You're going to find this extremely fascinating. Let's dive right in.

你會發現它非常吸引人。讓我們直接進入主題。

So Dr. Hollis, I watched one of your videos and I literally had to put it on pause because you said something that blew me away. I've never heard this before in my life and I had to spend the next eight hours trying to validate what you said, which is absolutely 100% true. And this little piece of information will explain a lot of, I think, the confusions that people observe when they see negative research on vitamin D and a lot of other things. So that piece of information was related to there's actually two different systems in the body that deal with vitamin D. There's,

霍利斯博士，我看了你的一個視頻，我真的不得不把它暫停，因為你說的話讓我大吃一驚。我這輩子都沒聽過這句話，我不得不花了八個小時來驗證你說的話，這絕對是百分之百的真理。我認為，當人們看到關於維生素 D 的負面研究和其他很多東西時，這一小段資訊就能解釋很多困惑。所以，這條資訊與體內有兩個不同的系統處理維生素D有關、

I guess, one with bone and skeleton, and then there's another system for everything else.

我猜，一個是骨骼和骨架系統，另一個是其他系統。

Can you kind of just as simple as possible kind of explain those two systems?

你能儘可能簡單地解釋一下這兩個系統嗎？

Yeah, the first system, the one that was discovered decades ago, that vitamin D was associated with skeletal integrity and maintaining blood calcium levels in a strict fashion.

是的，第一個系統，也就是幾十年前發現的那個系統，認為維生素 D 與骨骼的完整性和嚴格維持血鈣水準有關。

And it's very important and it has to be maintained all the time. And so that system involves vitamin D and parathyroid hormone, kidneys, and that's basically referred to as the endocrine function of vitamin D. And that's what everybody always identified vitamin D with. And then as time went on, molecular biology came into focus. They started finding cells that had the ability to respond to vitamin D that had nothing to do with the skeleton. Immune cells, cancer cells, placental cells, and the list goes on and on. And it turns out that that's the second system that's called the paracrine and endocrine system. And that is how much vitamin D can get into these cells and be activated and then carry out in their function. I mean, just in the human body, give or take, there are 20,000 different genes that are controlled for various functions.

它非常重要，必須一直保持。這個系統包括維生素 D、甲狀旁腺激素和腎臟，基本上被稱為維生素 D 的內分泌功能。隨著時間的推移，分子生物學逐漸成為焦點。他們開始發現有能力對維生素D做出反應的細胞與骨骼無關。免疫細胞、癌細胞、胎盤細胞等等，不勝枚舉。事實證明，這是第二個系統，被稱為旁分泌和內分泌系統。這就是有多少維生素 D 能進入這些細胞並被激活，然後發揮其功能。我的意思是，就在人體中，或多或少，有2萬個不同的基因受控於各種功能。

Vitamin D has the ability to control 10% or 2,000 of those genes in one fashion or another.

維生素 D 能夠以這樣或那樣的方式控制其中 10% 或 2000 個基因。

And so to basically brush that aside, as a lot of my colleagues did, just saying it's an artifact never made any sense to me.

是以，像我的很多同事一樣，把這個問題撇在一邊，只說這是一個人工製品，對我來說沒有任何意義。

So if we take a look at these two systems, when you get your blood test done in vitamin D, you're looking at the inactive version of it. You're not looking at the type of vitamin D that's going into the cells. And how does that relate with these two different systems?

是以，如果我們看一下這兩個系統，當你在血液中檢測維生素 D 時，你看到的是它的非活性版本。你看到的不是進入細胞的維生素 D。這與這兩種不同的系統有什麼關係呢？

Well, here we get, it gets pretty technical. So you have, when people refer to vitamin D, mostly when you refer to vitamin D, it's the form you get when you take a supplement or when you make it in your skin, when the sun hits your skin. We call that the vitamin D or the parent compound. And then that compound goes into the circulation. It doesn't stay there very long, but it gets turned into another compound called 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

好吧，這裡我們得到，它變得相當專業。是以，當人們提到維生素 D 時，大多數情況下，當你提到維生素 D 時，它是指你服用補充劑或在皮膚中製造維生素 D 的形式，當陽光照射到你的皮膚時。我們稱之為維生素 D 或母體化合物。然後，這種化合物進入血液循環。它在體內停留的時間並不長，但會轉化成另一種叫做 25-羥基維生素 D 的化合物。

That's when they test in your blood, right?

