for every person infected with COVID-19.
Dr Sam Bailey has over 17,000 subscribers to her Substack. You have over 7,000. I think all these subscribers would be better served by a more scientific approach to discussion than I saw in my brief encounter with Dr Bailey, and with your overly broad statements such as "Every vitamin, additive, preservative and pesticide is poison."
Nice try. There is no Covid virus. None of the 20 tests look for a virus. Everyone knows that since HIV, their tests are antibody tests that have no correlation to any specific virus.
Time to write more alternative-to-the-alternative fear porn about virology being a fake and nutritional supplements poison, but no time to discuss the concrete points I raise, with references, in my two comments above and in the research cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/ ?
I am not defending the majority of virologists.
If the majority of virologists stood together and told the world that the evidence for the lab-release (leak or perhaps deliberate) hypothesis of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 was overwhelmingly strong (see links and documents at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/07-origins/), and that there were no concrete reasons for supporting the zoonotic transfer, or direct from bat, hypotheses, then all governments would be forced to accept this. Then, governments should (and probably would) strongly regulate all gain of function research with viruses and other pathogens.
However, the majority of virologists have not done this. How can we think of this majority of lab-leak avoidniks as scientists? Their behaviour is profoundly unscientific, in ways which harm and kill millions of people - just by enabling continued GoF research which could just as easily cause another pandemic as it did the COVID-19 pandemic.
I believe all such virologists who have not openly supported the lab-leak hypothesis (which is their duty, as professionals charged, in part, with caring for the welfare of all humanity) now, or even by 2021, should be permanently disbarred from any kind of work involving pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites.
Chief, I can see where this is going. We are never going to agree on this so let's agree to disagree.
I applaud and approve your stance on "vaccines" and share your dream of actually holding Nuremberg 2.0 trials one day.
I quite agree that I have no idea of what's inside supplements. I don't have my own lab to test for that kind of thing. For that matter, I also don't know what's inside the milk, cheese, butter, coffee, flour, meat or apples I consume. Are you equally concerned about what's in the food you eat—assuming like the Emperor Augustus that everything is poison unless you pick it yourself from your own trees? Because once you start questioning things you have no way of confirming, you will have no peace. Every donut and every granola bar may be laced with something nasty.
If THEY want to poison me, they won't have much trouble slipping something into my supermarket trolley or Amazon delivery parcel.
One point I'd like to raise is that I very rarely get sick. That is, not since I've been following a supplement regime that includes generous doses of niacin over ten years ago. I had one bout of of norovirus in 2023 when I took my dog to the vets and contamination from the not-very-well-cleaned machine used to remove fluid from the dog's abdominal cavity resulted in 4 humans and the dog going down with that illness.
And I had one bad dose of flu that I picked up in December 2018 when I attended a wedding and an after-party and an after-after-party in the close company of a man who was coughing and wheezing all the time and wouldn't have been there at all if he hadn't been the best friend of the groom.
Apart from that, I'm very healthy at 65. No blood pressure or diabetes or obesity or allergies or kidney or liver or stomach or brain problems. My GP is very unhappy because he can't find any excuse to recommend any maintenance drugs for me.
Since I started on niacin, I have been free from the recurrent bouts of depression that used to come and go, and my skin condition is much improved. My body "tells" me that niacin is good for it. I listen to my body. If every time I read a scare story about a food or drug or supplement that I take, I were to stop taking it, I'd be dead of malnutrition by now.
I'm old enough to remember when butter and egg yolks were clogging up everyone's arteries and we should all switch to margarine and make our omelettes using the whites only and throwing the yolks in the bin.
I have an older brother —three years older—who has been suffering from painful arthritis for the past decade and can barely walk these days. I sent him by mail across the ocean a package of the supplements I recommended he take—which included niacin—and he declined to use them, because "I don't believe in that shit".
And yet this same man, old and infirm and with an advanced and debilitating autoimmune-caused disease, took his COVID-19 vaccines like a puppy—all five of them at last count.
And I also have a younger brother—two years younger—who had a bad dose of COVID (or whatever that was) in 2020 and has never fully recovered. Yet from 2021 to 23, he took four doses of COVID-19 and his condition worsened with each one. He developed painful knee joints and seems to be moving into arthritis territory too. I didn't recommend any supplements for him, because after the experience with the elder brother, I realized that sibling rivalry is so strong that neither of them would take my advice over that of their doctors or the TV.
But last month, my younger brother reported to me that he had been struck with esophagal cancer, which is, as you know, one of the more difficult to treat and cure cancers. I immediately thought it was partly due to the jabs, but didn't say a word to him out of kindness I suppose. But I did recommend him to try Ivermectin, Fenbendezole and a few other "alternative" treatments that might slow down or stop the cancer in its tracks.
