Talk:Cholecalciferol

message: The SMILES Notation that is on the page now does not match the picture, so I'm going to change it to match (the picture is right, I checked on the EPA website).
  
Here is what it is now:
CC(C)CCC[C@@H](C)[C@H]1CC[C@H]2/C(CCC[C@]12C)=C/C=C3/C[C@@H](O)CCC3=C
And here's what it actually is:
CC(C)CCC[C@@H](C)[C@H]1CCC2C(\CCCC12C)=C\C=C3\C[C@@H](O)CCC3=C 
Sbrools (talk . contribs) 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SMILES]] Notation 

message: I haven't the time now, but this article desperately needs some clinical relevance. Cholecalciferol's clinical implications are very significant, with relation to Calcium absorption in the gut and renal osteodystrophy. 81.179.117.49 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinical relevance 

message: While the main Vitamin D article notes the potential for oversupplementation, a single sentence in this article is probably merited as well, just to be on the safe side. (24.147.80.106 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overdose 

message: Does any one know about D3 coming from pig brains? Is lanolin the only source? 24.152.217.54 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pig brains? 

message: Has anyone else noticed that cholecalciferol is mentioned more often without the h as colecalciferol, and what could the reason for this be? I know it sounds a very trivial question, but I'm intrigued if an interesting answer exists. Perhaps it's a way to differentiate supplements from skin produced D3? But why change now? Mo79 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is almost wholy about its manufacture and dosing as a medication. As such WP:MEDMOS indicates that the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) be used rather what might still be United States Adopted Name (USAN) or the former British Approved Name (BAN) which changed years ago to the INN. David Ruben  Talk  23:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colecalciferol 

message: Trevor Marshall is an electrical engineer. He should not be featured on this information page. His "approach" is considered quack science by EVERY REAL scientist in the field. Any reference to him should be taken off this site. Wikipedia is a place for information that is accepted by the medical community and he is NOT a member of the medical community at large. Many real doctors have a profound dislike of this dangerous suggestions. Furthermore the only thing Trevor Marshall has ever had published was not peer reviewed, and was not an actual study but merely a stated theory. Judderwocky (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trevor Marshall (Marshall Protocol) 

message: I think it is a bit unclear as to whether or not cholecalciferol is poisonous, or if it simply used as part of the bait.  Could someone please clarify?  Also, what purpose does it serve in the bait?  Why are possums attracted to it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.12.253 (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poison? 

message: Cholecalciferol in and of itself is an active product of the body, and not harmless in doses proportional to what a vertebrate organism can create in natural sunlight. It is a prohormone which regulates multiple functions in the cells of vertebrates, and it is used as a poison because of it's effects on calcium absorption in the small intestine. It is used as the active part of the bait to create the desired effect of hypercalcemia in the soft-tissue organs of the target animal's body. 
The factor which defines a toxic level of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the level of calcidiol (25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D3) in the blood of an organisim. Humans reach the toxicity level when their 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are at 200-250 ng/mL (500-750 nmol/L) or higher, but it is the effect of vitamin D3 on the absorption of calcium that results in organ damage and death. The absorption of calcium is proportional to the level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the blood; thus when an animal consumes a high level of vitamin D3 they overabsorb calcium. When levels of calcium in the blood are too high the animal enters a state of hypercalcemia, which causes arrhythmia of the heart and a subsequent death by heart attack. 
Unsigned, possums would be attracted to the bait by the cholecalciferol and calcium being hidden in a food that the possum likes to eat. The vitamin is more or less taste-free and odorless, and it'd be a pretty easy way to knock off the animal. I hope this clarifies things a bit! My source for most of this information is the vitamin D council page on toxicity. Sources on toxicity levels and studies are cited (four of them) at the bottom of the linked page. --JHansen (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cholecalciferol as poison

message: I think that it'd be relevant to address the newest information on cholecalciferol from the vitamin D3 website in this article, in order to address the new fad of heavy vitamin D supplementation - at least to name them in linkages, alongside what roles they play in cooperation with cholecalciferol in the body. 
Thoughts and feedback? Thanks, --JHansen (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Material that is added to Wikipedia needs to be supported by reliable sources.  Furthermore Wikipedia has very high standards for sources to support medical claims (see  WP:RSMED). The Vitamin D Council documents things much better than most web sites (see for example the reference section at the bottom of ).  At the same time, I think they present a lot of circumstantial evidence that magnesium deficiency contributes to vitamin D insufficiency but they do not provide any direct evidence for this claim.  This  primary source comes a lot closer.  Ideally we would like a secondary source (i.e., a review article or meta clinical study) to support this claim.  At the same time, the introduction of this article that reviews the evidence for this linkage can be considered a secondary source.  Hence I think it would be OK to mention magnesium deficiency as a contributing factor to vitamin D insufficiency and cite .  The claims for vitamin K, boron, and zinc would have to be looked at in a similar way. Boghog (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion - vitamin D co-factors?

