Vitamin D Causes Osteoporosis

I have been highly skeptical of Vitamin D for a long time, for numerous reasons.

New research shows over and over again that Vitamin D weakens bones and causes osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is said to have no cure, and yet, everyone seems to think we need Vitamin D to absorb calcium. So what is going on? Clearly, if Vitamin D worked, then osteoporosis would have a cure, and the cure would be Vitamin D, but Vitamin D does not work, it does the opposite.

So, the truth is that Vitamin D does help the body absorb calcium, but the calcium does not go into the bones, it leeches out of the bones and deposits into the soft tissues, and creates arthritis as the ligaments and tendons get calcified, and creates kidney stones, and gall stones, and calcified arteries, and a calcified pineal gland.

Why and how does this happen? Excess calcium lowers magnesium, which is needed to keep calcium in solution so it says in the bones and does not precipitate out and create deposits everywhere else.

This is exactly how and why Vitamin D is used as rat poison. It calcifies the kidneys in rats, and they die. Yes, the amounts are higher when used as rat poison, but the mechanism of action is the same. When you take less poison it just takes longer to work.

Vitamin D is a hormone. Taking hormones does not lead to better health outcomes. Look at the landscape of dead bodybuilders, and the side effects of contraception pills.

I have not taken any Vitamin D in about 5 years. People on our protocol report INCREASED vitamin D levels after they stop taking Vitamin D. How does this happen? Several ways. Copper is needed to make melanin, the pigment in the skin that is made from sun exposure, which creates Vitamin D. Vitamin D is a hormone, and the body makes it. Copper helps the body make all kinds of hormones. Also Vitamin D is used up by the body when fighting infections. Copper kills infections so Vitamin D is not wasted. Most people are copper deficient, and get frequent infections, and so they get depleted in Vitamin D, which is then “associated” with frequent infections. But merely taking D is not the answer, just as taking testosterone does not lead to better health outcomes.

1. Vitamin D is rat poison, and is still sold as rat poison.

2. It is not a vitamin, but rather, a hormone. Hormones are bad to take, because the body compensates and makes less, making the original problem worse.

3. Our bodies actually make Vitamin D, so why is it even called a vitamin, instead of what it is, either a hormone, or a poison?

4. It is said that the form of D our bodies make, both from sunlight, and also from natural foods, which also contain a natural form, are different from the synthetic form.

5. Vitamin D has a mechanism of action that makes it poisonous, it puts calcium into the soft tissues where it does not belong. It also causes kidney damage, and other organ damage in the soft tissues. And nobody wants a calcified pineal gland, which essentially destroys it, and nobody wants calcified arteries, leading to heart disease.

6. Three of the best things for the joints and bones do the exact opposite of synthetic D: they pull calcium from the soft tissues, and put it into the bones. So vitamin D should actually be bad for the bones, since it does the opposite of things that are actually good for the bones.

7. I have experimented with high vitamin D in the past, taking 0, 1, or 4-5 D capsules at once, and it flat out never makes me feel good, and I have no personal positive testimony about it.

8. Like everything in our world, there are two sides to every story. There are the pro D voices and the anti D voices. Liars exist. Liars appear to be the most dominant voices in our world at this point in time; they are the mainstream. We have to be able to deal with controversy, and discern the truth. It could be that “Vitamin D” is simply an attempt to discredit vitamins in general, or piggyback on their success like a Trojan horse, or an attempt to poison people who are into vitamins, or an attempt to just generally weaken and destroy people in general, along with fluoride, etc.

9. A. Vitamin D is “mainstream”. It is not censored. They censor information promoting Vitamin C. Why the difference?

9. B. There are many fortified Vitamin D foods, namely milk, and even orange juice, and breakfast cereals; and most multivitamin pills, which are the worst ones. In contrast, there are almost no foods fortified with iodine and copper, my top two supplements I have found most successful in boosting my health. Milk is often said to be “unhealthy” and many people cannot tolerate milk; maybe it’s the vitamin D fortification causing so many of the problems. Or the Vitamin A added to milk?