You know what he said? "Thanks, but I have a good (medical) team working with me, and I don't want to do anything to deviate from their program." So, just like my elder brother, he's a good little puppy.
I remain convinced that the right supplements and the right repurposed drugs could have treated both of my brothers and, if not cured them, at least extended their lives and improved their quality of life considerably. And sure, that's just like my opinion, man; but it isn't something I just pulled out of my backside or off the internet. It is the result of many years of research (involving cross-referencing) and experimentation. You say, "That's why you get sick." But the truth is that I have cured myself and improved my quality of life greatly by using these "poisons", and so have millions of other people.
You are aware of how many people the COVID shots have killed and injured (at least as ballpark figures). You know it is well into the tens of millions at least?
In the past, I have tried to research the dark side of vitamins and other supplements. I wanted to find out how many people niacin has killed, niacinamide has killed, vitamin C has killed, huge great multivitamin and multi-mineral tablets have killed over the past 50 years. I couldn't find anything at the CDC, the FDA, or the WHO. And so I concluded that these things must be pretty safe. Safer than aspirin or Tylenol, and possibly safer than peanuts and cocktail olives, both of which have officially killed significant numbers of people.
In the case of peanuts, you can choke on them, get salmonella poisoning from them, or have an anaphylactic shock in reaction to ingesting them. All these things have resulted in death. So myt conclusion is that ingesting niacin is safer than ingesting peanuts, and official mortally statistics would seem to support that conclusion.
The problem with these kinds of claims is that they are so easy to bring up but they can take considerable time and effort to investigate or debunk. And I don't want to spend my life arguing with people on the Internet about this kind of thing.
But let's start with the first claim—that "Niacinamide is the main ingredient in fireworks." I would assume this is inaccurate as I learned in my kiddy school days that the main ingredient of fireworks is gunpowder, which is made from 75 percent saltpeter (potassium nitrate), 15 percent charcoal, and 10 percent sulfur. Back then, I was also successful in making my own gunpowder and making it go "bang"! So I have empirical evidence.
I've never heard the claim that niacinamide is the main ingredient in fireworks despite being around for over 60 years. But since I could have been living under a rock—they might have changed the recipe over the years without telling everyone‚I thought I'd better check with Google. Nothing I could see that indicates niacinamide is even a minor ingredient. Checked with Wikipedia and found a fairly long article on "Fireworks" that lists 14 ingredients but doesn't mention niacinamide in the text.
Wow, if your claim is true, then this is a conspiracy theory of epic proportions. And if it's true, I would really like to know. But I'd also like some more substantial evidence that it's true before accepting its validity. Also, if you research it and discover that it's not true, I'd like to read an admission to that effect.
"Niacinamide causes Cancer": I'll look into this when I have a bit of time. But if it does, it will be joining a very long list of potential carcinogens that most people put in their mouths that include sugar, flower, coffee, processed meats, red meat, grilled or charred meat, fried foods, vegetable oils, alcoholic beverages, to name a few.
"The story admits that Niacin is a family of synthetic, unknown chemical structures." : So what?
Actually, niacin is the common or garden name of a distinct molecule that scientists in white coats who walk around with test tubes and clipboards in their hands call Pyridine-3-carboxylic acid. t has the chemical formula C6H5NO2. It is also known as vitamin B3 or nicotinic acid.
Niacinamide or nicotinamide is a derivative form of niacin. It is a different molecule with a different chemical formula: C6H6N2O.
Am I going to fast for you?
In short, the story is inaccurate. Please don't quote stuff you find online as if it was self-evidently true, like a Jehovah's Witness quoting the Bible. Exercise the same level of skepticism you would when listening to a speech by Anthony Fauci or any other mainstream talking head.
"Nicotinic acid is created using coal tar, ammonia, acids, 3-cyanopyridine, and formaldehyde."
Quite possibly. I haven't studied the process involved. But the end product of the process is nicotinic acid—which assumedly is not contaminated by any of those poisons. If the synthetic vitamins were contaminated, the FDA and the CDC would ban their sale as supplements, wouldn't they? I'm afraid Big Pharma would insist.
And do you have any inkling of the number and quantity of poisons that are used by plants in the course of "naturally" synthesizing the vitamins they produce? I certainly don't.
"It [synthetic nicoinic acid] is less absorbable and has more risks of side effects [than natural nicotinic acid]." This sort of claim is often made about all sort of synthetic molecules. But in this case it is ridiculous for two reasons.
