In a recent blog we argued that based solely on demographics and health practices, there is a strong case that life expectancy (LE) could be extended into the ‘90s, perhaps even the mid- ‘90s. For Americans, this would mean adding as many as 15 years to the current life expectancy which sits at about 79 years. This estimate does not rely on major breakthroughs, but rather, is due to an estimate based on the projected life expectancy of the longest-lived population segment within a selected group of countries and large provinces. We then added to that group –which were wealthy Hong Kongers– years that could be gained by following health care practices that mirrored the best health care system in the world. Our analysis suggested that the best healthcare system in the world is that of South Korea. South Korea’s focus on individual care as opposed to America’s one-size-fits-system, has pointed to at least a 2–3-year gain in life expectancy for any group. Hence, our estimate for wealthy Hong Kongers was raised from low ‘90 s to mid- ‘90s.
Perhaps the biggest assumption we’ve made is that all groups could evolve to live as long as the group with the longest LE. In the case of America, this would involve a transition to the spiritual society that was the foundation of the greatness that once characterized this country. You would think 15 years of increased life expectancy might serve as motivation. But though we pray for it, the journey itself won’t be easy. The stifling of spirituality and apotheosis of materialism is an undeniable sign of corruption, which is a loss of creativity and humanity. In Eric Hoffer’s words it is “a loss of faith in ourselves”. We believe regaining that faith will require our surviving the coming economic upheaval on which our next blog will be based. But for now, we circle back to addressing this country’s current worshipping of materialism…
Recently we were giving advice on TikTok concerning Vitamin D, but we were silenced…literally. Our mouths moved but nothing was heard. We were then notified the audio was removed from our informational video and that specific TikTok itself was forcibly muted across the platform. Was it because Vitamin D is dangerous to your health? No; it was because vitamin D is a cheap way of dramatically improving your health. But a cheap road to better health is big blow to pharmacy companies. That kind of silencing is Satanic, utterly soulless behavior. Those doing that censoring are betting eternity that God does not exist and for good measure that our Declaration of Independence is simply nonsensical trash.
One of the most comprehensive surveys of Vitamin D’s benefits come from Michael F. Holick. Holick, who holds both an M.D. and PhD is a distinguished faculty member of the Boston University of Medicine. He did his medical residency at one of the best hospitals in the country, Massachusetts General. Holick serves as chair of NASA’s “Human Health Countermeasures Element” Standing Review Panel, chair of the Endocrine Practice Guidelines Committee for Vitamin D, and editor in chief the medical journal Clinical Laboratory. He has been the winner of about a dozen major awards including NIH’s General Clinical Research Center’s Program Award for Excellence in Clinical Research. We are spending more space than usual on the author’s qualifications because despite his notable achievements, he has been censored as well…all seemingly related to his advocacy of vitamin D. It would seem the censors are not only Godless but pretty stupid as well in that trying to disparage a clearly notable researcher only draws attention to his cause.
See the below chart, for explanation on vitamin D and the clinical outcomes of taking it regularly: Holick, M. F. (2024, October 30). Revisiting vitamin D guidelines: A critical appraisal of the literature. (Figure adapted from chart illustrating health benefits of vitamin D.)
