11 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2019
  2. Aug 2019
  3. Apr 2019
    1. Klotho-deficient mice have accelerated aging phenotypes, whereas overexpression of Klotho in mice extends lifespan. Klotho is an anti-aging single-pass membrane protein predominantly produced in the kidney, with shedding of the amino-terminal extracellular domain into the systemic circulation. Circulating levels of soluble Klotho decrease with age, and the klotho gene is associated with increased risk of age-related diseases. The three forms of Klotho protein have distinct functions. Membrane Klotho forms a complex with fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptors, functions as an obligatory co-receptor for FGF23, which is involved in aging and the development of chronic diseases via regulation of Pi and vitamin D metabolism. Secreted Klotho functions as a humoral factor with pleiotropic activities including regulation of oxidative stress, growth factor signaling, and ion homeostasis. Secreted Klotho is also involved in organ protection. The intracellular form of Klotho suppresses inflammation-mediated cellular senescence and mineral metabolism. Herein we provide a brief overview of the structure and function and recent research about Klotho.
  4. May 2018
    1. One group received citalopram (up to 60 mg/day) plus vitamin C (up to 1,000 mg/day). The other group received citalopram plus placebo.

      Considering the results of other trials with different depression severities and vitamin C dosage and forms (sustained release) (covered in this article), it is astonishing that the researchers used such a single, modest, non-sustained release dose.

      The plasma peak of vitamin C is obtained a few hours after the administration. For the rest of the day, the subject is back to baseline.

      This is common knowledge.

  5. Nov 2017
    1. What we find is that think of it this way. Let’s say, the reference range of vitamin C in the bloodstream is one milligram per deciliter. After a 15,000, a 15-gram IBC infusion and we typically, do measure people after we give them an infusion, it’s about 100 milligrams per deciliter. It’s 100 times what you would normally have in your blood. Now, you can take as much oral vitamin C as you can and you might get it up from one to maybe three, maybe four, maybe five if you’ve already been taking vitamin C for a long time but to get beyond that is almost impossible.

      How much vitamin C

    2. Now, there are cases where people have taken, they’ve built themselves up to 50, 60,000 milligrams of oral vitamin C a day over months and years and they can achieve a higher blood level in the 20s, maybe the 30s. What we’re shooting for with cancer patients is for 400 milligrams per deciliter.

      How much vitamin C

    3. I think the concept of antioxidants has been misunderstood. What Dr. Tom Levy and I have introduced at our most recent conference is this concept of redox medicine that everything in nature is redox. Dave Asprey:                     Yes. Explain redox for our listeners. This is also in headstrong. Just like define that. It’s so important. You guys will have to hear this. Ron Hunninghake:           Yeah. Well, life is redox. There’s oxidation, there is reduction. Oxidation is when molecules lose electrons and it causes dysfunction of some sort. Reduction is when from some source, such as vitamin C or good quality food, you are able to get electrons back in order to stabilize the molecule and to stabilize the structures that it’s working within.

      Redox

    4. There are some other doctors that have looked at depriving cancer patients of all vitamin C for periods of time and then hitting them really hard with high doses of vitamin C as a possible way of inducing apoptosis in cancer cells. There’s a lot of research in this area and it’s not like it’s all worked out now. It’s more like we are in the early stages of flight and we need research is what we really need and unfortunately, it’s hard to come by at the funding for this particular area.

      Vitamin C Cancer

  6. May 2017
    1. Another study, published at the end of March, included 2,303 healthy postmenopausal women randomly assigned to take vitamin D and calcium supplements or a placebo. The supplements did not protect the women against cancer, the researchers concluded.

      This is interesting in that it is techinically accurate - the difference between the groups was statistically not significant at p=0.06. "A new diagnosis of cancer was confirmed in 109 participants, 45 (3.89%) in the vitamin D3 + calcium group and 64 (5.58%) in the placebo group (difference, 1.69% [95% CI, -0.06% to 3.46%]; P = .06)"

      The key points is that cancer is that only 5% of people in the study got a new diagnosis of cancer in 4 years, which is a small percentage, and yet the p value was very close to significance.

      Now, non-signifcant is non-significant, however it is unfortunately incredibly common for studies to report higher p valiues as a trend towards significant, a clinically significant change that almost reached statistical significance etc. That the authors adhered so strictly to the standards for significance in the case of vtiamin D, where so few do anymore in other studies, is curious.

    2. One study with 5,108 participants, published this month in JAMA Cardiology, found that vitamin D did not prevent heart attacks.

      This study is one of a number recently that for some incomprehensible reason has decided that monthly dosing of vitamin D is perfectly fine to test. "Interventions Oral vitamin D3 in an initial dose of 200 000 IU, followed a month later by monthly doses of 100 000 IU, or placebo for a median of 3.3 years (range, 2.5-4.2 years)."

      The conclusion from this study is valid only for monthly dosing, not for daily dosing.

      Another example of a study that used monthly dosing and saw a negative effect in falls in elderly - http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7148

    3. randomized trials had found no particular benefit for healthy people to have blood levels above 20 nanograms per milliliter.

      This is just a straight out lie, as well as an example of misdirection. There are an incredible amount of trials showing associations between low vitamin D levels and various diseases such as cancer, heart disease, depression. Randomized trials are not the only evidence. However, there are randomized trials - as an example - "Cancer incidence was lower in women who received vitamin D/calcium than in those who received the placebo (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.46-0.99; P < 0.05). When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first year, the HR for the group who received vitamin D/calcium was 0.65 (95% CI = 0.42 to 0.99; P <0.05). In proportional hazards modeling, both treatment group and serum 25(OH)D concentration after one year of intervention were significant predictors of cancer risk. Conclusions Supplementing with 2000 IU/day of vitamin D3 and 1500 mg/day of calcium substantially reduced risk of all cancers combined. This finding provides great impetus for improving vitamin D status through advances in vitamin D nutritional policy." https://apha.confex.com/apha/144am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/368368