First, anybody who has taken synthetic nicotinic acid knows full well it causes intense flushing—WHICH IT COUDN'T DO IF IT WASN'T BEING ABSORBED!
And second, the amounts of synthetic nicotinic acid that people take in supplement form are far in excess of the amounts they could take if they relied on natural sources such as food. Many people take 500, 1,000, 2,000 or even 3,000 mg of niacin a day, which is dozens of times the recommended RDA. SO OF COURSE YOU WOULD EXPECT THERE TO BE MORE RISK OF SIDE EFFECTS.
As Dr. Hoffa explained in the video (which I hope you will listen to because you will learn a lot from it), one particular schizophrenia patient he knew took 60 grams of niacin (30 500mg tabs) per day for many years and did perfectly well on it. It stopped the voices! She was able to lead normal life on that dose. Most people would be unable to tolerate even a tenth of that dose and would have an upset stomach, but it was the dose her body needed to be well.
So I'll finish with the question, if she could cope or even flourish with 60 grams a day of the the stuff, what are the chances of 1 or 2 grams a day damaging anybody? Come on, use your common sense and critical thinking skills here. Does that article read like an earth-shattering critique of a dangerous poison in our midst, or does it read like a hit job on a harmless and inexpensive therapeutic sponsored by Big Pharma?
The main ingredient in Fireworks? Check that again please.
And please watch the Hoffa video, for your own enlightenment and edification if for nothing else. He was an old man who was doing his best to help sick people become well and prevent well people from becoming sick.
"The story admits that Niacin is a family of synthetic, unknown chemical structures." : So what?
Did you read the study? And all the rest?? This is why you get sick. Poisoning from synthetic derivatives that come from industrial waste. The FDA admits that there is no particularly safe amount from person to person, nor by weight or by PPM. Nor can they test all the products. Just like the vaccines. You have no idea what's in them and where the source of the material comes from. That's not listed on the ingredients list.
At this point, any publicity for Niacin is only going to boost its sales.
Did your read the comments on that ZH article?
The commentariat there don't seem too scared and their general assessment is that the publication of this study is Big Government/Big Pharma propaganda aimed at souring the image of a very cheap, very effective and innocent vitamin.
Here now the wise words of Dr. Hoffa, who took mega doses of niacin for over fifty years.
Niacinamide, the main ingredient in Fireworks... Niacinamide causes Cancer. The story admits that Niacin is a family of synthetic, unknown chemical structures. They're are not the same as natural Niacin. Synthetic Vitamin B3 – Nicotinic acid is created using coal tar, ammonia, acids, 3-cyanopyridine, and formaldehyde. It is less absorbable and has more risks of side effects.Jan 2, 2014
"Every vitamin, additive, preservative and pesticide is poison." "Vitamin D is rat poison" . . .
The quantity of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol as a ratio of body weight which is required to kill a rat is vastly higher than the amount taken by humans in vitamin D3 supplements.
There's very little vitamin D3 in food, fortified or not. There is only a relatively small amount in multivitamin tablets, such as 5 micrograms (40 IU).
Most doctors are not aware that the body needs at least 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L = 1 part in 20,000,000) 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the bloodstream for the immune system to work properly. This is 2.5 times what most doctors think is adequate - 20 ng/mL, which is generally sufficient to supply the kidneys.
25-hydroxyvitamin D is is not vitamin D, it is a separate molecule with a different role in the body. The primary or sole function of vitamin D3 in the body is to be hydroxylated, primarily in the liver, over several days, into circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
Neither of these compounds are signaling molecules. They do not act as hormones. A hormone is a substance in the bloodstream (and the cerebrospinal fluid) which is created in one part of the body, so its level (concentration) in the bloodstream controls the behaviour of cells in distant parts of the body.
The kidneys hydroxylate 25-hydroxyvitamin D a second time to become 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol) which goes into the bloodstream at a very low level, such as 0.1 ng/mL, where it functions as a hormone to alter the behaviour of several cell-types which are involved in calcium-phosphate-bone metabolism.
This is the origin of the false belief that "vitamin D is a hormone". Calcitriol is a signaling molecule and can act as a hormone, as just described.
While many doctors generally understand that "vitamin D boosts the immune system", they tend to assume that by taking vitamin D3 supplements or by generating more of it in the skin, that this raises 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (which it does) and that this raises circulating (hormonal) calcitriol levels, which is true only to a very modest extent. Very few doctors or immunologists (and too few researchers who write about vitamin D) understand that the immune system does not use hormonal signaling and is unaffected by the very low, stable, level of circulating calcitriol.
