>70% lower risk of events (Heart attack, revascularization and all cause death) with Vitamin K2 supplementation. 700 mcg per day. A lower dose may not be so effective.
It is important to take Vitamin D in combination with K2.
Vitamin K2 activates proteins like the Matrix Gla Protein which prevent or reduce calcification of the arteries. 97% of older people have a K2 insufficiency which is an important causes of heart attacks etc. If health agencies actually wanted to reduce the mortality in the public, they would make sure that everyone receives enough D3, K2, magnesium etc. etc.
Abstract
Background
Coronary artery calcification (CAC) and especially progression in CAC is a strong predictor of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiovascular mortality [1]. Observational studies suggest a protective role of vitamin K2 in the development of CAC [2]. Measurement of CAC score in Agatston Units (AU) is common practice, while novel software as AutoPlaque introduces new opportunities to measure coronary plaques [3].
Purpose
The aim of this double-blinded randomized multicenter trial is to investigate if vitamin K2 supplementation can reduce the progression of CAC in a population without known coronary disease.
Methods
AVADEC is a multicenter trial investigating 389 participants randomized to vitamin K2 (720 μg/day) and vitamin D (25 μg/day) versus placebo with a 2-year follow-up from 2018–2019 [4]. The primary endpoint of AVADEC is change in aortic valve calcification. In this substudy, we examined the progression of CAC in participants with no prior coronary disease (no myocardial infarction and/or revascularization) at baseline. Secondary, the change in CAC was evaluated in two prespecified subgroups (low-risk: CAC score <400 AU and high-risk: CAC ≥400 AU at baseline). Non-contrast CT-scans were performed at baseline, 12 and 24 months of follow-up. Contrast CT-scans were performed at baseline and 24 months. CAC score was measured with established software and expressed in Agatston Units (AU). On contrast CT-scans, quantitative coronary plaque composition evaluations were performed by using Autoplaque. Moreover, events (AMI, revascularization and all cause death) were assessed.
Results
304 participants (male, mean age 71 years) with no prior coronary disease were identified. The intervention and placebo groups were similar in all traditional cardiovascular risk factors except familial predisposition for cardiovascular disease (14.4% vs. 6.7%, p=0.046). We found progression of CAC in both the intervention and placebo group from baseline to 24 month follow-up (203 AU vs. 254 AU, p=0.089) (Figure 1). The patients with CAC score <400 AU at baseline were equal in progression (77 AU vs. 81 AU, p=0.846). In patients with CAC score ≥400, the progression of CAC was significantly lower in the intervention group (288 AU vs. 380 AU, p=0.047). Yet, preliminary analyses of contrast CT-scans in 180 participants showed no difference in the progression of non-calcified plaque volume (10 mm3 vs. 37 mm3, p=0.276). In addition, the number of events was significantly lower in participants receiving vitamin K2 and D (1.9% vs. 6.7%, p=0.048).
Conclusion
Patients with no prior coronary disease randomized to vitamin K2 supplementation had a non-significant reduction in CAC development over a 2-year follow-up period. High-risk patients with CAC ≥400 AU had a significantly lower progression of CAC. Additionally, vitamin K2 supplementation significantly reduced the risk of AMI, revascularization and all-cause death.
S Hasific, K A Oevrehus, J S Lindholt, A Mejldal, D Dey, S Auscher, J Lambrechtsen, S Hosbond, D Alan, G Urbonaviciene, S Becker, L M Rasmussen, A P Diederichsen, The effect of vitamin K2 supplementation on coronary artery disease in a randomized multicenter trial, European Heart Journal, Volume 43, Issue Supplement_2, October 2022, ehac544.1227,
Where can i find out about this. I do a bit of fermenting for gut health and I hear that it's good for vitamins, but I can't find much detail on it. Is it just natural vitamins in the veggies that are more available, or does it actually generate more?
I don't know if generate is the right description. Maybe convert is better as the bacteria changes the product, and perhaps, the bacteria is also a nutrition source. I read a couple of books, one author was Mollison, another was a west coast USA resident, I can't think of his name off hand.
