Posted by Larry Hoover on October 28, 2007, at 8:48:51
In reply to Re: Here's the Link! » Larry Hoover, posted by Phillipa on October 27, 2007, at 21:51:25
> Larry but it means that insurance will cover it and your doc will monitor you. I think it's a good thing.
Instead of the product being available for under $10, it now costs about $50. It needs no direct monitoring. If you're depressed, you should be monitored in any case. The problem is, folate is not commonly monitored in the first place, even in depression, despite massive evidence of deficient folate metabolism in depressives.
> As too many people take megadoses of vitamins and don't know lets say that C and B's are eliminated if there is excess hence really yellow uring.
It's not true that they're eliminated in excess. The kidneys aren't that smart. The water-soluble nutrients are simply eliminated in urine, period. What most people don't consider is that prior to being dumped in urine, the nutrients *must* have been present in the blood. But only if the nutrients are in the blood can the tissues and organs obtain their requirements.
> But others should not be taken in access. Phillipa
Says who? As a treatment, doses above the RDA are required. For maintenance, even the RDA is insufficient for many people. The definition of RDA is such that 5% of the normal healthy population will show overt symptoms of deficiency, at the RDA. That totally ignores the issue of the requirement for those not normal and healthy.
Vitamin toxicosis is a truly rare occurrence. The appearance of risk has been grossly exaggerated, while truly risky OTC drugs get ignored. It's estimated that 20,000 Americans will die this year from GI bleeds caused by NSAIDS (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Why the dichotomy? Bias. Plain and simple.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:790747
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20071027/msgs/791912.html