We used to live in a house with lots of trees. I tried to grow a garden, but it only got two hours of direct sunlight, so nothing grew.
When we moved to where I am now, my wife liked all of the trees we had, but they soon started coming down for various reasons. Some pines were just ugly, and she wanted them gone. We took out a wonderful Crimson King maple because its roots were breaking up the driveway. The top of a big white pine crashed down in an ice storm. The power company wanted a big ash tree removed because they were afraid the roots were bad and it would fall on their lines. Two of the city's big elm trees died of Dutch Elm disease, so they cut them up and hauled them away (picture). And the maple that shaded the driveway was sick and a big branch came down in a storm last June, so the city removed it. The only remaining large tree is an ash that the city regularly treats to fend off borers, but it is on the north side of the property and only shades the street. I have lots of sun now, and I like it. The grass grows more evenly and I enjoy being in the warmth. As best as I can recall, we lost eleven trees since we moved here in 2006. Eleven.
My older daughter lived in a northern Michigan community for a year, and there was a big maple in front of the apartment she rented. One day, lightning struck it and it had to be removed.
My younger daughter has a house, and a big tree that was shading it fell over in some wind. I had been advising her to get rid of it and another tree because both were too close to the house. Fortunately, the big tree fell the other way. She ended up taking my advice.
It seems like circumstances have been taking the trees away from my family and opening us up to more and more sunlight. God is in control of all things and I understand the parable.
"Vitamin D" is a fat-soluble hormone. It is not actually a vitamin, so I am going to call it 'sun hormone' to be more accurate and descriptive.
Our bodies are designed to primarily get sun hormone from sunlight. That's why we were born naked. We can also get some from fish2, but few of us do.
There are sun hormone receptors everywhere in our bodies, including the nucleus of cells.
A deficiency in sun hormone can lead to lack of sleep, or bad sleep. When we sleep, our brain is designed to paralyze us so we do not act out our dreams, but it must keep us breathing. If we are deficient in sun hormone, our brain sends out incorrect signals; our breathing becomes paralyzed but our skeletal muscles act out our dreams. Ceasing to breathe is sleep apnea, and it causes fight-or-flight stress. The bottom line is we do not get the sleep we need, and our bodies cannot restore and repair themselves.
My wife had sleep apnea as long as I knew her. She never slept well.
Sun hormone and B vitamins are crucial for restoring sleep. Gut bacteria make B vitamins, and they need sun hormone to survive and thrive. You can take all of the probiotics in the world, but without sun hormone, the gut will not be healthy. B vitamins play a huge role in sleep, and B vitamin deficiency symptoms cover everything that's wrong with everybody. We get B vitamins from eating red meat.
Severe sun hormone deficiency can lead to autoimmune disease. It also leads to rickets and other health problems. Sun hormone is crucial in the development of babies and children.
Reduced sun hormone in animals is what triggers their hibernation. Human chemistry is similar and reduced amounts of sun hormone signal that it is winter. The body conserves energy and stores fat in winter to stay alive. Those who have low sun hormone and stay out of the sun are in 'permanent winter,' and losing weight can be impossible for them.
My wife could not lose her belly fat. We tried many things, and she eventually gave up. We both supplemented with 5000 IU of D3, but I don't think that was enough to restore her system. I wish I had known about this years ago. She rarely went in the sun.
 |
| (From Ivor Cummins video, below) |
There are two kinds of ultraviolet light that come from the sun. One is "good" (UV-B), and the other is "bad" (UV-A). The good sunlight enables production of sun hormone, enables tan protection, and produces the effects of sunburn to give feedback and warn against over exposure. The bad sunlight does none of those things, but it destroys deep layers of the skin.
Good sunlight can lead to "cosmetic" skin cancers that are not a threat and can be easily removed. Bad sunlight can lead to malignant melanoma cancer, and that is deadly.
Good sunlight is easily stopped by glass, sunscreen, and the atmosphere. We need to be exposed to it when the sun is high in the sky if we want it to do us any good. If your shadow is shorter than your height, the sun is probably high enough to produce the good effects.
Bad sunlight goes through the atmosphere more readily, no matter the time of day. It also goes through most sunscreens and even glass. A suntan (melanin) will stop it, however.
I am programmed to stay out of the sun when it is high in the sky, wear a hat, wear sunscreen, and take my walks and do my yard work in the early morning or later in the day. Given the above information, however, that is entirely backwards. It minimizes my exposure to good sunlight and leaves me vulnerable to bad sunlight. It also minimizes my synthesis of sun hormone from sun exposure, which is how God designed my body to work.
Why were we given this advice? That is a good question. It's almost like we were given advice that would make us unhealthy.
