If you are vitamin D deficient, what have you been prescribed?

[whowantsadog]

I've recently found out that my vitamin D levels are so low that it's not possible to get a reading on them (apparently below 30 doesn't register?) However, when I've collected my prescription they seem a much lower dosage on prescription than what I bought last week in Sainsbury's, and on googling it seems people are taking doses of around 5000iu for similar deficiencies. Do I need to double up? (Picture shows prescription on left and over the counter on the right).

I'm also hoping that you're going to tell me that getting your vit D levels back up transformed your life, helped you drop 2 stone and stopped you feeling 90 years old?

[Bettertobehealthy]

Hi again Tiger, .. !
glad it was helpful. IN FACT , pretty much anybody that has found they have a low level of vitamin D , should be able to get useful information from that post. It's true , from what you are saying , by avoiding at least some sunlight on your skin , you are putting yourself at a dis-advantage health wise. That is not to say you want excessive sunlight. Burning is not helpful, and is damaging. It is all a matter of balance. Here in the UK , you cannot get vitamin D from sunlight between mid-Oct and mid-April. The UVB is absorbed. It is because of our latittude, 50 + degrees.

The result of all these adverse factors , mean that our blood levels of vitamin D fluctuate quite a lot , around quite a low level, throughout the year. If you have watched that Video , I post earlier in this thread ( Prof. Veith ) you will see why that is such a detrimental thing. It is advantageous to have a relatively high blood level of vitamin D throughout the year , any annual fluctuation due to sunlight changes should be minimised. hence , you should maintain a near constant blood level of vitamin D throughout the year with supplements. Stopping and starting is really not a good thing to do. Big dose swings , is not a good thing either.

Here I am posting a lecture by Dr. David Grimes, a consultant physician , concerning his findings about Vitamin D , and the health of his patients. You will find it eye opening to say the least. Your blood level of 29 , nmol/L is the same as a blood level of 12 ng/ml . Just a different way of measuring. Have a look.

best of luck , with your levels . You are on the right path now !

BTBH.
.

[Mintmallow88]

Hi again Bettertobehealthy,

I thought I would update you, and also thank you for all your useful advice on vitamin d.

Well I have been taking 4000IU for the last two weeks and my symptoms have improved! Which I am happy about.

Anyway I went to the docs as I had booked it many weeks ago. I told them I was taking 4000IU and that it had improved my symptoms. But the doctor said it’s recommended I only take 1000IU as at my last blood check, my vitamin d level came back as adequate at 79nmol/L. The doc told me too much vitamin d can cause harm and to go back to 1000IU as that is what is recommended for my level. The doc said to come back to see them should I start getting symptoms again to get further blood tests to check if the pain could be for any other reasons.

This puts me in a quandary, as I know the higher dosage vitamin d is helping me and i know what you have said makes a lot of sense. But yet the NHS guidelines that docs follow tell me something else....

Anyway thought I would update you.

[Bettertobehealthy]

Hi again mint
GREAT .... things are improving on 4000 IU per day .

I can see it is a bit of a quandry for you , you have doctors telling you one thing ... AND you have the results of the latest vitamin D research ( which is what I'm propounding here ) telling you a different thing.

The doctor is following the guidelines , of a slow moving system. The basis of our ( UK ) guidelines is from the National Osteoporosis Society, which considers Vitamin D , only a bone nutrient. AND having no other function. In fact many committees have looked at evidence around Vit D , and they say that there is not enough absolute proof , that vitamin D has anything to do with other functions in the body. This is patently absurd.

Here is a small example : it was proved with a randomised placebo controlled trial , that wheeze/athsma in babies is related to the blood level of vitamin D of the mothers. The proof was analysed statistically. It came out that the result was 94.9 % a true result , and only 5.1% chance that it was caused by a statistical/random error. In other words , if there had been more people in the trial, the result would have been lets say 96 % certain that it was not a statistical effect of random results. NOW , the first (94.9%) result does not meet the statistical test as proof. , It should be 95% confidence , so therefore , the result was discounted and not included in the body of evidence concerning vitamin D . However - to my mind , if something is 94.9% certain , it should be at least in the forefront of my calculations about whether mothers with low vitamin D should be treated. BUT NO . A few years ago , you might have seen in the press, that Vit D , has NO effect on athsma. There are many many examples of trials , epidemiological work , etc etc which shows that the old fashioned view of Vitamin D , is out of date. BUT , our system will not take them in to account. ONLY placebo controlled, double blinded trials , with great numbers of people are taken as sufficient proof. FOR instance MS , is a terrible affliction , if we wanted to do a trial , as described above , then, because it is an infrequent disease , and takes many years to develop , the cost of doing that trial would be about £ 1 Billion ., in order to hit at least 95% confidence that the result is not a random result. SO , that trial will never be done. And there is not much prospect that MS treatment by vitamin D will ever become mainstream. Nobody has a spare £Billion , however there is a lot of evidence pointing towards Vit D as a useful treatment to ameliorate the consequences of MS.

