Jump to content

Peter Cobbold

Registered User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Peter Cobbold last won the day on November 22 2019

Peter Cobbold had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

123 Excellent

1 Follower

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    North Wales
  • Cars Owned:
    Wade-blown TR6
    TR7 fhc - not blown, yet....
    Science. Microscopy
    Creative conservation
    Birding, Iceland, UFO science.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Iain, The physiological 25(OH)D3 was defined in the past 15 years. But D3 has been prescribed for 80. Its like changing the course of a rudderless supertanker, Lots of inertia to change. Simples. The cell-molecular insights of the last decade are not getting through to all but a few clinicians either, D3 is implicated in MS, Parkinson's, Alzheimers. hypertension, cardiomyopathy, diabetes,psoriasis.etc etc. A population replete wiht physiologicla D3 is a threat to the pharma industry. And at 1 p per dose, there are slim profits. However, one day the tanker will hit the rocks, and I shall not be surprised if this virus is the rock. Peter
  2. Tom, this was a seriuos thread about an existential threat to all of us, and having it interrupted does not hlep my wobbly hands respond to equally seriuos queries. Peter
  3. COVID-19: the "boomer remover". On your bike youngsters, we oldies have a secret weapon. Press release: https://scotsneedvitamind.com/covid-19/ Peter
  4. It is all too easy for a committee of experst to arrive at a single idee fixee. It looks to me that they decided that isolation and contact tracing upon appearance of symptoms would contain the virus. So with clear-cut symptoms (dry cought, fever etc) there was no need to organise testing, or order PCR reagents. Then new info from China about the virus being shed for several days in huge amounts from asymptomatic people killed off their plan. There will be members of that (anonymous) committee warning "what if " but it is all too easy for a minority view on a committee to be over-ruled. It is not the polticians fault the experts blew it. Peter
  5. Why does the kit have to be disposable? once upon a time hospitals used autoclaves. Microwaving in alcohol/steam would surely see off 99.9% of all known viruses
  6. Iain, As a homone it has a physiologically defined optimum range in the blood. No-one administers thyroid hormoem without measuring the serum level repeatedly. No-one amdinsters a drip to resoter electorlytes without measurmentts. Likewise no-one shoudl try todefine a llevel of 25(OH) that nis below physiological. The minmum effective dose should never be applied ot try to control 25(OH)D3 at anything less than physiological. But that is what is being done, repeatedly. If you llok at meta-studies on D3 the vast majority of trials never measure 25(OH). Thats lunacy, but cheap as each test costs at least £30. But these crappy trials get lumped togehter with well designed trials that do measute 25(OH),and these often give stsrtlingly good effects. A scientist will follow those leads, but not cllmicinas wedded to the pharmas' protocol. Overall we are failing to benefit from D3 benefitng a huge range of chronic diseases. To a scientist meta-studies on D3 are one big joke, and very possibly dangerous for advising tioo little. D3 trials are mostly one big tottering tower of pseudo-scientific junk, and one day it will collapse. I'm working on it, by focusing on the few successes that extned our knowledge. And not the cr*p. If D3 did not impinge upon so many chronic conditions I coulld walk away. But D3 is far too importan for me to do that. Peter
  7. Waldi, Don't know, and uncovering cause-effect might take a long time judging by the volume of literature this year already: Peter
  8. Iain, Of course D3 is not a drug and should never be aseesed as one ( D2 however is a drug). So RCTs thet fail to recognise that are not worth the paper th'tre printed on. If the physiological 25(OH)is not embraced then the trials are no more than guesses at the correct dose to achiev physiological. And the vast majority have guessed far too low.and did not measure 25(OH) either. So the charade continues...ever more numbers counted agianst an efffect, diluting inot extinction the very few trials that do show apronounced effect of raising 25(OH) to physiological. It is nothing short of an abuse of the scientific method, period. Peter
  9. D3 for COVID. Hot off the press. USA authors........... https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202003.0235/v2 Peter
  10. Hi Richard, Wish I had heard that broadcast, I might well have avoided Parkinson;s. Excellent indeed that you made measuremnts, This time of year is also ideal time as it is when our 25(OH) is at its lowest. 63 and 88 are good levels cmpared with the population at large. If you never get winter 'colds' wehn all around are sickly thats a pretty ggod indication your level is keeping innate immunity in tune. 4000 IU pd is a acknowledged safe dose. I would re-test in four months and see where you get to. None of the numbers carry great precision , we all repsond differntly to D3 supplements and the sun differently. If you sunbathe a bit without slip/slap/slop that will boost D3 too. Peter
  11. They may well be deficinet in D3 and so have impaired innate immune defences to the virus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19667169 Agree, avoid the virus as if it were the plague . Peter
  12. Hi Suzanne, I thought you might like it. What the video does not cover is the evidence from animals/cells/moleular biology is that D3 very likely acts against other chronic diseases such as MS. Parkinsons and Alzhheimer's, and many ohers. VitaminDwiki gives a good idea of D3 enormous breadth of actions. Peter
  13. This video of a talk by a clinician expert on D3 "oop north" describes several case histories, emphasising the prevalence of low D3. He uses old units of ng/ml. so the physiological level I bang on about is around 40 ng/ml.
  14. Pls keep the questions coming folks, I'm writing a piece for a general audience and your queries do help me see D3 from a differant perspective. Peter
  15. Hi Iain, You have identifed the fundamental issue: D3 is not a drug and should never be assessed as if it were. But that is how the NHS is advised: minimal effective dose, notional safety margins etc. Plus D3 is active against a host of conditions, so which do they use to assess its efficacy? Bone, bone , bone..the historical use (and ignoring its use against TB in the 1930s). And ignroing its influence agaisnt a host of chronic diiseases.. Cautious advice is fine but in D3's case it looks dangerous. The advice ignores the phyisology of D3. The physiological level of 25(OH)D3 can be defined jsut as can blood pressure, plasma sodium, haematocrit, etc etc. It is not up to committees to decide that lower blood 25(OH) is adequate, but thay are doing. And that is plain wrong. The safest way to supplement is to measure our own 25(OH)D3 and aim for physiological 100 to 125 nmol/L. 2000IU for an adult will get there, whiel 4000 for an oldie should, but we are all different in our response. Physiological production of D3 from sunliight maxes out at around 20,000 IU pd. Most of the above physiological criteria are ignored by NICE, NHS. Physiology should trump expert committees. When it comes to D2 then that should be exposed to the fullest scrutiny as if it were a drug, D2 is not physiological. And may interfere adversely with D3 actions. Peter PS my 10,000 IU pd is experimental, aimed at suppressing neuroinflammation, and not aimed at COVID.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.