Many types of immune cell rely on a good supply of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, diffused into the cell's cytosol (main compartment) through the cell's plasma membrane, to supply their intracrine (inside each cell) and paracrine (to nearby cells) signaling systems. For a proper explanation, please see this part of a long page in which you will find links to and discussion of many research articles concerning the dependence of the immune system on good levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#02-compounds . These signaling systems enable the cell to respond to its individual circumstances, which is crucial for the operation of the whole immune system. They are not hormonal (endocrine) signaling systems. They locally produce higher concentrations of calcitriol when they are activated, and this make them unaffected to any significant degree by the low, stable, level of circulating (hormonal) calcitriol.
To safely attain at least the 50 ng/mL level of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D, food and multivitamins can only provide a fraction of the vitamin D3 which is needed. It is possible, to generate it in the skin, but it is much harder for people with brown or black skin than for those with white skin.
Ultraviolet B light, around 297 nanometre wavelength, breads a carbon-to-carbon bond in 7-dehydrocholesterol, which is present in the skin, because it is one of the last steps on synthesizing cholesterol. This opens up a carbon ring and the resulting molecule changes its shape naturally and settles down into a configuration which is stable: vitamin D3 cholecalciferol.
Exactly the same process is used to manufacture pharmaceutical vitamin D3. The 7-dehydrocholesterol is created from wool fat and dissolved in a hydrocarbon liquid. The UV-B comes from large, specially constructed, mercury vapour lamps. See Industrial Aspects of Vitamin D by Arnold L. Hirsch in 2010: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/B978-0-12-381978-9.10006-X .
There are two problems with this UV-B skin exposure way of getting enough vitamin D3: Firstly, it is only naturally available in sufficient quantities in the middle of cloud-free summer days (far from the equator, or any time near the equator), without clothing, glass, sunscreen or excessive pollution attenuating it. The second and more fundamental problem is that these very same UV-B wavelengths always damage DNA, and so raise the risk of skin cancer.
To safely attain the 25-hydroxyvitamin D the immune system needs to function properly, the amount of vitamin D3 to take, per day, depends on body weight and obesity. Please see the recommendations by New Jersey Professor of Medicine Sunil Wimalawansa at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#00-how-much and in his article in Nutrients: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2997 .
For those not suffering from obesity, this is 70 to 90 IUs per day, per kilogram body weight. For average weight adults, this is about 5000 IUs a day. This scary number is due to an IU being a very small amount: 1/40,000,000 of a gram. It is 0.125 milligrams = 0.000125 grams = 1/8000th of a gram per day.
A sheet of A4 office paper weighs about 5 grams. (Letter size is a little less.) If this were vitamin D3, it would ensure the average weight adult had enough 25-hydroxyvitamin D for their immune system to work properly for about 110 years.
This is a gram every 22 years - and pharma grade vitamin D3 cost about USD$2.50 a gram, ex-factory.
Without proper vitamin D3 supplementation, the great majority of the population has half or less of the 25-hydroxyvitamin D their immune systems need. This is why we have seasonal influenza, a COVID-19 pandemic, 11 million people a year dying from sepsis etc. Some people have only 1/10th of the vitamin D3 they need to be healthy.
Please read the research cited and discussed at https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/ before accepting any assertions such as "all vitamins are poison".
Show me where Alex Jones and all your friends warn people about the amount of Ivermectin to take, which is the active ingredient in RAID and Roach Motels, and show me where they tell you how much D3 to take, which is the active ingredient in DCON "Kills Rats Dead". Then, show me how those help people for the Covid virus, which doesn't even exist.
Hi Chief, Thanks for mentioning, not quite correctly, that ivermectin is the active ingredient in cockroach poison baits. More on that below.
If you think I am against ivermectin or other early non-patented, inexpensive, effective, generally safe treatments for COVID-19 such as those analysed at https://c19early.com, then you haven't read my Substack https://nutritionmatters.substack.com or my currently active website: https://vitamindstopscovid.info or the first one I used to highlight the need for nutrition and approaches other than vaccines etc. for tackling COVID-19, from March 2020: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/ . I am not friends with anyone who promotes or defends the disastrously inept, corrupt and groupthunk mainstream response to COVID-19.
Of course SARS-CoV-2 exists. It seems you have taken up this weird "there is no such thing as a virus" cult, or at least some lesser denialist belief system: that there was no such thing as the virus which caused hundreds of millions of people to become ill with COVID-19.