For yourself .... IF I tell you that the only toxic effects or harm , that can occur is hypercalcaemia. No other toxic effects are known. SO , if you get your calcium serum level checked , and it is normal, then you can be assured you are not doing yourself any harm. Please have a look at that video I posted near the top of this thread (Prof Veith. ) . Assuming you don't have hyperparathryoidism or any of the other rare conditions I mentioned above then you will be ok.

IF I was you , and I probably am a lot like you , I take 5000 IU per day , I do check my blood level of vit D , every year or so , and look for a level around 140 ...I don't mind if it goes up to 190 ... it is well within the human physiological normal range. I probably have stores of cholecalciferol, in my muscles and fat , ready to be used whenever I have a greater need for it , to activate genes, to fight infections , or if some trauma was to occur , such as a broken bone , or maybe surgery ( god forbid ) . You probably don't have much stored , yet , all the time your blood level is below 100 , your liver is scavenging every molecule it finds and converting it to calcidiol. When over 100 nmol/L blood level , the rate of reaction drops , your body "knows" that your Vit D is approaching a good level, and allows some to be stored. That is a response that has been evolved over millions of years, that is how you physiology works. Those kind of things are what is being discovered by the latest Vit D research. They are not considered relevant by old existing guidelines.

It is true that 79 nmol/L is quite good for the UK , but it is not that good from the point of view of your health. It is below optimum. You need to keep your level above 100 ,( pref 120 -140 , ) you will start to store Vit d , it will improve your health. It will help your body to respond to challenges, viral, bacterial, trauma , etc. Your cells can respond , however they need to , IF they have Vit D available , in the right concentration in the blood , both as cholecalciferol, calcidiol, and calcitriol. I'm afraid it is a bit complicated. Have a look at some of my other posts explaining things , in this thread, and others here on Mumsnet.

I'm glad things are beginning to look up for you ... !! Just check your calcium, check your blood level of vitamin D , which is your calcidiol level, and keep on top of it. It truly will be the best thing you can do.
And the worst thing you can do , is allow your blood level of vitamin D to plummet , by taking an insufficient maintenance dose. I hope I have given you the tools , at least as far as Vitamin D is concerned, to keep at a healthy level.

IF you need any more information, just get back to me.

good luck ,

BTBH.

[Bettertobehealthy]

mint In addition ,

IF you wanted to elucidate your doctors thinking , why not ask your doctor .. " How is he going to determine your maintenance dose , or is he just going to assume the guideline figure of 1000 IU per day as suitable for everyone". Ask "Could it not be that your requirement for vitamin D is higher than most people , and that was why your blood level became so depleted. Therefore is it not likely that the guideline figure is not suitable for everyone, since it is the blood level that is important , and not the dose."
Point out that " response to any particular dose varies, from person to person." Therefore can you " request " ongoing monitoring to make sure your response is sufficient, such that you can establish the maintenance dose that you require. ( All that is not within current guidelines , it would probably cost too much money if applied to everyone with vitamin D deficiency. ) BUT , it would be best for you , as an individual patient. You might have to get your own measurements. Depending upon your NHS area , you might be told that 50 nmol/L is just sufficient. That's their guideline. BUT you know , from the way that you feel , it is not sufficient for you. I have explained what levels are likely to be beneficial to you, and why.
Just out of interest ,maybe ask your doctor , "what is the upper level of normal" ( i.e top of the guideline ). I'll bet it is around 170 - 200 nmol/L. That should make you more comfortable aiming for a level of 'only' 120 -140.

Best of luck with everything.

BTBH.
.

[CherryChapst1ck]

@Bettertobehealthy hello again! I was Tiger and now name changed.