There are also studies I've read all accessible on the web using the obvious keywords. One such study showed lectin in seeds were lessoned by 95% after 3 days of ferment.
I watched Peter McCullough say he told his cov patients to take D zinc and quercetin but didnt mention magnesium or K so I didnt bother. As I mentioned above my susceptibility to illness seems to have dropped signiticantly so I dont know if its coincidence or I should also be taking K and mg
Now that nearly the entire healthcare "profession" participated in a socio-psychopathic genocide can we all refrain from having to use disclaimers about medical advice? Medical advice has now become dangerous to your health and well being, and deadly in tens of millions of instances since the COVID19 Crimes Against Humanity.
I used to buy D3\K2 and magnesium from the Pure Vitamin Club in the UK, unfortunately they had all sorts of distribution problems and stopped supplying Europe. I liked them because there were no fillers and the D3 came in olive oil capsules not vegetable oils.
Can anyone recommend a good alternative until this becomes available in the UK.
A few years go Vit C was the sure-fire preventative/curative for Colds. Now Vitamin D. Fashions come and go.
The body regulates vitamin content, so if an individual is ingesting more of a vitamin than the body needs, it is broken down and excreted. For most people on a good, varied diet, taking vitamin supplements is a waste of time and can be harmful if large amounts are taken.
The diet is a good source for Vitamin D, notably from oily fish, red meat, eggs, liver and dairy - all foods Government 'experts' have recommended people avoid.
joel---which Joel Smalley are you on Twitter?----I have now, somewhat reluctantly entered the 21st century---here I am---I would welcome you as a "follower"
At $48 for a 30-day supply, I don't see that as being cost-effective compared to traditional supplements. That said, the ratios look pretty decent, except the Quercetin; 40 mg is too little, and on the K2, it would be better to have both MK4 as well as MK7.
Ive been taking d, quercetin and zinc since summer 2021 and apart from a blast of covid in oct 21 ive missed out on colds and flu that all my family and friends have been laid up with. I was sceptical at 1st but proof seems to be in the taking! 🤗
Feel free to pass this on to whatever contacts you have in MSM, journalists, lawyers working on the court cases, medical people fighting mandates and so on.
But if they ask where it came from to fact check then pass on my contacts and I will supply them the original for their due diligence.
MHRA answered me this morning . Strange for them to send out e-mails on a Sunday, normally it’s a Friday afternoon, answering these 2 questions:
Can you please supply: - the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “safe” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
- the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “effective” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
What an answer - they have no definitive standard to measure either safety nor effectiveness of any medicine or vaccine.
So how do they know something is “safe” or “effective”?
It is because they, or the manufacturer, say it is!!!
Here is their actual answer:
There is no ‘metric or standard’ used by the MHRA to quantify ‘safe’ in terms of a COVID-19 vaccine, or any other medicinal product. (my highlighting). No medicine is completely risk-free. For a medicine to be considered acceptably safe, its expected benefits should be greater than any associated risks of harmful reactions (my highlighting). This can be determined based on the data submitted with an application for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product such as a COVID-19 vaccine. But the balance of benefits and risks for any product can change at any time during its marketed life, for example if a serious new side effect is established.
For this reason the MHRA continually monitors the safety of all medicinal products authorised in the UK, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The process is termed pharmacovigilance and this involves:
monitoring the use of medicines in everyday practice to identify previously unrecognised adverse effects or changes in the patterns of adverse effects
assessing the risks and benefits of medicines in order to determine what action, if any, is necessary to improve their safe use
providing information to healthcare professionals and patients to optimise safe and effective use of medicines
monitoring the impact of any action taken
You can read more about the MHRA’s safety assessments for COVID-19 vaccines here Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines adverse reactions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
As stated above, all medicinal products are authorised based on an assessment of the benefit/risk - that is the benefit to the patient being greater than the known risks associated with taking that product. To understand the assessment of the benefit/risk for each of the Covid-19 vaccines authorised, please refer to the Public Assessment Reports (PARs) for each of the vaccines that we have provided links to in our previous responses to you.