這就是他們在你血液中檢測的時候，對嗎？

The intermediate form that stays in your blood for weeks.

在血液中停留數週的中間形態。

And that's a good and a bad thing because it stays around for a long time, but it's not very accessible to these tissues that need it. It's accessible to the kidney that maintains blood calcium. And then finally, that compound is turned into another compound, which is really one of the most potent hormones known, and that's the 125-dihydroxyvitamin D. And that is what drives all these gene functions in all these tissues. So the one, when you go to the doctor and get your blood test, you're looking at not the active form, it's an inactive form that can stay around in the blood for several weeks. Yes. I'll call it the reservoir.

這既是好事，也是壞事，因為它可以長期存在，但需要它的組織卻不太容易獲取。腎臟可以利用它來維持血鈣。最後，這種化合物被轉化成另一種化合物，它是已知的最有效的激素之一，那就是 125-二羥維生素 D。所以，當你去看醫生並驗血時，你看到的不是活性形式，而是一種非活性形式，它可以在血液中停留數週。是的我稱之為 "儲庫

Okay. It's the reservoir of vitamin D that's being measured.

測量的是維生素D的儲量。

Got it. And then it turns into the active form or a certain amount will turn into the active form.

明白瞭然後它就會變成活性物質，或者一定量的活性物質。

But then how does that relate to these two different systems?

但這與這兩種不同的系統有什麼關係呢？

Well, so that intermediate form, the reservoir form can turn into the active form in the kidney.

那麼，這種中間形式，也就是儲庫形式就可以在腎臟中轉化為活性形式。

That's highly regulated, and that's what regulates blood calcium. Okay.

那是高度調節的血鈣調節器好的

That intermediate form can also go into any cell in the body, okay, and be turned in to the active form and function in that given cell, whether it be a cancer cell to stop cancer from progressing or immune cells to make them function in the appropriate fashion.

這種中間形式也可以進入體內的任何細胞，轉化為活性形式並在特定細胞中發揮作用，無論是阻止癌症發展的癌細胞，還是使它們以適當方式發揮作用的免疫細胞。

And also, the problem with that intermediate form is it's not very accessible to these cells.

而且，這種中間形式的問題是，這些細胞不太容易接觸到它。

It can't, it's bound to this protein that keeps it out. That's why it lasts in the blood cell.

不行，它被這種蛋白質束縛住了，無法排出體外。這就是它能在血細胞中存活的原因。

So the parent compound, the one that you take in the supplement, turns out it's really important because that form can get into any of these cells and be activated all the way down the chain to the active form. The problem is that form disappears within a day. Yeah. So it needs to be replenished every day to have the full function of the vitamin present. So it's very, it's complicated. That's why a lot of physicians don't pay attention to this or scientists as well.

是以，母體化合物，也就是你在補充劑中服用的那種，原來真的很重要，因為這種形式可以進入這些細胞中的任何一種，並一路被激活，成為活性形式。問題是這種形式會在一天內消失是啊所以每天都要補充才能發揮維生素的全部功能所以這很複雜這就是為什麼很多醫生和科學家 都不重視這個問題的原因

So this is kind of what I want to get into this point that you just mentioned because you have the different types. And then when people get their blood tested, they're assuming that there's one system, oh, I have enough in the blood, so everything's going to be satisfied. But that's not necessarily true. No, that's true. And because of the form that's being measured, while it's important, okay, it's the reservoir, more important for maintenance of blood calcium and skeleton. But for the other functions, the only way that you can be sure that you have adequate amounts is basically take it every day, either orally or get in the sun every day. And, of course, that's really not feasible for a lot of reasons. So the oral consumption of vitamin D on a daily or at a minimum on a weekly basis is important because that's the base form and that form comes and goes very quickly. Wow. So this has to do with like half-life and breaking down. Some of it goes down quick, some stays in there. So now, in one of your videos, you went through a bunch of studies and you showed people step-by-step, like a number of studies that failed that showed no response with vitamin D. And you correlated that with, well, that's because they only let people take it once a week or once a month versus-