I had a deficiency of below 30 less than a month ago. Took 4000 vitamin D for almost 4 weeks now on your advice and had a repeat blood test two days ago. My levels are now 73 so something appears to be working? I think I'll stick with the 4000 and see how things are in a couple of months when I'll test again

[kissmelittleass]

Hi can I ask might be irrelevant but does vitamin D affect your iron? My vitamin D levels was 25 a year ago so I started taking 1000IU a day myself as my doctor wasn't interested! Last year my iron level was 12.8 and after a fbc last week my iron is now 11.7 although I take 14mg a day of iron. Was refused to check my vitamin D level!!
So my lower iron result doesn't make sense so could it be affected by vitamin D levels??

[CherryChapst1ck]

@kissmelittleass I doubt it. One doesn't deplete the other I shouldn't think

Maybe take a higher dose of iron to get your levels up a bit? Mine aren't brilliant but are up to 13.5 which I think is ok

[CherryChapst1ck]

And your iron isn't desperately low at all

[kissmelittleass]

Thanks Cherry, tbh I didn't think it was that low either but I was rang today by the nurse who said my iron was low especially as I'd been taking a iron supplement for a few months and that the doctor wanted to see me tomorrow to discuss? So yes I was surprised

[Bettertobehealthy]

Hi Cherry
GOOD, it seems things are working as expected, you have a normal response to supplementation , your body converts VitD3 to calcidiol (25hydroxyD3) in the liver as expected. That gene is working well. It then is most likely, that the cause of your low vitamin D level was due to your interaction with your environment, i.e. avoiding UVB radiation on skin , AND low vit D foods. ( vegetarian ). Don't worry too much , it is very common , most of us are the same , until we find out. We are not told about it. It is not your fault. ! In a few years time , when the results of the latest Vitamin D research comes to be incorporated in mainstream medical thinking , then hopefully what has happened to you won't happen to others. Hopefully the NHS will be more interested in preventative medicine, which will result in huge amounts of money saved , and a healthier population.

In your situation , you are doing fine , in a couple of months , your blood test should show vit D in the 120 -140 range. Don't panic if it is 150 - 160 . That is entirely a reasonable level, as I explained before, we all respond differently. It so much depends upon lots of factors, BMI , what sunlight we get , what time of year, etc etc. You might find that you need to drop down by an average of 500 IU or maybe 1000 IU per day , just to keep in the range 100 to 150 nmol/L . Up or down by 20 0R 30 is neither here nor there. What you don't want to do , is suddenly stop. As I have explained before, your body gets used to a certain level, and adjusts to that level, your body needs a regular daily amount , a total from sun , food and supplementation , ( approx 70 IU per kilogram ) that is your overall requirement. With no sun in winter , as I explained , and hardly any from vegetarian food , in the past your levels would be quite low over winter especially. When your blood level of vitD reaches 100 , you will start to store VitD3 in your fat and muscles. Your autocrine /paracrine system will be primed to respond to challenges, bacterial, viral, trauma, your health will improve. If you get a cold , it will be mild, you can fight it more effectively. You will be less likely to get cataract below 60 years of age, you will be more likely to conceive ( if required - lol ), you will be less likely to need a cesarean when giving birth, 50% less chance of pre-eclampsia, 50% less chance of premature birth, the list is almost endless. Essentially - you will be enhancing your health , reducing the likelyhood of lots of problems , enabling your body to maintain itself more effectively.

Best of luck for now,
let us know how you are getting on, with the next test.

BTBH.
.

[Mintmallow88]

Hi better to be healthy,

Thank you so much for all your replies. I have been on 4000IU now for just over a month and am so happy that I feel so much better!!! And a little annoyed at the doctors appt I had beforehand that told me to go back to 1000IU. If I had listened to the doc then my symptoms would have been much worse. It makes me a little angry that this is what the doc tells me as she insisted i go back to 1000IU at the time.

Now i am feeling much better, I am wondering if I can continue to take 4000IU forever in the knowledge that 4000IU is the safe upper limit? Would my blood level just get continuously higher or does it level out on 4000IU per day? Or should I be lowering my dose? How often should I get my blood level checked?

While I was at the chemists stocking up on vitamin d, the chemist said I could maybe stay on 4000IU for a few months then lower it for a break and go back on 4000IU later. Is this good advice?

Again, many thanks for your help.