I think my wife was deficient in sun hormone. Nobody ever tested her for it3, or questioned a possible connection between it and her systemic inflammation, sleep apnea, inability to lose weight, and her other infirmities. I am not happy about this, but there is nothing I can do about it now. At least for her.
Most people who had poor outcomes with "the virus" were either old, or had compromised health. Their bodies were not able to defend against it, and they probably had significant sun hormone deficiencies. Isolating people indoors certainly didn't help, nor did chasing people off of beaches. Given this, and all the censorship of non-"official" solutions to the problem, it seems like there was a concerted effort to NOT help people avoid getting sick. Why is that? Who are these people who have been systematically undermining our health?
We do not need to continue living the way we have been. We need to deprogram from all of the error we have been taught. This is what God wants for us. He wants us to know the Truth.
All glory to Him.
-----------------
1 Here is the video I watched:
That video recommended another video, which I also watched. It is more technical, but I think it is well worth viewing. It is good to see someone acknowledge that our bodies are "designed." Just ignore his praise of the false god, "Evolution."
Ivor Cummins video
Here is a technical article covering some of the things I discussed above and that are in the videos: Extra-Skeletal and Endocrine Functions and Toxicity of Vitamin D, Journal of Endocrinology and Diabetes, symbiosisonlinepublishing.com.
Ivor Cummins discusses the units of 25(OH)D at 1:14:25 in the second video, above. He uses ng/ml because that is common in the research. Someone in the audience stated they had been tested and the results were in nmol/l. Ivor said that the conversion factor between the two sets of units is 2.5. He gave the optimal range as follows:
- 32 - 50 ng/ml
- 80 - 125 nmol/l
He showed this chart back at 1:12:08...
- Red range -- zero through 18. He calls this range "deficient."
- Orange range -- 20 through 30. He calls this range "insufficient."
- Green range -- 32 through 50. He calls this range "optimal."
The dark red bar at the lower left of the chart is the range where rickets occur.
The different colored bars in the green range are "disease incidence prevention" percentages for the various diseases listed in the column on the left. The data indicate that 25(OH)D levels in the green range correlate with reduced incidences of disease. Ivor stated that 25(OH)D levels tend to plateau and reach equilibrium at 42 ng/ml, which means the body takes in what it needs and maintains it there.
As can be seen from the black distribution curve, 70% of the US population has insufficient or deficient levels of 25(OH)D, or "sun hormone," as I have been calling it. Apparently it was only 50% fifteen years ago.
The small, green distribution curve at the bottom is what an engineer would hypothetically try to do to improve the situation -- make changes to tighten the distribution and shift it to the right.
Going back to my wife's one piece of data, it seems likely the units are nmol/l. The span of the "range" of her result (30 - 80) is 50. The span of Ivor's "green" range (80 - 125 nmol/l) is 45. Pretty close. The span of Ivor's "research" units (32 - 50 ng/ml) is only 18. Doesn't really compare. Fifty (50) divided by 18 is 2.78. Pretty close to the 2.5 conversion factor Ivor talked about.
Also, the top end of the range printed with my wife's result is 80, and that seems too high above Ivor's maximum of 50 ng/ml to make any sense. It looks like nmol/l is the logical fit.
If that is the case, my wife's lab results "range" would be...
- 12 - 32 ng/ml
- 30 - 80 nmol/l
Only the very top value in that range (32 ng/ml, 80 nmol/l) falls into the green. The rest is in the orange, and even well into the red. It fits the black distribution curve, which is actual results, not optimal.
My wife's single value would then be...
- 17.6 ng/ml
- 44 nmol/l
This is in the red range, deficient. It is also on the back slope of the black, USA distribution.
Although this is just one piece of data, it confirms my suspicion. My wife was deficient in sun hormone, and nobody ever said anything about it. Worse than that, by presenting the single measurement as being in the "range," it implied things were normal and okay. She never gave it a second thought, nor did I.
The values on her results were presented without units. If someone were to compare that 44 value with data typically found in the research, they would be comparing 'apples' (nmol/l) with 'oranges' (ng/ml), and might conclude that the value of 44 is in the upper half of the 32 - 50 ng/ml "green" range, and essentially the same as the optimal value of 42 ng/ml. Again, this would give the impression that things were normal and okay.
There seem to be levels of deception going on here. Yes, there is plausible deniability, but it has certainly taken a lot of work for me to get to the truth, and most people are not going to have the time, knowledge, or motivation to do that. Why would things be this way? Why would a medical business want to obfuscate the truth about vitamin D levels? As discussed in the main text, above, vitamin D is crucial for good health. Perhaps that is the key.
Healthy people do not need medical attention.
Who ARE these people?
UPDATE, June 17, 2024...
2 I was thinking of cod liver oil when I wrote this.
Renumbered footnote 2 to 3 to keep them all in order in the main text.