所以，這就是我想說的，你剛才提到的這一點，因為你有不同的類型。當人們去驗血時，他們會認為只有一個系統，哦，我的血液裡有足夠的成分，所以一切都會滿意。但事實未必如此。不，這是真的。因為所測量的形式，雖然它很重要，好吧，它是水庫，對維持血鈣和骨骼更重要。但對於其他功能來說，確保攝入充足鈣質的唯一方法就是每天口服或晒太陽。當然，由於種種原因，這樣做並不可行。是以，每天或至少每週口服維生素 D 非常重要，因為這是基本形式，而這種形式來得快去得也快。哇哦這與半衰期和分解有關。有的分解得快，有的則留在體內。現在，在你

Yeah, there have even been one study on skeleton where they took it once a year, like a million units once a year. And then they said, well, this didn't work out very well.

是的，甚至有一項關於骨骼的研究，他們每年服用一次，每年服用一百萬組織、部門。然後他們說，效果並不好。

And that continues to be cited in some facts as being harmful. It's idiotic.

而一些事實仍在證明這一點是有害的。這是愚蠢的。

Oh, my gosh. If someone takes a million IU's of vitamin D just one time,

哦，我的天哪，如果一個人只服用一次一百萬 IU 的維生素 D、

I think after a day, it goes down to half. And then the day later, it goes down to a quarter, right? It just kind of breaks down and then goes away or just becomes-

我想一天之後，就會降到一半。然後一天之後，它就會降到四分之一，對嗎？它就這樣分解，然後消失，或者變成--

Yeah, it'll boost the intermediate form for a while, but it's horribly inefficient.

是的，它能在一段時間內提升中間形態，但效率低得可怕。

And it becomes more, so if you do it once a day, it's efficient. Once a week, it's less efficient. Once a month, even less efficient.

如果每天做一次，效率會更高。一週一次，效率就會降低。一個月一次，效率就更低了。

Wow. As far as the research on this, what about, you have all these, most of the researchers out there, they kind of look at vitamin D just related to bone and calcium. They're kind of just almost pretending like this other system doesn't exist. Is that true? Yeah, basically, yes. I mean, first you have to accept the fact that vitamin D has functions beyond calcium. And I mean, the data are all over, but what ends up happening is things are run like a vital trial where they give too little vitamin D. They give it to people in a randomized trial who don't need it.

哇哦至於這方面的研究，你怎麼看，你有所有這些，大多數研究人員在那裡，他們那種看維生素D只是與骨骼和鈣有關。他們幾乎是在假裝其他系統並不存在。是這樣嗎？是的，基本上是的。我的意思是，首先你得接受一個事實，那就是維生素D的功能超出了鈣的範疇。我是說，數據到處都是，但最終發生的事情就是 像一個重要的試驗一樣，他們給的維生素D太少了，他們在隨機試驗中給了不需要維生素D的人。

You know, it's like in the Townsend newsletter I mentioned to you when I was discussing it with the author of that paper. So the gold standard for all drug trials or randomized controlled trials, okay, where say you have a cholesterol drug and you want to test if it truly will depress serum cholesterol if you take it. So the drug company assembles a population of people and they administer half of those people the drug and half of those people get placebo. And then they analyze the data and look at it. Of course, in most cases, it's successful.

你知道，就像我在湯森通訊中跟你提到的，當時我正在跟那篇論文的作者討論。是以，所有藥物試驗或隨機對照試驗的黃金標準，好比說你有一種膽固醇藥物，你想測試服用後是否真的會降低血清膽固醇。於是，製藥公司召集了一批人，讓其中一半人服用藥物，另一半人服用安慰劑。然後他們對數據進行分析和研究。當然，在大多數情況下，這都是成功的。

And this is how drug trials are run. But the drug that you're giving those people, the body has never seen it. They don't have a base level of it.

藥物試驗就是這樣進行的但你給這些人服用的藥物，他們的身體從未見過。他們沒有藥物的基礎水準。

Unlike nutrients, not just vitamin D, but any nutrient trial, okay, it's impossible in this country to do a true randomized trial because the population you're dealing with has some.

與營養素不同的是，不只是維生素 D，任何營養素試驗都是如此，好吧，在這個國家不可能進行真正的隨機試驗，因為你面對的人群中有一些人。

Some people have very little, some people have plenty. But if you just take them at random and randomize them and give these people half of them a level of vitamin D, oftentimes not even enough, and this other half only get placebo. And placebo in this country means they have to get the standard daily dose. So they're not even getting zero.

