Vitamin D | The Rest of The New Story


Over and over I find myself continually marveling at how ahead of his time Dr. Carey Reams was regarding the chemistry of all aspects of biological life, and it is time to marvel again, as I will certainly continue to do so. This time I am going to marvel at what Dr Reams taught about vitamin D through his Biological Theory of Ionization and how to determine if one needs to supplement vitamin D or not in their daily diet.

First though, I want to draw your attention to an article in the July 2010 issue of Endocrine Today, about Anthony Norman, a distinguished professor emeritus of biochemistry and biomedical sciences and an international expert on vitamin D. Norman, has been researching vitamin D for nearly 50 years. It is his research that has contributed to a much keener interest in vitamin D’s affect on human health. In 1967, his laboratory discovered that the vitamin is converted into a steroid hormone by the body. Two years later, his laboratory discovered the vitamin D receptor (or VDR), an essential receptor for the steroid hormone form of vitamin D that is present in more than 37 target organs of the body that respond biologically to the vitamin. Dr. Norman says, “There is now irrevocable evidence that receptors in the immune, pancreas, heart-cardiovascular, muscle and brain systems in the body generate biological responses to the steroid hormone form of vitamin D.”

On the down side, Dr. Norman claims half the people in North America and Western Europe get insufficient amounts of vitamin D. “Elsewhere, it is worse,” he says, “given that two-thirds of the people are vitamin D-insufficient or deficient. It is clear that merely eating vitamin D-rich foods is not adequate to solve the problem for most adults.”

He continues, “The benefits of more research on the topic justifies why this field of research deserves additional governmental funding,” “Already, several studies have reported substantial reductions in incidence of breast cancer, colon cancer and type 1 diabetes in association with adequate intake of vitamin D, the positive effect generally occurring within five years of initiation of adequate vitamin D intake.”

There is now a new bold tidal wave of interest in higher dose vitamin D supplementation which received considerable momentum from what was called the “Vitamin D Consensus Letter” of April, 2008. In that letter, signed by twelve well known researchers and medical professionals, the following was stated:

We have concluded that the vitamin D status of most individuals in North America will need to be greatly improved for substantial reduction in incidence of cancer. Epidemiological studies have shown that higher vitamin D levels are also associated with lower risk of Type I diabetes in children and of multiple sclerosis. Several studies have found that markers of higher vitamin D levels are associated with lower incidence and severity of influenza and several other infectious diseases.

Previously, these same researchers pointed out that:

Thousands of new cases are diagnosed, and hundreds die, each week from serious diseases whose incidence could be substantially reduced by intake of adequate amounts of vitamin D, according to a substantial body of evidence demonstrated by more than 1,000 scientific articles indexed in PubMed supporting the role of vitamin D in prevention of chronic diseases, including most of the nation’s most prominent epidemiological cohort studies, a wide range of preclinical studies, and a recent randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial…

And … Any risks of vitamin D inadequacy considerably exceed any risks of taking 2000 IU/day of vitamin D3, which the NAS-IOM regards as having no adverse health effect.

With that said, what happened to the fear about taking too much vitamin D because it is a fat soluble vitamin and the body can store it? Well, researchers have concluded that running the serum “25-hyroxyvitamin D” test is the best way to know if a person is getting enough D3 in their daily diet. However, there is one small fact about having this test done. The body needs to be invaded by a hypodermic needle in order to get a sample of blood to run the “25-hydroxyvitamin D” test. And blood testing only provides short term information not long term need information. Plus, how much time does it take to have the medical lab run the test. From the RBTI Perspective, I’m positive that the “25-hydroxyvitamin D” test cannot be an easy screening test like RBTI, nor can it supply understanding on how the diet needs to be adjusted to enhance vitamin D uptake and utilization.