10. Many super health gurus are decidedly against Vitamin D and do not recommend it.

11. I just joined a facebook group that is against Vitamin D.

12. There is a high Vitamin D protocol, called the coimbra protocol. Link: They admit the SAME problems caused by Vitamin D:

Are there side effects to the Coimbra Protocol?
 The possible side effects of taking high doses of vitamin D for extended periods of time are an excess of calcium – in the blood (hypercalcemia) or in the urine (hypercalciuria), and loss of bone mass.”

Please continue below into the comments to see the research explaining that Vitamin D weakens bones.

SOLUTIONS: We don’t need artificial D for “strong bones”. Many other minerals do that job far better. Silica. Boron. Copper. Magnesium. B vitamins, herbs, etc.

13. Many people, because of the successes of the Coimbra Protocol, think that Vitamin K is a “co nutrient” of Vitamin D that eliminates the problem of calcium leeching out of the bones, and calcifying the soft tissues.

Ok. But why take damaging Vitamin D in the first place? You can take the good Vitamin K without Vitamin D and still get all the benefits of the Vitamin K. And it’s not just Vitamin K that does these good things, if you see the link to solutions above, we also need magnesium, copper, boron, B Vitamins and other things for strong bones.

There are numerous other arguments that are similar to this Vitamin K argument, and I reject them all:

A: Yes, we can take B12 to mitigate the nerve damage caused by folate. But why take folate in the first place, we can take B12 by itself. And also copper and iodine. The folate advocates never say to take copper and iodine for nerve health, or the 33 other things we can do for nerve health. Why take a known nerve toxin like folate in the first place? We can take the nerve healers without the toxin.

B: Yes, potassium helps to mitigate the damage caused by sodium. But why take sodium in the first place if it’s not needed, because we all get well over 500 mg sodium from food already, some getting well over 3000 mg sodium from foods? So we don’t need to take sodium.

C. Yes, copper/zinc/selenium help to detox mercury. This does not make them “co nutrients” to mercury. Mercury is just the toxin.

D. Yes, silica helps to detox aluminum. This does not make silica a co nutrient to aluminum. Aluminum is just the toxin.

E. Yes, selenium is a co nutrient to iodine, because selenium is an antioxidant which helps to protect a damaged thyroid from increased oxidative damage from too many poisons. But iodine is a well recognized nutrient that fixes well over 180 different problems of iodine deficiency.

14. This is not a debate of “Is Vitamin D good or bad?” Such simplistic notions are for children. This is a discussion on how to improve Vitamin D levels in the body in the best way that are most likely to result in overall better health outcomes with the least risk. Copper helps us make it, and helps take calcium out of the soft tissues and putting it back into the bones through several mechanisms of action; both by helping us retain magnesium, and by helping to build collagen in the bones.

15. Again, taking Vitamin D wrecks the body’s ability to make it. Shouldn’t we improve the body’s ability to make it? If the body has trouble making Vitamin D, is that ever going to be the only problem people have, and if it is, then why make that worse if that’s the core problem?

16. Vitamin D studies that promote Vitamin D are often association studies. We cannot determine causation from an association study that merely looks at Vitamin D levels in the blood. Low Vitamin D levels in the blood do not mean “take Vitamin D”, especially not when many people taking Vitamin D still cannot raise their Vitamin D levels. It can mean “take magnesium, copper and other nutrients that help copper and calcium metabolism work better”.

17. Why do the pro Vitamin D voices lie about so many things, including many lies of omission? Should we trust liars in the first place?