有些人的維生素 D 含量很低，有些人的維生素 D 含量很高。但如果你把他們隨機抽取出來，給其中一半的人提供一定量的維生素 D，很多時候甚至不夠，而另一半人只能得到安慰劑。在這個國家，安慰劑意味著他們必須獲得標準的每日劑量。所以，他們甚至沒有得到零。

And what happens is that it's a horribly compromised study. So that's what vital in all these happens is that... And the other thing is when you end it and you do your data analysis, wouldn't you think that you might take the basal level into effect when you do the analysis of the data? Well, that's illegal. You can't do that. That violates the intent to treat model.

結果研究結果大打折扣這就是所有這些研究的關鍵所在...另一件事是，當你結束研究 並進行數據分析時 你難道不認為在分析數據時 會考慮到基礎水準嗎？那是違法的你不能這麼做。這違反了治療模型的意圖。

Okay. And it absolutely ensures that your trial is going to fail.

好吧這絕對能確保你的審判會失敗

So, and I'll give you some examples. And I've worked primarily in pregnancy.

所以，我給你舉幾個例子。我主要在孕期工作。

We did pregnancy studies and found out that vitamin D decreased complications of birth.

我們進行了孕期研究，發現維生素 D 能減少分娩併發症。

But the best trials were actually done overseas. And the best one, a couple were done actually in

但最好的試驗實際上是在國外完成的。而最好的試驗，有幾項實際上是在

Iran, where the population is generally vitamin D deficient across the board. And they had a fairly large patient population. Half of those women got a substantial dose of vitamin D and half of those people got nothing, which is how... You can't run a trial like that in the US because you'd be violating standard of care. But that's truly how vitamin D trials should be run.

伊朗人口普遍缺乏維生素 D。他們有相當多的病人其中一半的婦女服用了大量的維生素 D，一半的人什麼都沒吃，這就是...在美國你無法進行這樣的試驗 因為你會違反護理標準但維生素D試驗就應該這樣進行。

And in those trials, we saw a tremendous effect on decrease in birth complications, like preterm birth and preeclampsia and diabetes and everything else fell into the treatment group.

在這些試驗中，我們看到了對減少分娩併發症的巨大作用，如早產、子癇前期、糖尿病等，所有這些都屬於治療組。

If you do the same trial in the US, you can't do it where our nutrition is better. People have better vitamin D levels. But when you randomize them, like I said, everybody has some. And so, it's not like you're given a drug that has none. And when you look at the results, it's totally blurred. And it's even, you can overcome that to some degree when the statisticians would take the basal level upon study entry into effect. And then you analyze it like that, you can see effects.

如果在美國做同樣的試驗，在營養更好的地方是做不到的。人們的維生素 D 水準更高。但當你把他們隨機分組時，就像我說的，每個人都有一些。所以，並不是給你一種沒有維生素D的藥物。當你看結果的時候，就會發現完全模糊了。甚至，當統計人員將研究開始時的基礎水準考慮在內時，你可以在一定程度上克服這個問題。然後進行這樣的分析，你就能看到效果。

And in fact, that's why observational studies, when they have these big groups of people and they look at vitamin D levels and outcomes via cancer, via pregnancy and things, and it's based on a lifestyle. And uniformly, those studies, and there's thousands of them, would show really big effects of vitamin D. But then when you went to do these randomized trials, and you had all these complications, and you can't adjust for the base level, all of that disappears and you get no effect at all. But if you submit your paper to New England Journal or JAMA or British Medical

事實上，這就是為什麼觀察性研究，當他們有這些大群體的人，他們看維生素D水準和結果，通過癌症，通過懷孕和事情，它是基於一種生活方式。但當你去做這些隨機試驗時，你會遇到所有這些併發症，而且你無法調整基礎水準，所有這些都會消失，你根本不會得到任何效果。但如果你把論文投到《新英格蘭雜誌》、《美國醫學會雜誌》或《英國醫學

Journal, and you analyze the data and want to take into account basal levels that violate the intent-to-treat model, it will be rejected outright. Wow. Wow. So the vital study is definitely the study that certain groups are using to tell people, well, see, it doesn't really work.