[Bettertobehealthy]

Hi Again Mint !
Well , it's good to hear that you are starting to get the benefits of a "good" VitD level. I should imagine you are up over 100 now. That is good , you need to keep it above 100 and don't let it drop below.

Your question about what will happen in the future , if you carry on with 4000 IU per day as a daily supplementation. Although we all have different responses , and it depends upon your BMI, whether you spend much time in sunlight between the hours of 11 and 3 pm, your skin colour , what you eat , and so on. Bearing this in mind , I would imagine you level will stabilize around 140 plus or minus 10. Now, if you went on a sunny holiday , with plenty sunbathing, it could well rise by 20 say. But as soon as the holiday ended , and you came back to your normal daily life and food , it would drop again over a month or two., back to the level that your daily supplementation and food allows. When your level is up around 140 , it does take quite a bit extra to continue to raise your level. Your system will be storing cholecalciferol, (ie your VitD3 supplement). Your blood level is the measured level of calcidiol, ( 25hydroxyD3 ) , that your liver makes from cholecalciferol ( i.e VitD3)

With all things remaining the same , then a continuous dose of 4000 IU , will not continually raise your blood level of measured calcidiol. It will settle in the region of 140 ISH. ( bear in mind what I said about us all being different.) IF, I was you I would measure my blood level, after say a further three months supplementation , just to assure yourself things are on track. Just as I mentioned to Cherry above. IF you find that you are just a tad higher than you prefer , then you could drop down by 500 or 1000 IU per day, then measure again after 2 to 3 months. DO NOT just stop. That is not good. The advice given by that pharmacist is wrong. Switching your dose on and off by 4000 IU is NOT a good thing to do. far better to gently reduce , or gently increase your dose.

The reason for that advice is as follows :
Unique amongst vitamins , vitamin D , induces an enzyme that brings about its own inactivation, when required. This is called 24hydroxylase. SO the level of 24hydroxylase is dependent upon the concentration of vitamin D ie. they are in balance and the whole system works well, such that when necessary , the enzyme switches off the vitaminD hormone 1,25dihydroxyD3 , once it has performed its function. NOW , imagine you have the correct level of 24hydroxylase and suddenly you switch off the supply of VitD3. The levels of the enzme are too high within the cell , so that within the cell there arises a dearth of VitD , it is inactivated. Slowly the level of the 24hydroxylase decreases to match the concentration of VitD3. That period of low vitD within the cell is NOT good. The cell cannot respond as it should. Even though the blood level of calcidiol looks reasonable , but within the cell , vit D is lower than it should be. Brought about by incorrectly rapidly varying the supplementation.
This mechanism , as I have described is not taken into account by many of the dosing regimes that are promulgated by various organisations. It is fairly new research, which will probably take years to be incorporated. It does explain how sudden drops in supplementation brings about a return of symptoms, even though the notional Vitamin D blood level looks reasonably good.
When you have stored cholecalciferol, available , then dropping your immediate supplementation dose should not be so detrimental. You will not store much cholecalciferol, all the while your blood level of calcidiol is below 100. That is just the way your body works. Blame the almighty ...lol. OR rather ... blame the fact that we evolved in an environment where stored cholecalciferol was the norm, our physiology evolved with it. Now , in the west , with low vit D foods, low sunlight , we simply are unlikely to have that storage , at least many people are like that. The higher your latitude above 33 degrees , they worse it gets. The the more we consume VitD depleted food , the worse it gets. In the last 50 years say ...it is an epidemic. We even slather ourselves with suncream designed to block UVB, before we get even a smidgin of it. Leave off suncream for 20 mins at least .. !

Jumping off soapbox ...lol

Hope that was helpful.
Good luck. Get back if you have any more questions , and I'll bore the pants off you some more !

BTBH.
.

[Mintmallow88]

Thank you Better to be healthy.

Not boring at all. Very helpful info.

Just to point out that the pharmacist didn’t tell me to stop vitamin d. She just said maybe take the 4000IU for a few months, then lower the dosage to say 3000IU for a month, then go back to 4000IU. Sorry I didn’t make that clear. Although she did say I didn’t need to keep having repeat blood tests. So would you recommend blood tests every 3 months?

Thanks.

[Bettertobehealthy]

Hi there mint.
Ah... that's more like it, so , changing by 1000 IU is ok, especially when you are at levels like 120 140 etc.

