Raw Transcript
the vitamin D cover up that was never corrected. We were told to take 600 IUs of vitamin D3 and that would be completely sufficient. And no, this was not a typo. This was a systemic error that was exposed in 2014. Yet, it's still not corrected. And once you understand who made the error and who keeps benefiting from keeping it that way, it'll all make sense. You will no longer look at this like an error or a mistake. I mean, just take a look at the consequence of what's happening right now. Keeping the vitamin D at 600 IUs to about a thousand IUs. Doctors will tell you it's good for bone health. It's good for your immunity. It's good for overall well-being. But years ago, when they evaluated vitamin D, there was a so-called air that wasn't actually found initially until several years later. And I'm not going to go deep into how they made the air. I'll put a link down below if you want that information. But the numbers they were looking at, they weren't looking at individuals. They were looking at study averages, making certain assumptions that everyone responds the same with vitamin D. That's like averaging test scores from like 30 classrooms and assuming that every student passed. But in reality, half the class is still failing. This so-called gross air has led to a massive problem with many people being deficient in vitamin D, not even connecting their health problem and their low vitamin D levels. So what happened in 2014 is two researchers reanalyze the same data that the institute of medicine used to set these RDAs and like I said before they found that instead of the 600 IUs per day the real number was actually 8,895 IUs and this recalculation it was confirmed by other independent research yet to this day completely ignored. I want to interject some very disturbing but important information into this video right now related to the Institute of Medicine because I recently read this book forbidden facts by Gavin Becker and I want to just summarize a couple very important things related to this Institute of Medicine organization. The organization that we look at as being the scientific authority that's supposed to protect us, but we know this private group is one of the governmental hires when it needs to prove that a medical product is safe. But here's the shocking part that Gavin talks about in his book. The Institute of Medicine's job is not really to discover the truth, is to protect the system. And what I'm going to tell you is very disturbing. And if you need to click off or fast forward, that's totally fine. Before the vaccine autism investigation, before it began, the committee said, "We will not conclude vaccines cause autism." So, the outcome was predetermined. One of the best examples how the Institute of Medicine works is Agent Orange. The government knew this was toxic in 1969. Well, number one, they hid the data and then they hired the Institute of Medicine. And for decades, the Institute of Medicine repeatedly issued the same conclusion. More studies are needed. How many times do you hear that with so many different things? Meanwhile, soldiers are dying, families are suffering, and the truth is buried. Decades later, an admiral who ordered the spraying, whose own son died from it, testified that the government and industry manipulated or withheld evidence and the Institute of Medicine played a key role. Let's take baby powder and asbestous. 44 years they were studying it. Johnson and Johnson admitted to the FDA that their baby powder contained asbestous. But how long did the system take to figure this out? 44 years. So this is the Institute of Medicine's method. Delay long enough for the problem to fade, victims to age, and the liability to disappear. Now let's take silicone breast implants. Billions paid out and the Institute of Medicine said perfectly safe overnight. all those remaining lawsuits evaporated. The power of the Institute of Medicine stamp is to protect industry, not people. And when we look at what the Institute of Health is doing for vitamin D, it's the exact same playbook. And if you watch any of my videos, you understand that vitamin D is not just for your bones, okay? It's for the immune regulation. It's for the muscles. It's for your brain. It's for your mood. And with low vitamin D, you can be in a state of depression. It's for your cognitive function, your ability to remember and focus and concentrate. It has a lot of influence over your metabolic control, your blood sugars, your ability to lose weight. Even your risk of cancer goes way up when you're low in vitamin D. And to this date, doctors still are going off these guidelines that are based on this so-called air from years ago, using this very tiny number, 600 IUs, for millions of people. I mean, what's even really fascinating about this whole story is after this mistake, if it was truly a mistake, they would correct it, right? But not only have they not corrected the mistake, they double down and they're actually really insisting that