message: I found these links interesting: ASCO 2009and Chemotherapy is linked to severe vitamin D deficiency in patients with colorectal cancer--Stageivsupporter (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Therapeutic vs D3 deficiency during CRC, chemotherapy

message: I found it very hard to find a description of Vitamin D3 industrial production technques.  Today, I found a good description which I think can be used as a reference and quoted or
paraphrased:
  http://www.agdnutrition.com/d3-story.html
This is in the sub-section previously "As a food fortification", now renamed "Industrial production".
This description seems to match that given via email from another manufacturer, which I think is not a primary reference and can't be quoted:
  http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/02/08/what-do-sheep-have-to-do-with-vitamin-d-supplements-quite-a-bit-actually-mates/
This second description is from DSM Nutritional Products, but the best information they I can find on their websites is much less detailed:
 
  http://www.vitamin-basics.com/index.php?id=3
Robin Whittle (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial production techniques 

message: This section is badly written and I'm going to try to make sense of it. Nicmart (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've rewritten it I find that the reference provides no support at all (that I can deduce) for what is claimed about allergies and immune disorder. If there is no disagreement then this should be wiped: "Medical experts who oppose supplementing with vitamin D hypothesize that doing so might cause new allergies to emerge or exacerbate existing allergies and autoimmune disorders.[10]" Nicmart (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to vitamin D supplements 

message: It's very odd that the article doesn't touch on dietary sources! Someone really ought to fix that. --92.28.98.184 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dietary sources 

message: "Cholecalciferol is also produced industrially for use in vitamin supplements from lichens, which is suitable for vegetarians and vegans."
Why would sheep's wool objectionable to vegetarians? I've seen many sheep shorn, and in the hands of an experienced shearer, the sheep is usually relaxed during the process. I also know many vegetarians who are not offended by the use of wool or the process of shearing, and are happy to use wool and wool by-products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
"Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat – red meat, poultry, seafood and the flesh of any other animal; it may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism
"Veganism /ˈviːɡənɪzəm/ is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals. A follower of veganism is known as a vegan."
So I will change this to:
"Cholecalciferol is also produced industrially for use in vitamin supplements from lichens, which is suitable for vegans."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.105.36 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shearing sheep doesn't kill them! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cholecalciferol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224064915/http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D/DRI-Values.aspx to http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D/DRI-Values.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This ref specifically says not by injection. It is a different vitamin D given by injection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK wrong reference, but it is "sometimes given by injection" - see , ,  , ,  , etc. and  (Canada!), .  I can't find good secondary MEDRS reviews -- this might do to show it exists .  Jrfw51 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can say it use by IM injection has been studied. Not notable for the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Injection

message: Apparently, the INN is 'Colecalciferol', not 'Cholecalciferol' (-h-). Per WP:PHARM then, shouldn't the article content be in Colecalciferol? That's a move over redirect, so nothing will be broken. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The INN is indeed without the 'h'. This is meant to be the spelling for the therapeutic agent (in most of the world). But it is also the natural compound, which is with the 'h'.  This is overwhelmingly the spelling used in Pubmed. Jrfw51 (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure both names are correct. For medicines, we apply the general rule Pharmacology, Style guise that the article title takes the INN. This would simply be a name swap (current name will be a Redirect, will work just as well). Do this?  -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, leave with a redirect and clear posting to the INN. My point is that this is a natural compound made in skin, as well as being given as a pharmaceutical. The article, like so much here on vitamin D, focuses on its use as a drug/suppplement, and the biochemical/physiological aspects are not developed.  Pubmed has 53 citations using 'colecalciferol' and over 7000 using 'cholecalciferol'. Jrfw51 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Both names are correct, no problem in there. It clearly is a medicine, and so must be guided by the style guide I linked. External hit count has no meaning in this (this is not about disambiguation). -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ping  -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  INN 