However, you should think , why am I changing ? . It does not make a lot of sense to change your dose , if you don't actually know what your level is. You will simply confuse things , when you finally do come to measure your level. To my mind it is better to check your level, after about 3 months on 4000 IU , then , after knowing what it is , then, change your dose , IF you need to. You will be able to get a good idea of how your body responds to that particular supplementation. Bearing in mind that is a safe dose ( according to the IOM ) , there should be no problem for you at all.
Once you have established the dose you need , to achieve the blood level that you desire, then you would not need to test very frequently. Once a year should be fine . preferably around late March to mid- April.

Well, good luck with it all. Keep on feeling better ...!
Get back if you need any more info.

BTBH
.

[Mumma1984]

I have had some 'flare ups' of odd symptoms like fuzzy headaches, a bit of numbness in my shoulder and neck pain which lasted a couple weeks and tiredness - my doc did a load of tests (similar symptoms 7 years ago and had a clear Mri) my tests came back that I have low vit d - 43 they said ... I've been prescribed a supplement but I'm worried about the connection to awful diseases.... anyone have any advice etc?!

[Mumma1984]

BUMP

[Bettertobehealthy]

Hi there mumma ,

my advice would be to improve your vitamin D level , to around 120 -140 , and keep it there long term, by supplements. and a bit of sunshine , but NO burning .. !
As long as you don't have conditions like hypercalcaemia , ( which I presume was checked by your doctors tests ) , then keeping a good vitamin D level, over the long term will greatly benefit your health.
The symptoms you have described may be due to low vitamin D . Of course , you may have other problems , eg low thyroid , B12 , or something else entirely , BUT , you have said that your tests have come back negative.
IF you read back over the whole of this thread , you will see the explanation , for what I've said here.

If your blood level of vitaminD , ( calcidiol ) was measured at the end of summer , it would have been at the maximum for the year. It would have been expected that it would gradually reduce , until the end of April, the following year. ( Explanation Above- in the thread )

You have been lucky to get a prescription - often at a level of 43 , the GP's would tell you to go to the chemist and get an over the counter supplement , but not tell you how much.
In order to maintain a blood level , of around 120-140 , you probably need 3000 IU per day , if not more. It does depend upon your response to supplements. ( Again - look above in the thread where I explain why ) .

I hope that was helpful. IF you have any kind of gut problems , like IBS , gall bladder , bile , coeliacs, crohn's etc, then use an oral spray to supplement , if you think you may not absorb capsules very well.
it would be a good idea to check your vit d blood level by a blood test , by the doctor , after supplementing for 3 months , on a constant daily dose. or if he does not agree, then just get one from a lab ,that does private work. here's one , it is an NHS lab , which will test a blood spot on blotting paper, Their kit is £29 , they reply by email within a week www.vitamindtest.org.uk/

best of luck.
get back to me , if you need any more information.

BTBH.
.

[Mumma1984]

@Bettertobehealthy wow great info, my doc wants me to do supplements and another test in 2 months, I'm not sure what dose she has given yet, I have asked her to call me tomorrow to confirm the 43 (the receptionist said that's what it said on screen) all the other tests, thyroid, b12, diabetes, infection, inflammation, FBC came back normal - I'm really hoping the clear MRI ruled out MS because it's such an awful fear of mine

[Bettertobehealthy]

One of the best things you can do ...is keep your vitamin D level where I have indicated. i.e over 100 . !!
You may be interested in this synopsis , of VitD in relation to MS.
It has long been postulated that there is a relationship. For instance , if you live at the equator, there is essentially no MS. It increases as the latitude at which you live get higher. It is thought to be related to sunlight on skin , vitamin D etc. have a look here : vitamindwiki.com/Overview+MS+and+vitamin+D

Lots of information.

BTBH.
.

[Delatron]

This is a great thread, thank you BTBH.

I was part of a study when I had breast cancer which was examining the link between lack of vitamin D and breast cancer outcomes. I continue to take 3000 IU per day. I find it fascinating to explore the potential implications of lack of vitamin and various diseases and conditions. The incidence of cancer also increases the further in to the northern hemisphere you go. It’s yet to be proved this is down to lack of vitamin D and could be many other factors at play but I really hope the research continues.