The quotes below come from a sampling of articles from which Holick used to create the above table, found in his article:
“Findings in this post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial including 392 patients with digestive tract cancer, 5-year relapse-free survival was significantly higher in the vitamin D group (80.9%) than the placebo group (30.6%) among patients in the p53-immunoreactive subgroup but not in the non–p53-immunoreactive subgroup.” (line #17)
“Across the 12,514 person-years of follow-up, 462 deaths were recorded, of which 267 (57.8%) were cardiovascular in origin… for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality according to the four 25(OH)D groups. There was a clear dose-dependent reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001) … showing a 75% reduction (HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.13–0.46]) in those with optimal 25(OH)D levels, relative to those with severe deficiency, after full adjustment. For cardiovascular disease, a comparable reduction in mortality was observed (P < 0.001 for trend).” (line #19)
“According to the pooled analysis, individuals with serum 25(OH)D of approximately 52 ng/ml had 50% lower risk of breast cancer than those with serum <13 ng/ml. This serum level corresponds to intake of 4000 IU/day. This exceeds the National Academy of Sciences upper limit of 2000 IU/day.” (line #16)
“Among women with a live, singleton birth and at least one 25(OH)D test during pregnancy (N = 1,064), the overall PTB rate was 13%. The LOESS curve showed gestational age rising with increasing 25(OH)D. Women with 25(OH)D ≥40 ng/mL had a 62% lower risk of PTB (pre-term births) compared to those <20 ng/mL (p<0.0001). After adjusting for socioeconomic variables, this lower risk remained (OR = 0.41, p = 0.002). Similar decreases in PTB risk were observed for PTB subtypes (spontaneous: 58%, p = 0.02; indicated: 61%, p = 0.006), by race/ethnicity (white: 65%, p = 0.03; non-white: 68%, p = 0.008), and among women with a prior PTB (80%, p = 0.02). Among women with initial 25(OH)D <40 ng/mL, PTB rates were 60% lower for those with ≥40 vs. <40 ng/mL on a follow-up test (p = 0.006); 38% for whites (p = 0.33) and 78% for non-whites (p = 0.01).” (line #24)
“Blood samples taken in 1974 in Washington County, Maryland, from 25 620 volunteers were used to investigate the relation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) with subsequent risk of getting colon cancer. 34 cases of colon cancer diagnosed between August, 975, and January, 1983, were matched to 67 controls by age, race, sex, and month blood was taken. Risk of colon cancer was reduced by 75% in the third quintile (27-32 ng/ml) and by 80% in the fourth quintile (33-41 ng/ml) of serum 25-OHD. Risk of getting colon cancer decreased three-fold in people with a serum 25-OHD concentration of 20 ng/ml or more. The results are consistent with a protective effect of serum 25-OHD on colon cancer.” (line #15)
Revisiting Dosage: What the Data (Still) Doesn’t Tell Us About Vitamin D
While Holick’s work is impressive, we believe that we’re still in the early innings of understanding the hormone known as vitamin D. This is true when it comes to dosage, as many believe doses as high or even higher than 20,000 IUs may give the best results in most cases. In the studies cited by Holick, rarely was dosing higher than 3000 to 5000 IUs. We hate to say it but the use of IUs in the measurement of vitamin D is likely another example of scaring away the public from taking the drug. God forbid your health improves –and improves dramatically– with no benefit to the drug industry. In fact, 100,000 IUs of vitamin D is equivalent to 2.5 mgs. Klonopin, an often-used tranquillizer or sleep medication, is prescribed in doses up to 2 mg or 80,000 IUs, much more than any participants in any of the studies in the table took. The supplement melatonin, often used to help you adjust to major time changes, is taken in minimum does of 3 mg, the equivalent of 125,000 IUs. Why don’t we know more about the proper dosing of vitamin D? You guessed it…those Godless censors don’t want us to know. Rather they want us assume, say 20,000 IUs –the equivalent of .5 mg– is a very high number. And you know what? Maybe it is a high number, but there is not a scintilla of evidence in any study suggesting that does up to 20,000 or 30,000 Ius is particularly high.
Another reason this is just the early innings for vitamin D, is that there are many conditions in which we have not run experiments involving vitamin D. For example, a study done by Abdul Basit alongside seven other researchers in 2016 is noteworthy for two reasons. First it showed vitamin D working mitigate symptoms of a disease –in this case painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), whose pain can be severe and disabling- rather than the disease itself. The duration of the study was 20 weeks. Another first was that study began with an intramuscular injection of 600 thousand IUs of vitamin D, far more than any study we have analyzed or even read. After the injection, patients made five subsequent visits in which they took a standard test that measured the level of pain a participant felt. Through the first 8 weeks the diminution in pain was not significant. At the 12th week the reduction in pain was significant to the extent that such a reduction could be a chance occurrence was less than one in one hundred thousand. The pain reduction was significant at the 16th and 20th weeks as well, but to a somewhat lesser extent than the 12th week. The study could be criticized for not using a control group that was taking a placebo pill. But that criticism could be answered by noting that between the 8th and 12th weeks pain reduction changed from non-significant to wildly significant. That the significance levels shrank a bit after week 12 also makes sense. Vitamin D is a fat-soluble hormone, which means it stays in your system for a much longer period than water soluble drugs. Also true is that vitamin goes through a number of steps of synthesis; first through the liver then the kidneys before the hormone begins to circulate in blood, and this process could explain the delay to pain relief.