I was a subscriber to Dr Sam Bailey's Substack and responded, in a comment, to her article https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-and-why-it-matters in which she stated that viruses do not exist and lamented that "there has been no direct response to the overall thesis". I wrote that the reason she doesn't get much in the way of response is that most people think her hypothesis is stupid. I added that I am one of those people and wrote, reasonably briefly, why her hypothesis is wrong. In short, if it were true, then we would have to be able to show reliably that every one of the invariably highly detailed journal articles on virology (I guess there are hundreds of thousands at least) over the last century or so, such as this one on the complex mechanical operations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41580-021-00418-x, are all the product of some mixture of fraud and delusion.
I later found (there was no notice of any of this) that she had deleted my comment, unsubscribed me and banned me from subscribing again. This is not the sort of response which a person would make if they were really interested in scientific debate.
Thanks for mentioning that ivermectin is used in cockroach bait traps such as RAID. A web search did not show up many results.
The active ingredient in RAID https://www.raid.com/en-us/products/raid-double-control-small-roach-baits is "Avermectin B1 (0.05%)". "Avermectin B1" is described in a paywalled article which is quoted at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/avermectin-b1-a as: "80% or more avermectin B1a and 20% or less of avermectin B1b".
The Wikipedia page for ivermectin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin, citing three presumably reliable sources, states that ivermectin is:
"Of the various avermectins, Campbell's group found the compound "avermectin B1" to be the most potent when taken orally. They synthesized modified forms of avermectin B1 to improve its pharmaceutical properties, eventually choosing a mixture of at least 80% 22,23-dihydroavermectin B1a and up to 20% 22,23-dihydroavermectin B1b, a combination they called "ivermectin".
"Abermectin" has a narrower definition than "avermectin". Here are more details, from the first page of a book chapter: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-03565-8_9:
"Abamectin was subsequently selected for development for crop protection and is currently sold commercially for control of mites and certain insect pests on several ornamental and horticultural crops in nearly 50 countries. Ivermectin, a 22, 23 dihydro semi-synthetic derivative of abamectin, has been developed widely for control of a variety of ecto- and endoparasites of animal health as well as for control of the causative agent of river blindness, Onchocerca "olvulus, in man. The structures of the avermectin natural products and semi-synthetic derivatives are shown in Fig. 1."
Fig 1 shows that ivermectin has radical R25 (on the 25th carbon) being the same as in either the -1 or -2 forms of the avermectin A and B structures depicted in the figure. Ivermectin's R5 is the same (OH) as avermectin B's R5, but not avermectin A's (OCH3). The X part of the ivermectin molecule (between carbons 22 and 23) is stated to be "-CH2-CH2-" which is differs from the X of the -1 and -2 forms of avermectin, respectively "-CH=CH-" and "-CH2-CH-" where the second carbon (23) also bonds to an "OH". As best I can tell, this means that ivermectin differs from avermectin B (AKA "abermectin") which is mixture of avermectin B1a and B1b, by (ivermectin) having an OH and an H bonded to the second carbon (C23) of the X structure while for avermectin B, this carbon bonds to two hydrogens.
The Wikipedia page for ivermectin cites Omura and Crump 2014: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.pt.2014.07.005. Fig 1 of this article depicts the ivermectin molecule (both B1a and B1b forms) having a single bond between C22 and C23, while the original avermectin molecule has a double bond between these two carbons.
"Hydrogenation of avermectin B1, using Wilkinson’s catalyst [RhCl(PPh3)3], selectively reduces the double bond at C22–23 (in red) to a single bond to form the more effective ivermectin."
On this basis I think that ivermectin is not the same chemical as the abermectin or avermectin b1 used on cockroach bait. However, this additional oxygen and the change of a double bond to a single are very small changes to a sprawling molecule which makes me think of the International Space station after a century or two of extensions.
So it seems that ivermectin is a more effective form of the abermectin B1 used in cockroach baits.
"Ivermectin was found to bind selectively and with high affinity to glutamate-gated chloride channels, commonly found in invertebrate nerve and muscle cells."
"Resultant increased cell membrane permeability with respect to chloride ions causes hyperpolarisation [the neuron becomes incapable of firing, which is a depolorization of the voltage across its cell membrane] of the cells, resulting in paralysis and death of the parasite. Compounds of this class may interact with other ligand-gated chloride channels, such as those gated by the neurotransmitter gamma-amino-butyric acid (GABA). However, mammals only possess glutamate-gated chloride channels in the brain and spinal cord and as the avermectins have a low affinity for other mammalian ligand-gated channels and do not usually cross the blood–brain barrier, they are very safe for mammals."
