[vanderzapig]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door patrickve

Toch een beetje eigenaardig. Men heeft een weetje van die mens, hij is dood, dus gaat men besluiten dat het dat maar moet zijn.

Hij is gestorven MET, maar niet AAN vitamine D.

Voor zijn leeftijd is de normale dosis 24.000 IE per maand. Hij nam een maanddosis dagelijks, dus 30x de aanbevolen hoeveelheid.

Een zuivelbedrijf in Boston heeft ooit - ipv 400 IE - twee jaar lang per ongeluk 230.000 IE vitamine D per US quart (0,95 l) toegevoegd aan hun melk. In die 2 jaar konden slechts 19 spoedgevallen gelinkt worden aan vitamine D overdosis door die melk. Niemand stierf aan die overdosis.

Stel dat je elke dag 1/4 US quart van die melk drinkt (ongeveer 25 cl). Dan krijg je dagelijks 57.500 IE binnen. Dat is meer dan dubbel de dagelijkse dosis die de man uit het krantenartikel binnenkreeg. Moraal van het verhaal: geloof niet wat er in de gazet staat. Vitamine D overdosis is wellicht niet zijn doodsoorzaak.

PS: de paper van Linda Benskin die ze noemt in de video:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Publishers_LLC

Even when hypervitaminosis D occurs, treatment is simple and permanent damage is rare.68,69 A large ecological study of high vitamin D supplementation took place by accident when in 1990-1992 a dairy in the Boston area accidentally fortified milk with 230,000IU/quart instead of 400IU/quart: 575 times the intended amount.70 The overage remained undiscovered for two years, as despite taking in this high dose day after day most customers did not become ill; but eventually Boston area emergency departments linked the resultant approximately 19 cases of vitamin D toxicity to the dairy. The only sufferer who did not recover died of pneumonia due to immune compromise from the prednisone given her as treatment, rather than from effects of hypercalcemia. The jury found that the dairy’s dramatic error did not cause the decedent’s death.

Uit de voetnoten van bovenstaande:

https://isom.ca/wp-content/uploads/2...and_Dosage.pdf

Hypervitaminosis articles are popular with the media, sometimes even making it into the pages of the Wall Street Journal. On April 30, 1992, David Stipp reported that between 1990 and 1992, “a series of patients with vitamin D overdoses began turning up at Boston hospitals.” One of these patients subsequently died from drug complications, and the case went to court. “Essentially, this was a product liability action against the producer of dairy products, specifically milk which contained excessive amounts of vitamin D. The plaintiff ’s decedent purport- edly suffered from elevated levels of vitamin D in her bloodstream which required medi- cation which in turn allegedly compromised her immune system, leading to her death.” This is the one and only vitamin D-related death I could find confirmation of anywhere, and even this one was not directly due to the vitamin, but rather to side effects of medication.

A physiology textbook later stated that “At least 19 cases of vitamin D toxicity were reported in the Boston area during 1992. Symptoms included fatigue, weight loss, and potentially severe damage to the kidneys and cardiovascular system. The problems resulted from drinking milk fortified with vitamin D. Due to problems at one dairy, some of the milk sold had over 230,000 units of vitamin D per quart instead of the usual 400 units per quart. The incident highlighted the need for quality control in the production, and care in the consumption, of vitamin supplements.”

Such a conclusion is inaccurate. The incident might just as well be taken to be an unintentional proof of vitamin safety, even in ridiculously high overdosage situations. It is certainly noteworthy that 580 times the normal amount of vitamin D produced, at most, one alleged fatality over a two-year period. Furthermore, there was a total of fewer than two dozen toxicity reports for the entire Boston metropolitan area, after large numbers of people had been ingesting close to a quarter of a million units of vitamin D per liter of milk day after day, month after month, for up to two years. This borders on the extraordinary. Events such as this demonstrate that the margin for error with vitamin D is very large indeed. Though the news reported the vitamin’s toxicity, the real story was the vitamin’s safety. The scientific literature confirms vitamin D’s value.