如果你在分析數據時，想把違反 "意向治療 "模型的基礎水準考慮在內，那就會被斷然拒絕。哇哦哇哦是以，這項至關重要的研究肯定是某些團體用來告訴人們，好吧，你看，它並沒有真正起作用。

Yeah, we did the study. It's definitive. I've challenged the authors of that study to reanalyze their data, taking baseline levels into account of their patients, and they won't do it. Wow. Incredible. And didn't they even call the amount of vitamin D they were giving people a high dose at 2,000 IUs? Yeah, that's nothing.

是的，我們做了研究。這是確定無疑的我曾要求這項研究的作者 重新分析他們的數據 將病人的基線水準考慮在內 但他們不願意這麼做哇哦 難以置信 Wow.難以置信他們甚至都沒把給人們服用的維生素 D 量稱為 2000 IUs 的高劑量嗎？是啊，這不算什麼。

To put it in perspective, I'm 73 years old. I take 10,000 units of vitamin D a day, and I have for years. And my level of vitamin D levels are between 80 and 90 nanograms per ml.

我今年 73 歲。我每天服用 10 000 組織、部門的維生素 D，已經服用了很多年。我的維生素 D 含量在每毫升 80 到 90 納克之間。

And my personal care physician is pretty progressive. She's all for that, not just with me, but for her entire clinical group of patients that she follows. And so she wants her patients to have a minimum level of 60. That's really out there compared to most family care physicians or primary care docs. In fact, they'll get a level back from be it the Mayo Clinic or

我的私人保健醫生也非常前衛。不光是我，她對整個臨床小組的病人都是如此。是以，她希望她的病人至少達到 60 歲。與大多數家庭護理醫生或初級保健醫生相比，這實在是太離譜了。事實上，他們會從梅奧診所或

Cleveland Clinic or whatever, and those levels like mine, which are 80 or 90, will be flagged as too high. Right. And I get those emails from people all the time. Wow. It's just level two.

克利夫蘭診所什麼的，而像我這樣的水準，也就是80或90，會被標記為過高。沒錯我經常收到這些人的郵件 And I get those emails from people all the time.哇哦只是二級而已

Let's talk about the normals for a second, because I think it's a bit of an arbitrary, right? There's really no agreed upon range definitively, right? There's different ideas on it. Again, if you go back to what's the agreed upon range, it's all based on skeletal models.

讓我們先談談正常值，因為我覺得這有點武斷，對吧？其實並沒有一個公認的明確範圍，對吧？對此有不同的看法。再說一遍，如果你回到什麼是公認的範圍，那都是基於骨骼模型的。

Right, right. And the skeletal models, that's something that we haven't talked about.

對，對還有骨骼模型，這是我們還沒討論過的。

The ranges on those two systems are different. You can maintain a skeletal model on a relatively low amount of, say, 25 or 30 nanograms or maybe even lower. You can maintain a normal skeletal level where the other system requires much higher levels in that to function in a normal fashion.

這兩種系統的範圍是不同的。你可以用相對較低的量來維持骨骼模型，比如 25 或 30 毫微克，甚至更低。你可以維持正常的骨骼水準，而另一個系統則需要更高的水準才能正常運作。

Incredible. What are the ranges for the other system other than the bone and the skeletal?

難以置信。除了骨骼和骨骼系統外，其他系統的範圍是多少？

I'm saying if you want to have cancer prevention or cancer treatment. So if you're trying to prevent cancer, that's one thing. If you have active neoplasia, that's a different ballgame.

我是說如果你想預防癌症或治療癌症。所以，如果你想預防癌症，那是一回事。如果你有活動性腫瘤，那就另當別論了。

That's pharmacology, so your levels would be higher. But for prevention and optimal functions, to me, a minimum level would be 50. So 50 to 100. And that's well within the normal physiologic range in sun-repleted populations. So if you spend a lot of time, and we've looked at this over the years, and people, lifeguards or athletes who are outside in the sun in the summer months or people who live in the tropics who take, their levels are routinely 80, 90, 100 nanograms. That is not an abnormal level from human physiology. In fact, that's what we all were at one time. This is incredible data. So you do have prevention, then you have the therapeutic dose when someone has a chronic inflammatory condition, autoimmune or cancer. Those levels,