This "usually" is important. Ivermectin would be toxic to vertebrates if it crossed the blood-brain barrier, though not as toxic as to invertebrates, since it only has a low affinity for the neurons' chloride channel proteins, whereas it has a high affinity for those in invertebrate neurons. I recall reading that a very small fraction of humans have a genetic variation which enables these large molecules to cross the BB barrier, and so into the cerebro-spinal fluid in which brain and spinal neurons are bathed, so causing cause harm or death. I don't have a reference for this handy.
While this is a very small number compared to the hundreds of millions of people who have used ivermectin, with success, to prevent or treat debilitating parasitic infections, that number is not zero. I guess that short of genetic testing, there is no way of predicting who these people are.
The fact that the avermectins are toxic for invertebrates does not mean they are similarly toxic for humans.
Since most people, worldwide (less so equatorial countries), has only a fraction of the 25-hydroxyvitamin D their immune systems need to function properly, the best treatment by far for all those with COVID-19 was to boost their 25-hydroxyvitamin D level safely over the 50 ng/mL the immune system needs, in 4 hours or less, with a single oral dose of about 0.014 mg per kilogram body weight calcifediol (another name for 25-hydroxyvitamin D), which is about 1 mg for an average weight adult. This is the recommendation of Jew Jersey based Professor of Medicine, Sunil Wimalawansa: "Rapidly Increasing Serum 25(OH)D Boosts the Immune System, against Infections - Sepsis and COVID-19" https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/14/2997 and https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#4.7 .
However, pharmaceutical grade calcifediol, while not expensive (https://vitamindstopscovid.info/04-calcifediol/#04-faes), is very difficult to obtain except by prescription in Spain, Italy and some nearby countries (Georgia, at least). Ivermectin was very widely used and so was widely available. I am sure it saved many lives and would have saved the lives of millions of people if it had been properly used for every person infected with COVID-19.
FLCCC doctor Pierre Kory has numerous articles about ivermectin for COVID-19 at his substack: https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com .
Dr Sam Bailey has over 17,000 subscribers to her Substack. You have over 7,000. I think all these subscribers would be better served by a more scientific approach to discussion than I saw in my brief encounter with Dr Bailey, and with your overly broad statements such as "Every vitamin, additive, preservative and pesticide is poison."
Nice try. There is no Covid virus. None of the 20 tests look for a virus. Everyone knows that since HIV, their tests are antibody tests that have no correlation to any specific virus.
Time to write more alternative-to-the-alternative fear porn about virology being a fake and nutritional supplements poison, but no time to discuss the concrete points I raise, with references, in my two comments above and in the research cited at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/ ?
I am not defending the majority of virologists.
If the majority of virologists stood together and told the world that the evidence for the lab-release (leak or perhaps deliberate) hypothesis of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 was overwhelmingly strong (see links and documents at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/07-origins/), and that there were no concrete reasons for supporting the zoonotic transfer, or direct from bat, hypotheses, then all governments would be forced to accept this. Then, governments should (and probably would) strongly regulate all gain of function research with viruses and other pathogens.
However, the majority of virologists have not done this. How can we think of this majority of lab-leak avoidniks as scientists? Their behaviour is profoundly unscientific, in ways which harm and kill millions of people - just by enabling continued GoF research which could just as easily cause another pandemic as it did the COVID-19 pandemic.
I believe all such virologists who have not openly supported the lab-leak hypothesis (which is their duty, as professionals charged, in part, with caring for the welfare of all humanity) now, or even by 2021, should be permanently disbarred from any kind of work involving pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites.
Chief, I can see where this is going. We are never going to agree on this so let's agree to disagree.
I applaud and approve your stance on "vaccines" and share your dream of actually holding Nuremberg 2.0 trials one day.
I quite agree that I have no idea of what's inside supplements. I don't have my own lab to test for that kind of thing. For that matter, I also don't know what's inside the milk, cheese, butter, coffee, flour, meat or apples I consume. Are you equally concerned about what's in the food you eat—assuming like the Emperor Augustus that everything is poison unless you pick it yourself from your own trees? Because once you start questioning things you have no way of confirming, you will have no peace. Every donut and every granola bar may be laced with something nasty.
If THEY want to poison me, they won't have much trouble slipping something into my supermarket trolley or Amazon delivery parcel.
One point I'd like to raise is that I very rarely get sick. That is, not since I've been following a supplement regime that includes generous doses of niacin over ten years ago. I had one bout of of norovirus in 2023 when I took my dog to the vets and contamination from the not-very-well-cleaned machine used to remove fluid from the dog's abdominal cavity resulted in 4 humans and the dog going down with that illness.