no, that we're going to keep it like this. Defending that number, okay, defending that number, even though they've shown that the math was wrong. Now, the Institute of Medicine is now called the National Academy of Medicine. I mean, this organization is supposed to be the gold standard of independent medical advice. I mean, this is just mind-blowing. They're not a governmental agency. They're a private organization. Okay? They do fundraising. And yes, they take money from the government, but they also take it from private donors, including industry. So we have the same industry that is setting the RDAs for vitamin D accepting millions from Coca-Cola, Nestle, PepsiCa, big pharma companies, the Sackler family who own Perdue Pharma. I mean they took over $19 million from the opioid manufacturers before releasing these pain guidelines that encouraged wider prescribing. So the question is not whether they made a mistake, it's whether they had an incentive to correct it. But when the same organizations who write the rules take money from big food, big drug, you don't get science. You get something called compromise consensus. In another video, I'm going to reveal a leaked transcript from a meeting that organization had that mainly talked about how are they going to control the narrative on a certain situation. The vitamin D RDA is not just a statistical mistake. From my viewpoint, it was intentional. It was a structural failure and it hasn't been fixed because the system that created it doesn't want it to be fixed. How much sun exposure would you have to get to get 600 IUs? Literally 3 minutes in the sun. Okay, you think that's enough? Not to mention all the vitamin D resistance that people have. I've done a lot of videos on that. The truth is that you need a lot more vitamin D on a daily basis. Our bodies were designed to get way more sun than we do. When the sun hits our skin, it turns cholesterol in our skin to vitamin D. But then this goes into our blood as the inactive vitamin D. And that's what we test for. So just because you have a certain amount in your blood doesn't tell you how much is in your cells. That's a different vitamin D. They'll tell you that all you need is 20 nanogs per milliliter to have sufficient amounts. And my question is, are you talking about for bones to prevent ricketetts? What about if someone has a therapeutic need like a inflammatory condition or diabetes or even obesity or even a fatty liver or even an autoimmune disease when the average person really needs almost 9,000 IUs of vitamin D every day just to maintain your levels of vitamin D? And if you really look at all the data, and unfortunately there's no agreed upon blood level vitamin D right now, there's all these different opinions. My viewpoint is you need at least 50 to 80 nanogs per milliliter of vitamin D just to potentially make sure you have enough in the cells. And so when someone focuses on the toxicity part, they're completely ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the massive deficiency that the majority of the population has. And the consequences of that, it is extremely rare to have a toxicity event with vitamin D3. You'd have to take hundreds of thousand IUs of vitamin D3 over months to potentially get a toxic effect. Really, the only toxic effect is too much calcium in the blood. And there's so many other things you can do to mitigate and reduce that risk. You can take magnesium. You can take vitamin K2. You can drink a little more water, like 2 and 1/2 lers of water to dilute the urine. So you prevent kidney stones. You can actually check your blood for calcium to see if you have hypercalcemia. The question I have is if the sun gives you vitamin D and every cell in your body needs it. Why are most adults deficient in vitamin D? And I'm talking about worldwide, the majority of adults and even kids nowadays are deficient in vitamin D. And this is because we built an indoor inflamed sugar-fed society. And we're told that you must avoid the sun at all costs. We're told that 600 IUs is going to be enough to satisfy you yet completely ignoring the so-called math error that was made years ago. So, this is what I would recommend. Start getting more sun in the winter or in the days you don't get enough sun. Take a vitamin D3. Take it with vitamin K2 because the vitamin K2 keeps the calcium from accumulating in the blood. Also, magnesium is important because that allows vitamin D3 to really work a lot better. Vitamin D3 cannot work without magnesium. Before you leave, I have a very important free download I want to give you which actually gives you my daily routine in a one-pager. It's a checklist and it's the routine that helps me feel 18 years old when I'm actually 60 years old. So, I put a link down below in the description for you to download it, print it out, and put it on your refrigerator. And then what I want you to do is watch this video right here on vitamin D and toxicity, so you have all the information you need to prevent that.