  1. D is rat poison. This information is not censored.

    Rodents are somewhat more susceptible to high doses than other species, and cholecalciferol has been used in poison bait for the control of these pests.[40][14]

    The mechanism of high dose cholecalciferol is that it can produce “hypercalcemia, which results in systemic calcification of soft tissue, leading to kidney failure, cardiac abnormalities, hypertension, CNS depression, and GI upset. Signs generally develop within 18-36 hr of ingestion and can include depression, loss of appetite, polyuria, and polydipsia.”[13] High-dose cholecalciferol will tend to rapidly accumulate in adipose tissue yet release more slowly[41] which will tend to delay time of death for several days from the time that high-dose bait is introduced.[40]

    In New Zealand, possums have become a significant pest animal. For possum control, cholecalciferol has been used as the active ingredient in lethal baits.[42] The LD50 is 16.8 mg/kg, but only 9.8 mg/kg if calcium carbonate is added to the bait.[43][44] Kidneys and heart are target organs.[45]

    It has been claimed that the compound is less toxic to non-target species. However, in practice it has been found that use of cholecalciferol in rodenticides represents a significant hazard to other animals, such as dogs and cats.[13]

    Further confirmed. Vitamin D is rat poison: Warning! Mechanism of action is kidney calcification.

    More confirmation:




    Hypervitaminosis D is a state of vitamin D toxicity.

    Signs and symptoms
    An excess of vitamin D causes abnormally high blood concentrations of calcium, which can cause overcalcification of the bones, soft tissues, heart and kidneys. In addition, hypertension can result.[2] Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity may include the following:

    Decreased appetite
    Muscle weakness
    Metastatic calcification of the soft tissues

    NOTE: “It is possible that some of the symptoms of vitamin D toxicity are actually due to vitamin K depletion.”

    I FIND THAT STATEMENT SHOUTING AT ME. The reason is that I have long held that green smoothies (greens contain a substantial amount of K) will clear out the blood vessels better than nearly anything else.

    Cardiovascular disease
    Evidence suggests that dietary vitamin D may be carried by lipoprotein particles into cells of the artery wall and atherosclerotic plaque, where it may be converted to active form by monocyte-macrophages.[13][18][19] This raises questions regarding the effects of vitamin D intake on atherosclerotic calcification and cardiovascular risk as it may be causing vascular calcification.[20] Calcifediol is implicated in the etiology of atherosclerosis, especially in non-Caucasians.[21][22]

  3. Vitamin D does not improve arthritis. the one main thing it is supposed to be able to improve:

    Finally, there is a dearth of studies exploring the effect of vitamin D supplementation on disease activity in arthritis subjects. A small randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 22 RA patients failed to demonstrate improvements in disease activity and inflammation level in subjects supplemented with calcium (1,500 mg/day) and high doses of vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol; averaging over 4,500 IU/day) for a year compared to placebo (173). Another three-month, randomized controlled trial in 41 women with early RA found no additional benefits of supplemental vitamin D3 (one bolus dose of 300,000 IU) to standard care (methotrexate and glucocorticoids) regarding T-helper lymphocyte enumeration, cytokine production, or clinical parameters including disease activity (174). Supplemental vitamin D also failed to reduce disease recurrence rate in RA patients enrolled in two small randomized controlled trials (175, 176). Since these studies have several limitations, including small sample size, additional research is warranted.

    I did NOT improve my own arthritis with Vitamin D, but rather, with green smoothies and isometric stretching, and by taking so many of the minerals. I did flirt with taking vitamin D off and on during this time, but found no beneficial effect that I could rave about. I now see that it may have slowed down my healing substantially.


    Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease initiated by an allergic reaction to gliadin a component of the protein gluten that is found in wheat and other grains. Vitamin D is a prohormone with a number of biochemical functions including immunomodulatory functions in its active form. Supplementation with large doses of vitamin D induces symptoms that are similar to celiac disease in some of the population. Some researchers have noted that consumption of large doses of oral vitamin D early in life is associated with increased incidence of allergic diseases later in life. An examination of celiac disease suggests that an allergy is fundamental to its development and it features Th2 cytokine elevations which typically characterize allergic diseases. In addition it has comorbidity with allergic diseases where exposure to large doses of vitamin D early in life is a risk factor. This raises the possibility that large doses of vitamin D early in life could be a risk factor for inducing celiac disease later in life as well. The comorbidity between Williams syndrome, which is characterized by spikes in blood levels of vitamin D, and celiac disease gives additional credence to this hypothesis. Epidemiological evidence supports this hypothesis as well. Vitamin D consumption among the young and celiac disease prevalence are high in Sweden, Finland, and the United States. Vitamin D consumption among the young and celiac disease prevalence are low in Russia and Germany. The timing of the increases in prevalence in the United States and Sweden also coincides with increasing vitamin D consumption. This is most striking in Sweden where a law required significant vitamin D fortification of food starting in 1983 and the start of the celiac epidemic in Sweden has been independently dated from 1984. This hypothesis also provides a potential explanation for some seemingly contradictory results in the literature regarding breastfeeding and risk of celiac disease.

  5. The lack of benefits, and/or harms of Vitamin D, are often touted and then the conclusion is drawn that “all vitamins are bad and a waste of money”. This is obvious slander, and an overly broad conclusion, but maybe one of the goals of having introduced or branding this toxic hormone as a vitamin.


    American researchers Elmer McCollum and Marguerite Davis in 1914[12] discovered a substance in cod liver oil which later was called “vitamin A”. British doctor Edward Mellanby noticed dogs that were fed cod liver oil did not develop rickets and concluded vitamin A, or a closely associated factor, could prevent the disease. In 1922, Elmer McCollum tested modified cod liver oil in which the vitamin A had been destroyed.[12] The modified oil cured the sick dogs, so McCollum concluded the factor in cod liver oil which cured rickets was distinct from vitamin A. He called it vitamin D because it was the fourth vitamin to be named.[194][195][196] It was not initially realized that, unlike other vitamins, vitamin D can be synthesised by humans through exposure to UV light.

  7. I don’t know why I didn’t link it as I read it, but there are 12 forms of vitamin D in the human body…


    And then there are studies showing that vitamin D actually decreases bone
    mineral density. In 1999, researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los
    Angeles conducted a small study on patients with osteoporosis and
    hypercalciuria, a disease in which excessive calcium is excreted in the urine.
    The participants were taking supplements containing high levels of vitamin D.
    They were asked to stop taking the supplements for three years, and their bone
    mass was monitored during that period of time. After stopping the supplements,
    the level of 25-D in their blood returned to the normal range, the hypercalciuria
    resolved, and there were annual increases in bone density of all subjects
    The study‘s authors concluded: ―Occult vitamin D intoxication was detected in
    patients who were using dietary supplements that contained an unadvertised
    high level of vitamin D. Resolution of vitamin D intoxication was associated with
    a rebound in bone mineral density.‖ Their study is particularly valuable because
    their 3-year follow-up phase showed that the increase in bone mineral density
    persisted after initial recovery.
    P. 20

  9. If the results of a study show that vitamin D didn‘t help the subjects
    involved, the study‘s authors seem all too eager to explain away the results or
    discard the findings. Take the recent $18 million dollar study on vitamin D and
    calcium conducted by the Women‘s Health Initiative. The study of more than
    36,000 middle-aged and older women – the largest ever to test the health
    benefits of vitamin D – found that calcium and vitamin D had essentially no
    benefit on the bone density of the women involved.

  10. Why You Shouldn’t Supplement Vitamin D with Jim Stephenson Jr and Morley Robbins

    Jim Stephenson Jr runs the Facebook group Secosteroid Hormone D where articles and research is shared that challenges the dominant dogma in the mainstream and alternative health community concerning vitamin D. This is an earth-shattering interview that will blow your socks off. Strap in, hold on, and prepare to have your world shattered.

Comments are closed.