And I had one bad dose of flu that I picked up in December 2018 when I attended a wedding and an after-party and an after-after-party in the close company of a man who was coughing and wheezing all the time and wouldn't have been there at all if he hadn't been the best friend of the groom.
Apart from that, I'm very healthy at 65. No blood pressure or diabetes or obesity or allergies or kidney or liver or stomach or brain problems. My GP is very unhappy because he can't find any excuse to recommend any maintenance drugs for me.
Since I started on niacin, I have been free from the recurrent bouts of depression that used to come and go, and my skin condition is much improved. My body "tells" me that niacin is good for it. I listen to my body. If every time I read a scare story about a food or drug or supplement that I take, I were to stop taking it, I'd be dead of malnutrition by now.
I'm old enough to remember when butter and egg yolks were clogging up everyone's arteries and we should all switch to margarine and make our omelettes using the whites only and throwing the yolks in the bin.
I have an older brother —three years older—who has been suffering from painful arthritis for the past decade and can barely walk these days. I sent him by mail across the ocean a package of the supplements I recommended he take—which included niacin—and he declined to use them, because "I don't believe in that shit".
And yet this same man, old and infirm and with an advanced and debilitating autoimmune-caused disease, took his COVID-19 vaccines like a puppy—all five of them at last count.
And I also have a younger brother—two years younger—who had a bad dose of COVID (or whatever that was) in 2020 and has never fully recovered. Yet from 2021 to 23, he took four doses of COVID-19 and his condition worsened with each one. He developed painful knee joints and seems to be moving into arthritis territory too. I didn't recommend any supplements for him, because after the experience with the elder brother, I realized that sibling rivalry is so strong that neither of them would take my advice over that of their doctors or the TV.
But last month, my younger brother reported to me that he had been struck with esophagal cancer, which is, as you know, one of the more difficult to treat and cure cancers. I immediately thought it was partly due to the jabs, but didn't say a word to him out of kindness I suppose. But I did recommend him to try Ivermectin, Fenbendezole and a few other "alternative" treatments that might slow down or stop the cancer in its tracks.
You know what he said? "Thanks, but I have a good (medical) team working with me, and I don't want to do anything to deviate from their program." So, just like my elder brother, he's a good little puppy.
I remain convinced that the right supplements and the right repurposed drugs could have treated both of my brothers and, if not cured them, at least extended their lives and improved their quality of life considerably. And sure, that's just like my opinion, man; but it isn't something I just pulled out of my backside or off the internet. It is the result of many years of research (involving cross-referencing) and experimentation. You say, "That's why you get sick." But the truth is that I have cured myself and improved my quality of life greatly by using these "poisons", and so have millions of other people.
You are aware of how many people the COVID shots have killed and injured (at least as ballpark figures). You know it is well into the tens of millions at least?
In the past, I have tried to research the dark side of vitamins and other supplements. I wanted to find out how many people niacin has killed, niacinamide has killed, vitamin C has killed, huge great multivitamin and multi-mineral tablets have killed over the past 50 years. I couldn't find anything at the CDC, the FDA, or the WHO. And so I concluded that these things must be pretty safe. Safer than aspirin or Tylenol, and possibly safer than peanuts and cocktail olives, both of which have officially killed significant numbers of people.
In the case of peanuts, you can choke on them, get salmonella poisoning from them, or have an anaphylactic shock in reaction to ingesting them. All these things have resulted in death. So myt conclusion is that ingesting niacin is safer than ingesting peanuts, and official mortally statistics would seem to support that conclusion.
The problem with these kinds of claims is that they are so easy to bring up but they can take considerable time and effort to investigate or debunk. And I don't want to spend my life arguing with people on the Internet about this kind of thing.
But let's start with the first claim—that "Niacinamide is the main ingredient in fireworks." I would assume this is inaccurate as I learned in my kiddy school days that the main ingredient of fireworks is gunpowder, which is made from 75 percent saltpeter (potassium nitrate), 15 percent charcoal, and 10 percent sulfur. Back then, I was also successful in making my own gunpowder and making it go "bang"! So I have empirical evidence.
I've never heard the claim that niacinamide is the main ingredient in fireworks despite being around for over 60 years. But since I could have been living under a rock—they might have changed the recipe over the years without telling everyone‚I thought I'd better check with Google. Nothing I could see that indicates niacinamide is even a minor ingredient. Checked with Wikipedia and found a fairly long article on "Fireworks" that lists 14 ingredients but doesn't mention niacinamide in the text.
Wow, if your claim is true, then this is a conspiracy theory of epic proportions. And if it's true, I would really like to know. But I'd also like some more substantial evidence that it's true before accepting its validity. Also, if you research it and discover that it's not true, I'd like to read an admission to that effect.