這是藥理學，所以你的水準會更高。但為了預防和發揮最佳功能，對我來說，最低水平應該是 50。所以是 50 到 100。這完全在日晒後人群的正常生理範圍內。所以，如果你花了很多時間，多年來我們一直在研究這個問題，人們、救生員或運動員在夏天的幾個月裡在戶外晒太陽，或者生活在熱帶地區的人們，他們的水準通常是 80、90、100 納克。從人體生理角度來看，這並不是一個不正常的水準。事實上，我們曾經都是這個水準。這是令人難以置信的數據。是以，我們需要預防，當某人患有慢性發炎、自身免疫性疾病或癌症時，我們需要治療劑量。

I would imagine, need to be a bit over 100, right? Yeah, or even higher. I mean, there's an MS protocol in Brazil where this guy, I can't remember the Cambria protocol. Yeah, he, they dose with several hundred thousand. Their levels are, you know, five, 600 nanograms just for the suppression of MS. And it has basis, in fact, because vitamin D at those levels is an immune suppressor. So, excuse me, it will alter the T cells in the favor of T2 away from T1. T1 are the ones that cause autoimmune attack. And so vitamin D at those levels, and some of those people show that those, vitamin D at those levels are more effective than the drugs that are prescribed. Of course, vitamin D is free, essentially. And those drugs are enormously expensive to take every month with severe side effects. Right. So what about cancer? You mentioned one of the videos about prostate cancer. So, you know, with prostate cancer, we did a study more than 10 years ago now, where we looked at, I went to, at the time, I went into the chief of our urology department at the Medical University of South Carolina, where I was on faculty.

我想，應該超過 100 磅吧？對 甚至更高我是說，巴西有個多發性硬化症治療方案 那傢伙，我不記得叫什麼了他們的劑量是幾十萬他們的劑量是五到六百毫微克 只是為了抑制多發性硬化症這是有根據的 事實上 因為維生素D在這些水準上 是一種免疫抑制劑所以，不好意思，它會改變T細胞，使其偏向於T2，而不是T1。T1是導致自身免疫攻擊的細胞。是以，在這些水準上的維生素D，有些人的研究表明，在這些水準上的維生素D比處方藥更有效。當然，維生素 D 基本上是免費的。而那些藥物每個月都要服用，價格昂貴，副作用嚴重。對那麼癌症呢？

And another fellow and I went in and talked to him, and he was a friend of mine. And I said to him, I said, look, we want to do a study in your group of patients on the patients who have active surveillance or are watching weight. You know what that is. So you go in to have your prostate, your PSA is going up, they do a biopsy, and your prostate cancer is low-grade, say at least in six.

我和另一個研究員進去和他談了談，他是我的一個朋友。我對他說，聽著，我們想在你們這組病人中開展一項研究，研究對象是那些接受積極監測或控制體重的病人。你知道那是什麼。你去做前列腺檢查，PSA升高，他們做了活檢，你的前列腺癌是低級別的，至少六級。

So the doctor says to you, well, we'd prefer to really do nothing. You know, we want to watch and wait, which means we'll check back with you in a year, see if it's worse. Okay. So we said, we want to do a study on these guys. And what we want to do is we, at the time, every time we did these studies, you had to propose how much you were going to give the patient. And so if you go back to this period of time, which is in 2005-2006 era, some back there, we wanted to give them a really modest dose of 4,000 units a day. I would have liked to give more, but at the time, you have to go through an institutional review board, and they have to okay it. And so most of this, unfortunately, where we are and stuff, most of the prostate cancer occurs in the African

所以醫生對你說，我們寧願什麼都不做。你知道，我們想觀察和等待 也就是說，我們會在一年後再來找你，看看情況是否惡化 好的好吧，所以我們說，我們要對這些人做個研究我們想做的是，在當時，每次做這些研究時，你必須提出要給病人多少劑量。是以，如果你回到 2005-2006 年這一時期，我們想給他們每天 4000 組織、部門的適度劑量。我本想給他們更多的劑量，但在當時，你必須通過機構審查委員會，他們必須同意。不幸的是，在我們所在的地方，大部分前列腺癌都發生在非洲人身上。

American population, which are really deficient in vitamin D. So we approached them, and we said, we want to do this, and we want to give them 4,000 units of vitamin D a day.