Vaccine efficacy is usually measured in randomised controlled clinical trials. It is calculated by comparing the proportion of trial subjects that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine arm with the proportion that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the placebo arm. The calculation is made after a certain number of COVID-19 cases have occurred in the trial as a whole. This number is decided at the start of the trial. This means that a time period is not chosen.
More details on the measurement of vaccine efficacy are provided in the PARs that you have already received.
We hope this information is helpful.
But the PARs they mention do NOT prove the vaccines are safe nor effective when you read them.
I have read them many times and cannot find out what in them proves safety and/or effectiveness.
Joel, do you already know this new study?
>70% lower risk of events (Heart attack, revascularization and all cause death) with Vitamin K2 supplementation. 700 mcg per day. A lower dose may not be so effective.
It is important to take Vitamin D in combination with K2.
Vitamin K2 activates proteins like the Matrix Gla Protein which prevent or reduce calcification of the arteries. 97% of older people have a K2 insufficiency which is an important causes of heart attacks etc. If health agencies actually wanted to reduce the mortality in the public, they would make sure that everyone receives enough D3, K2, magnesium etc. etc.
Abstract
Background
Coronary artery calcification (CAC) and especially progression in CAC is a strong predictor of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiovascular mortality [1]. Observational studies suggest a protective role of vitamin K2 in the development of CAC [2]. Measurement of CAC score in Agatston Units (AU) is common practice, while novel software as AutoPlaque introduces new opportunities to measure coronary plaques [3].
Purpose
The aim of this double-blinded randomized multicenter trial is to investigate if vitamin K2 supplementation can reduce the progression of CAC in a population without known coronary disease.
Methods
AVADEC is a multicenter trial investigating 389 participants randomized to vitamin K2 (720 μg/day) and vitamin D (25 μg/day) versus placebo with a 2-year follow-up from 2018–2019 [4]. The primary endpoint of AVADEC is change in aortic valve calcification. In this substudy, we examined the progression of CAC in participants with no prior coronary disease (no myocardial infarction and/or revascularization) at baseline. Secondary, the change in CAC was evaluated in two prespecified subgroups (low-risk: CAC score <400 AU and high-risk: CAC ≥400 AU at baseline). Non-contrast CT-scans were performed at baseline, 12 and 24 months of follow-up. Contrast CT-scans were performed at baseline and 24 months. CAC score was measured with established software and expressed in Agatston Units (AU). On contrast CT-scans, quantitative coronary plaque composition evaluations were performed by using Autoplaque. Moreover, events (AMI, revascularization and all cause death) were assessed.
Results
304 participants (male, mean age 71 years) with no prior coronary disease were identified. The intervention and placebo groups were similar in all traditional cardiovascular risk factors except familial predisposition for cardiovascular disease (14.4% vs. 6.7%, p=0.046). We found progression of CAC in both the intervention and placebo group from baseline to 24 month follow-up (203 AU vs. 254 AU, p=0.089) (Figure 1). The patients with CAC score <400 AU at baseline were equal in progression (77 AU vs. 81 AU, p=0.846). In patients with CAC score ≥400, the progression of CAC was significantly lower in the intervention group (288 AU vs. 380 AU, p=0.047). Yet, preliminary analyses of contrast CT-scans in 180 participants showed no difference in the progression of non-calcified plaque volume (10 mm3 vs. 37 mm3, p=0.276). In addition, the number of events was significantly lower in participants receiving vitamin K2 and D (1.9% vs. 6.7%, p=0.048).
Conclusion
Patients with no prior coronary disease randomized to vitamin K2 supplementation had a non-significant reduction in CAC development over a 2-year follow-up period. High-risk patients with CAC ≥400 AU had a significantly lower progression of CAC. Additionally, vitamin K2 supplementation significantly reduced the risk of AMI, revascularization and all-cause death.