"Niacinamide causes Cancer": I'll look into this when I have a bit of time. But if it does, it will be joining a very long list of potential carcinogens that most people put in their mouths that include sugar, flower, coffee, processed meats, red meat, grilled or charred meat, fried foods, vegetable oils, alcoholic beverages, to name a few.
"The story admits that Niacin is a family of synthetic, unknown chemical structures." : So what?
Actually, niacin is the common or garden name of a distinct molecule that scientists in white coats who walk around with test tubes and clipboards in their hands call Pyridine-3-carboxylic acid. t has the chemical formula C6H5NO2. It is also known as vitamin B3 or nicotinic acid.
Niacinamide or nicotinamide is a derivative form of niacin. It is a different molecule with a different chemical formula: C6H6N2O.
Am I going to fast for you?
In short, the story is inaccurate. Please don't quote stuff you find online as if it was self-evidently true, like a Jehovah's Witness quoting the Bible. Exercise the same level of skepticism you would when listening to a speech by Anthony Fauci or any other mainstream talking head.
"Nicotinic acid is created using coal tar, ammonia, acids, 3-cyanopyridine, and formaldehyde."
Quite possibly. I haven't studied the process involved. But the end product of the process is nicotinic acid—which assumedly is not contaminated by any of those poisons. If the synthetic vitamins were contaminated, the FDA and the CDC would ban their sale as supplements, wouldn't they? I'm afraid Big Pharma would insist.
And do you have any inkling of the number and quantity of poisons that are used by plants in the course of "naturally" synthesizing the vitamins they produce? I certainly don't.
"It [synthetic nicoinic acid] is less absorbable and has more risks of side effects [than natural nicotinic acid]." This sort of claim is often made about all sort of synthetic molecules. But in this case it is ridiculous for two reasons.
First, anybody who has taken synthetic nicotinic acid knows full well it causes intense flushing—WHICH IT COUDN'T DO IF IT WASN'T BEING ABSORBED!
And second, the amounts of synthetic nicotinic acid that people take in supplement form are far in excess of the amounts they could take if they relied on natural sources such as food. Many people take 500, 1,000, 2,000 or even 3,000 mg of niacin a day, which is dozens of times the recommended RDA. SO OF COURSE YOU WOULD EXPECT THERE TO BE MORE RISK OF SIDE EFFECTS.
As Dr. Hoffa explained in the video (which I hope you will listen to because you will learn a lot from it), one particular schizophrenia patient he knew took 60 grams of niacin (30 500mg tabs) per day for many years and did perfectly well on it. It stopped the voices! She was able to lead normal life on that dose. Most people would be unable to tolerate even a tenth of that dose and would have an upset stomach, but it was the dose her body needed to be well.
So I'll finish with the question, if she could cope or even flourish with 60 grams a day of the the stuff, what are the chances of 1 or 2 grams a day damaging anybody? Come on, use your common sense and critical thinking skills here. Does that article read like an earth-shattering critique of a dangerous poison in our midst, or does it read like a hit job on a harmless and inexpensive therapeutic sponsored by Big Pharma?
The main ingredient in Fireworks? Check that again please.
And please watch the Hoffa video, for your own enlightenment and edification if for nothing else. He was an old man who was doing his best to help sick people become well and prevent well people from becoming sick.
"The story admits that Niacin is a family of synthetic, unknown chemical structures." : So what?
Did you read the study? And all the rest?? This is why you get sick. Poisoning from synthetic derivatives that come from industrial waste. The FDA admits that there is no particularly safe amount from person to person, nor by weight or by PPM. Nor can they test all the products. Just like the vaccines. You have no idea what's in them and where the source of the material comes from. That's not listed on the ingredients list.
At this point, any publicity for Niacin is only going to boost its sales.
Did your read the comments on that ZH article?
The commentariat there don't seem too scared and their general assessment is that the publication of this study is Big Government/Big Pharma propaganda aimed at souring the image of a very cheap, very effective and innocent vitamin.
Here now the wise words of Dr. Hoffa, who took mega doses of niacin for over fifty years.
And yeah, he died in the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIC-WpcZr-0
Niacinamide, the main ingredient in Fireworks... Niacinamide causes Cancer. The story admits that Niacin is a family of synthetic, unknown chemical structures. They're are not the same as natural Niacin. Synthetic Vitamin B3 – Nicotinic acid is created using coal tar, ammonia, acids, 3-cyanopyridine, and formaldehyde. It is less absorbable and has more risks of side effects.Jan 2, 2014