Along comes the Reams Biological Theory of Ionization (RBTI):

Over  75 years ago Dr. Carey Reams had discovered that seven simple noninvasive electrochemical nutritional tests could be run on fresh samples of urine and saliva that were very revealing about the relationship of diet to health. Upon analysis, the test results would reveal the true electrochemical patterns present in the digestive tract of anyone regardless of their health. Armed with that information, Reams could then tailor make a diet in such a way that it could help an individual dealing with health dysfunctions return to health and wellness. Of course this was conditioned upon the person continuing to follow the dietary recommendations and adjustments based on ongoing testing and follow-up as long as indicated by the tests themselves.

RBTI and vitamin D:

Reams discovered that vitamin D is definitely needed in the human diet in very specific electrochemical patterns that only the RBTI test can reveal. On the other hand, he also learned that vitamin D can be toxic as well. The answer as to whether a person needs extra supplemental vitamin D or not in their diet depends on the pH of the digestion as demonstrated through the RBTI urine and saliva test. To measure the pH of a urine and saliva sample, reveals firstly whether the contents of the digestion are moving too quickly or too slowly through the digestive canal. The speed of the digestion is definitely a factor in how thoroughly digestion takes place. It is critical to know this because this tells whether there to too much or too little electrochemical pressure — known as “resistance.” If the resistance of the digestion, as reflected in the speed, is OK because the urine and saliva tests are within what is referred to as Range A, including pH tests between 6.20 & 6.60, then the digestion is working as efficiently as possible as far as electrochemical pressure and resistance is concerned. However, the more the pH part of the urine and saliva tests move above 6.60, the more alkaline the digestive environment becomes. This creates increasingly excessive unhealthy electrochemical pressure on the digestive contents, and if not dealt with, may certainly result in ever-worsening constipation. On the other hand, the more the pH part of the urine and saliva tests moves below 6.20, the more acid  the digestion environment becomes. This creates a very deficient and unhealthy electrochemical pressure on the digestive contents that may, if not dealt with, certainly eventuate in worsening diarrhea.

When the pH of the urine and saliva test is outside the ideal digestive pH of 6.30 to 6.50, the RBTI tests will reveal when vitamin D is needed or when it may become toxic, especially to the liver. As the pH moves into either extreme, the less able the body is to receive needed nutrient energy. It is in the pH ranges below 6.20 that vitamin D is definitely needed according to RBTI science. However, in the pH ranges above 6.60 vitamin D can actually become toxic to human electrochemistry in the long run.

Ramping up the intake of vitamin D just because well recognized researchers have demonstrated that more vitamin D is much better for the average individual is not recommended from the RBTI Perspective. Although, I would basically agree with the above quoted researchers that said, “serious disease could be reduced by intake of adequate amounts of vitamin D,” the problem is, researchers are always singling out particular nutrients trying to understand how that nutrient fits the big picture, but the big picture is more than just how much is in the blood of sick people vs “normal”** healthy people. The big picture involves the dietary electrochemistry that is interacting with the food being consumed. RBTI technology is still, after over 75 years, the only spot-on way to determine what nutrients may be lacking or excessive in an individual’s diet and how to individually structure a diet that is not toxic or deficient for any given person. RBTI screening tests are simple and noninvasive and represent the only way any health professional can know for sure if more vitamin D, or any nutrient for that matter, is going to benefit a particular person’s diet or otherwise be excessive and unnecessary.

  • **PS: The word “normal” is assumed to mean healthy when it comes to using it with the word health. However, “normal health” is arrived at by measuring some physical or physiological parameter of a large random sampling of individuals who are “assumed” to be healthy. They are assumed healthy because they don’t appear to be sick in any way. If we don’t really know how healthy a person is, from whom some physical or physiological parameter has been determined, how can finding the average or “mean” of the data compiled provide a true understanding of standard for “normal health.” If we stop and think much about it, “normal health parameters” are derived from nothing more than an average of a bunch of less than ideal data taken from electrochemically sick persons. RBTI is concerned with ideal or perfect health, not “normal health.”

Thanks for tuning in.

Dr. A.F. Beddoe, DDS




Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.