S Hasific, K A Oevrehus, J S Lindholt, A Mejldal, D Dey, S Auscher, J Lambrechtsen, S Hosbond, D Alan, G Urbonaviciene, S Becker, L M Rasmussen, A P Diederichsen, The effect of vitamin K2 supplementation on coronary artery disease in a randomized multicenter trial, European Heart Journal, Volume 43, Issue Supplement_2, October 2022, ehac544.1227,
I didn't know the detail but aware of the importance of K2 for the take up of D. Thank you!
I grow natural food to ferment for k2 among other benefits
Where can i find out about this. I do a bit of fermenting for gut health and I hear that it's good for vitamins, but I can't find much detail on it. Is it just natural vitamins in the veggies that are more available, or does it actually generate more?
Start with sauerkraut
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9BYlkLLpI_pMkeukIaZF4A
I don't know if generate is the right description. Maybe convert is better as the bacteria changes the product, and perhaps, the bacteria is also a nutrition source. I read a couple of books, one author was Mollison, another was a west coast USA resident, I can't think of his name off hand.
Sandor Katz?
That's him, Wild Fermentation.
There are also studies I've read all accessible on the web using the obvious keywords. One such study showed lectin in seeds were lessoned by 95% after 3 days of ferment.
Thanks I’m checking out this book from the library
I watched Peter McCullough say he told his cov patients to take D zinc and quercetin but didnt mention magnesium or K so I didnt bother. As I mentioned above my susceptibility to illness seems to have dropped signiticantly so I dont know if its coincidence or I should also be taking K and mg
You should take vitamin k, mg and zinc also
Ty max
It will be interesting to read the quantities of each in the tablets--as you know "recommended" amounts are far less than is required.
It's here:
https://sunfluencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/suppfacts.jpg
Interesting that it's also got selenium and a little boron.
Now that nearly the entire healthcare "profession" participated in a socio-psychopathic genocide can we all refrain from having to use disclaimers about medical advice? Medical advice has now become dangerous to your health and well being, and deadly in tens of millions of instances since the COVID19 Crimes Against Humanity.
I used to buy D3\K2 and magnesium from the Pure Vitamin Club in the UK, unfortunately they had all sorts of distribution problems and stopped supplying Europe. I liked them because there were no fillers and the D3 came in olive oil capsules not vegetable oils.
Can anyone recommend a good alternative until this becomes available in the UK.
Try British Supplements. They're excellent quality no fillers
They post their independent lab results.
Thank you, I’ll give them a look.
Drops - D3 and K2 - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06Y3X5SDZ?
Thank you but ‘Currently Unavailable’ on Amazon.
Dr Amy Myers had a D3/K2 drop. In medium chain triglycerides. I even give my little babe drops
I just checked again - it seems to be available although the 10 day delivery date is odd. That would be amazon.com, maybe not .ca
AG1 makes a D3K2drop also. Made in USA. https://athleticgreens.com/campaign/d35ct-offer-immunity/en?gclid=CjwKCAiAlp2fBhBPEiwA2Q10D_fBWRMnic01tHrE-s2XcqohJvIFF3yVBMdIqVDcfgGYmE6OcxFiiRoC4oQQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
LOL!
Well, winter here at 44N between the equinoxes basically insolation plays a role, be outside even more when its cold then (and eat cod livers)!
A few years go Vit C was the sure-fire preventative/curative for Colds. Now Vitamin D. Fashions come and go.
The body regulates vitamin content, so if an individual is ingesting more of a vitamin than the body needs, it is broken down and excreted. For most people on a good, varied diet, taking vitamin supplements is a waste of time and can be harmful if large amounts are taken.
The diet is a good source for Vitamin D, notably from oily fish, red meat, eggs, liver and dairy - all foods Government 'experts' have recommended people avoid.