[Mumma1984]

@Bettertobehealthy yeh things like this article panic me lol

[strawberrieshortcake]

Hello BTBH,
I’m coming with a question because you have been so helpful with other posters. I have very dark skin and live in a northen part of the UK with little sunlight.

My vitamin D levels were about 17 a few months ago and I started taking a multivitamin and they are now around 35 I think.

Obviously this is still too low and my doctor said maybe I need supplementation but she forgot to give me a prescription. Honestly it will probably be better for me to get it myself as last time they only gave me 1000ui I think and it barely raises my levels.

I’m currently taking wellwoman daily which has 200 UI of D3 in it. Is this enough. If not how much more should I take?

[Mumma1984]

@Bettertobehealthy the doc only prescribed 1000 so I bought a 3000 spray, retesting in 2 months, that ok you think?

[Bettertobehealthy]

hi @delotron ,
I'm glad you find this thread interesting. It is really important that we realize how low vitamin D affects us.Quite a few diseases show latitudinal effects such as hypertension, cancer, dismetabolic conditions, schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease and many more.
You may be interested in this organisation , a non-profit , their site has a pretty good summary of a lot of the most recent research, indeed , many of their members are involved in providing their own data .About 10,000 participants share their responses to various nutrients , including VitD , magnesium, omega-3 etc. Lots of info , if you have a good look around the site. Many scientists are participating. www.grassrootshealth.net/ . It is American , so often you will see ng/ml blood level of VitD. To get to UK units just multiply by 2.5 , to reach nmol/L , the British equivalent, seen in UK lab results etc.

BTBH
.

[Bettertobehealthy]

hi strawberrieshortcake ,
yes, with very dark skin , with lots of melanin , you will struggle to make much Vitamin D with sunlight , in the UK, especially the Northwest , with all that cloud cover. Melanin is an effective sunscreen , in your case, about equivalent to about factor 4 or 5 . It has been measured , by some researchers , that it takes up to five times as long for you , than white skin to make an equivalent amount of VitD. SO, you need to compensate, with a strategy that allows you to get to a good healthy level.
IF you have read through this thread , you will see that it is a good idea to get your blood level above 100 , preferably in the region of 120 -140 . You can do that with supplementation. You will have read , that it is better to take daily supplements. Whether by oral spray , or capsule, depending upon your ability to absorb. If you are confident that you have no absorption problems , like IBS etc , then gelatin capsules should do the trick. I always recommend that you measure your blood level of vitamin D , after 2 to 3 months supplementing , daily, at a constant dose. From these results , you can discover how much ongoing Vitamin D , daily , you need to maintain a good level. As you have probably seen above , 1000 IU per day , in the long term, will, on AVERAGE , raise your level by 25 nmol/l
Therefore , if you are starting out at 35, then 4000 IU per day is likely to bring you up to about 135 or possibly a bit less. , or thereabouts. We all respond differently. When you measure , that will tell you what to do , from then on. Lets say , it comes back as 160 , then that is a good level, especially if you are trying to rectify an illness that you suspect is related to vit D , then I would just carry on with that same dose. Many vitamin D researchers say that 100 -150 is the blood level to aim at. Up to 200 is still within the normal physiologic range . IF you would prefer to be in a slightly lower range , then lower your daily dose by, lets say, 1000 IU , and your level will probably drop by about 20, maybe less. Again , totally dependent upon your own response. When you change your daily dose , it takes about 60 to 90 days to settle at your new blood level with that new dose. Do not suddenly stop supplementing , as I explained above , that is not a good idea. change gently..!

Your current supplementation of 200 IU in a multivit is not really going to do a lot for you , it is better than nothing , but not that significant. Just continue with a multivit , if you need it , but use a separate VitD preparation , to adjust your vit D levels.

IF you can , try and get some sunshine on your skin , here in the UK, it won't do much , but it is still good for you , as long as you don't burn. We know there are at least 8 other photo chemicals we make in sun exposed skin , we know they include nitric oxide , which reduces blood pressure, and also beta-endorphins , which act as a natural painkiller , and also an anti-depressant. There probably are other effects , which we don't know at the moment.

Well, I hope that was helpful. If you want to get blood levels measured , other than by your doctor , you can go here, www.vitamindtest.org.uk . Have a good read of the thread above, it is getting rather long , but hopefully it will be helpful . Have a look at those videos I posted . Very interesting.

Best of luck.
get back to me if you need any more information.

BTBH.
.