是以，我們找到他們，說我們想這樣做，每天給他們提供 4000 組織、部門的維生素 D。

And it was an interventional trial. It wasn't a randomized trial, but we had historical data on patients that were in that practice. And so we put them on 4,000 units a day, and we monitored their levels. And then at the end of the year, they got a repeat rectal biopsy, like you get for prostate cancer. And we looked at the cell grade and the how it progressed. And in 64%, the tumors regressed. Wow. Wow. And we submitted this to, of course, New England Journal, and they wanted nothing to do with it. So it finally got published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, which is a respectable endocrine journal. And it really went nowhere. I mean, if it would have been a drug that a drug company had, it would have been worth billions. So when people treat cancer like that, like prostate cancer, 4,000 is nothing. I'm saying take 20,000 or more, because you got cancer. You're not dealing in normal physiology here. You're in pharmacology. And the pushback you get if you try to put these trials, well, I'll give you an example of a study called the Sunshine Study, which is a study on non-resectable colon cancer, okay, run out of Harvard and all other.

這是一項介入性試驗。雖然不是隨機試驗，但我們掌握了患者的歷史數據。所以我們讓他們每天服用4000組織、部門，並監測他們的水準。然後在一年結束時，他們會再次接受直腸活檢，就像治療前列腺癌一樣。我們觀察了細胞等級和進展情況。結果有64%的人腫瘤消退了哇哦哇哦當然，我們把這篇論文投給了《新英格蘭雜誌》 但他們根本不想看最後我們在《臨床內分泌學與新陳代謝雜誌》上發表了這篇論文 這是一本值得尊敬的內分泌雜誌但這篇論文卻毫無進展。我的意思是，如果它是一種藥物，一家制藥公司擁有它，它將價值數十億。所以，當人們治療像前列

And in those studies, they were giving vitamin D prior to giving chemotherapy.

在這些研究中，他們在化療前服用維生素 D。

And to see if priming these people with a level of vitamin D prior to giving them chemotherapy had an effect. And so sure enough, I mean, the final study is being done, but the initial study that was published a couple of years ago, after the data was looked at, it basically extended the patient's lives by two months if you primed them with vitamin D. And it was only like 8,000, maybe 10,000 units a day, which at the time I said to the primary investigator on this study,

看看在化療前給這些人補充一定量的維生素D 是否有效果。果然，我是說，最終的研究正在進行中，但幾年前發表的初步研究，在數據被研究之後，如果給病人補充維生素D，基本上可以延長病人兩個月的生命、

I said, why don't we really go for like 50,000? And the response I got back is we can't get that through the IRB. I said, these people are dying. You're giving them really potent chemotherapeutic drugs and you're worried about giving them vitamin D. Yeah, right. Yeah, they're dying.

我說，為什麼我們不爭取到 5 萬美元呢？我得到的答覆是，我們無法通過IRB。我說，這些人都快死了。你在給他們用強效化療藥 卻擔心給他們補充維生素D是的 他們快死了

They're not going to survive. You're trying to prolong their life. You can't even operate on them because they're too far along. And you're worried, they're worried about giving them, you know, a substantial. And so be that as it's may, even if the doses they gave in conjunction with the chemotherapy extended their lives by about two months. And in cancer chemotherapy, that's a big deal. Okay. Drugs are approved on that basis. But it was funny because it was sent to JAMA and it was the initial data, the way it was analyzed by the School of Public Health at

他們活不下去了你在試圖延長他們的生命你甚至不能給他們做手術 因為他們的病情太嚴重了你擔心，他們也擔心 給他們，你知道，大量的。即使他們在化療的同時服用的劑量 能延長他們兩個月的生命而在癌症化療， 這是一個大問題。好吧藥物就是在這個基礎上被準許的但這很有趣，因為它被送到了《美國醫學會雜誌》上，而且是最初的數據，是由公共衛生學院分析的

Harvard showed significance at like 0.035. And then JAMA comes back and says, well, we want you to do it this way. So do it that way. And it comes back with 0.045 or something. And no, no, now we want you to do it this way. So then it comes back at 0.051. And then they say, okay, that's good, but you got to say it's, it's, it's not significant. And we'll publish the article.