High fat dairy is my understanding (fortunately, I go through 2 gal full-fat, raw milk from grass fed cows each week)
YES! Will also buy this immediately as soon as is available to the UK. Already taking all of these separately - genius move combining them into one.
joel---which Joel Smalley are you on Twitter?----I have now, somewhat reluctantly entered the 21st century---here I am---I would welcome you as a "follower"
@HughMcC17126125
At $48 for a 30-day supply, I don't see that as being cost-effective compared to traditional supplements. That said, the ratios look pretty decent, except the Quercetin; 40 mg is too little, and on the K2, it would be better to have both MK4 as well as MK7.
Just disrobe and choose the Real Thing. 🌞
If you're lucky! That would cause you more trouble than good in the UK for most of the year!!
True, true. I was mostly snarkily responding to a product named after that big glowing thing in the sky…
If only we could dacon
ELL OH ELL! ✨☀️✨
Ty for this. I also watch dr John Campbells YouTube channel and he advices people take vitamin d also
Ive been taking d, quercetin and zinc since summer 2021 and apart from a blast of covid in oct 21 ive missed out on colds and flu that all my family and friends have been laid up with. I was sceptical at 1st but proof seems to be in the taking! 🤗
Of course, food is the best source of vitamins and minerals, and the Sun.
Sesame seeds; chia seeds; bean sprouts; fish oil; dried dates; etc.
I was surprised to see discover nutrient-dense sesame seeds, chia seeds, beans are. I eat them regularly now.
Thanks for the tip. Initially I thought it was meme ...!
Feel free to pass this on to whatever contacts you have in MSM, journalists, lawyers working on the court cases, medical people fighting mandates and so on.
But if they ask where it came from to fact check then pass on my contacts and I will supply them the original for their due diligence.
MHRA answered me this morning . Strange for them to send out e-mails on a Sunday, normally it’s a Friday afternoon, answering these 2 questions:
Can you please supply: - the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “safe” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
- the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “effective” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
What an answer - they have no definitive standard to measure either safety nor effectiveness of any medicine or vaccine.
So how do they know something is “safe” or “effective”?
It is because they, or the manufacturer, say it is!!!
Here is their actual answer:
There is no ‘metric or standard’ used by the MHRA to quantify ‘safe’ in terms of a COVID-19 vaccine, or any other medicinal product. (my highlighting). No medicine is completely risk-free. For a medicine to be considered acceptably safe, its expected benefits should be greater than any associated risks of harmful reactions (my highlighting). This can be determined based on the data submitted with an application for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product such as a COVID-19 vaccine. But the balance of benefits and risks for any product can change at any time during its marketed life, for example if a serious new side effect is established.
For this reason the MHRA continually monitors the safety of all medicinal products authorised in the UK, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The process is termed pharmacovigilance and this involves:
monitoring the use of medicines in everyday practice to identify previously unrecognised adverse effects or changes in the patterns of adverse effects
assessing the risks and benefits of medicines in order to determine what action, if any, is necessary to improve their safe use
providing information to healthcare professionals and patients to optimise safe and effective use of medicines
monitoring the impact of any action taken
You can read more about the MHRA’s safety assessments for COVID-19 vaccines here Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines adverse reactions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
As stated above, all medicinal products are authorised based on an assessment of the benefit/risk - that is the benefit to the patient being greater than the known risks associated with taking that product. To understand the assessment of the benefit/risk for each of the Covid-19 vaccines authorised, please refer to the Public Assessment Reports (PARs) for each of the vaccines that we have provided links to in our previous responses to you.
Vaccine efficacy is usually measured in randomised controlled clinical trials. It is calculated by comparing the proportion of trial subjects that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine arm with the proportion that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the placebo arm. The calculation is made after a certain number of COVID-19 cases have occurred in the trial as a whole. This number is decided at the start of the trial. This means that a time period is not chosen.
More details on the measurement of vaccine efficacy are provided in the PARs that you have already received.
We hope this information is helpful.
But the PARs they mention do NOT prove the vaccines are safe nor effective when you read them.
I have read them many times and cannot find out what in them proves safety and/or effectiveness.
Here they are, read them for yourselves:
https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/the-4-official-ema-public-assessment