The study has been replicated a number of times. Most recently by Sujatha N Rao and Kuldeep GB, two Indian researchers. While it is admittedly difficult to search data bases by the country of origin of the researchers, we have seen only one American study on neuropathic pain and Vitamin D. And that study, which was self-funded involved a single individual and yes that lucky man did experience a reduction neuropathic pain. When we queried Google’s AI about the protocols used to reduce neuropathic diabetic pain we got the following answer: “Medicines for neuropathic diabetic pain include anticonvulsants like pregabalin and gabapentin, and antidepressants such as tricyclic antidepressants (e.g., amitriptyline) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) like duloxetine. Opioid-like medications …can be added to systemic treatments.”
It seems beyond doubt that our health care providers and researchers would rather see people go through what in some cases can be intractable pain rather than recommend an appropriate medicine. Again, vitamin D is cheap and according to multiple studies works. If it were not freely available it would likely get approved for neuropathic pain relief –among countless other uses. Basic decency would seem to demand that if someone is withering in pain do your best to help them. The off-label prescribing of anti-convulsant drugs and psychotropic drugs for diabetic related neuropathy is hardly a ticket to heaven for the prescriber but rather an implicit prayer that there is no hell.
While vitamin D may be the most visible of known medicines that have the potential to sharply extend LE, there are several other known medicines which research has shown effect longer LE. As with vitamin D these medicines have not been widely applied. One of the best known is vitamin C, or ascorbic acid (AA).
Vitamin C: Naturally Slowing Down The Ageing Process
Linus Pauling, widely considered the greatest chemist and one of the 20 greatest scientist who ever lived, first proposed Vitamin C, and in particular mega doses of the vitamin for extended LE and also as a potential cure for a number diseases ranging from the common cold to cancer. Pauling was also one of if not the first researchers to point out the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for a vitamin was often tailored to the vitamin’s role in just one disease. The RDA for vitamin C has ranged through the years from 60 to 95 mgs and is based on the role of the antioxidant in the prevention of scurvy. Linus Pauling, who believed there was much more to vitamin C than the prevention of scurvy, took 18,000 mg. daily. Pauling, himself proved to be evidence of the added efficacy of vitamin C as he lived to 93 despite the deaths of his mother and father at 45 and 36.
While studies at the Mayo Clinic among others found little evidence to support Pauling’s claims, Pauling persistent and found flaws in these early negative studies. At present, the following quote from two researchers at a Pennsylvania health college seems fair:
“Epidemiological studies of vitamin C and E, the most prevalent natural antioxidant vitamins, suggest that supplement users have a lower rate of mortality. In 1992 Enstrom conducted a cohort study of 11,348 adults and found that the men who consumed the most vitamin C(≥ 300 mg/day; 3.6 mg/kg) had a 42% lower death rate from all causes and lived up to 6 years longer than men in the lowest vitamin C intake group, who consumed ～ 60 mg/day (～ 0.7 mg/kg). Women in the high intake group had a 10% lower overall death rate. A study of 13,421 Spanish university graduates followed for a mean of 11 years found that cardiovascular mortality was lower in the tertile with the highest vitamin C intake.”
Particularly intriguing in view of Pauling’s background and extensive knowledge about DNA was a 2023 study published by seven Chinese researchers. These researchers found a relatively strong relationship between amount of vitamin C daily intake and telomere length. Telomers are protein complexes that are situated at the end of chromosomes and provide protection. With ageing telomeres shrink providing less protection for DNA which leads to cell senescence. In other words, telomeres protect against ageing in every cell in our bodies. The correlation between vitamin C and telomere shrinking points to physiological basis for why large vitamin C could be a powerful anti-ageing drug.
We will end this blog on this very hopeful note: an antioxidant, namely vitamin C, likely retards ageing throughout the human body. Our next blog will conclude our study of life expectancy and project how many years our lost spirituality is costing us.
Take Your Investment Strategy to the Next Level
Affordable. Essential. By joining Turbulent Times Investor, you’ll gain full access to 75 Stocks in the Core Investment Portfolio recommendations… Updates delivered directly to your inbox throughout the month… Instant buy/sell alerts.
Join now for just $10 per month
Most investors have yet to grasp the extent to which the world is changing and the profound impact this will have on the financial markets. The global stock markets are rapidly approaching an era of unprecedented turbulence. Investors face enormous risks—but also some great opportunities, which we highlight and monitor in our Core Investment Portfolios. Don’t miss out—join now to stay in the loop.
Take advantage of our exclusive *limited-time offer*