message: Mechanism of action, biosynthesis, and industrial production are not "physiologcial effects". Therefore reverted to how it was. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jrfw51 this is the place to work out issues with the article's structure. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Jytdog and talk:  Please explain your reasoning for reverting these changes.  I am trying to use the same structure that is used for other biological compounds which are also given as therapeutic agents.  I have done this is three different ways, not always very well on the firsts attempt.  Could you please review and edit, rather than reverting.  Thank you. Jrfw51 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a hard issue all over.  See WT:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_91#Splitting_articles_about_endogenous_molecules_used_as_drugs and discussion linked from there. It is something better to discuss rather than probing ways to do it. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out that discussion which I had missed when my attention was elsewhere.  Not sure this needs splitting (yet) into Cholecalciferol and Colecalciferol (supplement) -- with different spellings -- but I would appreciate your review of my last edit, which you reverted, to state briefly and early in the article the biological function before moving on to therapeutic medical uses. Jrfw51 (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

text: --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a critique of the current version by Jytdog and your definitions are appropriate. My last version started "Cholecalciferol is a form of vitamin D which is naturally synthesised in skin and functions as a pro-hormone".  My edits are an attempt to redress the balance and make this not just above a drug. Jrfw51 (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The inconsistencies of content and format and rating/importance across vitamins has been annoying me for a while. Most are rated in WikiProject Chemicals, but a few are not rated in WikiProject Medicine. Perhaps identify one vitamin as a model, discuss in Talk, and then address? Or is there a way of sandboxing this? Clearly a few vitamins are special cases that need allowance for unique sections, as size of articles currently ranges from 20K to 120K. The large (complicated or controversial) vitamins are C and D, followed by folate, B12, K and niacin. Please keep me in the conversation. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a more consistent format for vitamins, and would prefer that for used at present for Vitamin E: Forms -- Function -- Supplements etc.  This defines what they are, and what they do, before going into an analysis of the often controversial claims for benefits of supplements. But please note: Cholecalciferol is different in that it is a product of normal synthesis in the skin, making it a prohormone, where the active form is calcitriol.  (You might want to review how we deal with this too).  I will try adding the one sentence again about what I hope will be noncontroversial function, in keeping with some of the comments above. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you self-revert. I will give you some time before I file the case.  Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Some are single substances, others are groups of substances so unlikely to be able to have one outline for both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there consensus that I should remove or keep the present statement re function? Or should we split the topic? What to other recent contributors think? Pinging User:David notMD, DePiep and User:Doc James. Jrfw51 (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am late to this party, but would prefer removing Function as a section for this article. As written, Function is very general, and to some degree repeats what is in the Lead. The information in it either is or can be covered in context in subsequent sections. If anything, Function may be more appropriate to vitamin D than to Cholecaciferol (and for vitamin A over retinol). To my and Doc James points, what is and what is not a section, and appropriate order, are not constant across the vitamins. The fact that for some, there is more than one compound being described in one article - with different effects - complicates the issue. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup I am with David on this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:MEDMOS]]/[[WP:PHARMMOS]]

message: The wholesale cost in the Costa Rica is about 2.15 USD per 30 ml bottle of 10,000 IU/ml.[11] In the United States treatment costs less than 25 USD per month.[4]
This references a citation in which 2015 is the most current data.  Since prices vary, and historical pricing information is of minimal value, should these statements be updated, amended, or withdrawn? Gprobins (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kind of wondering if the line should be there at all. Having a statement that pretty much randomly refers to the wholesale price in Costa Rica and the end-user price in the United States is...weird.  Unless there's some reason why the price of this particular drug is particularly noteworthy or unusual, I can't see why it would be mentioned at all—let alone in the article lede.  (Compare and contrast an example from the opposite extreme, Daraprim, where the price being jacked up to an unconscionable level by the smirking sleazeball Martin Shkreli received wide coverage.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Some idea of the different costs worldwide seems relevant but I do not think this is needed in the lead. Added UK costs which are as acessible as the Tarascon book quoted for the US. Jrfw51 (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference still relevant? 

message: While pondering about an out of range value I confirmed an error in the Pesticide section and will make the correction, I will leave this explanation here to try and avoid hasty reverts.      
    
    Toxicity has been reported across a wide range of cholecalciferol dosages, with LD50 as high as 88 mg/kg or as low as 2 mcg/kg reported for dogs.    
    
This quote comes from the abstract of the paper which is wrong. Sadly the Science Direct and EuropePMC aggregators only show the incorrect abstract and the snippet visible of the main body cuts of right before it displays the correct value.    
    
The 2 microgram (mcg, ug, µg) dose is very close to a physiological dose while a 2 milligram (mg) dose is an overdose.  When compared to the 88mg/kg LD50 the ratio to LDLo of 2mg/kg is 44:1 which is high but when compared to the LDLo of 2ug/kg it is 44'000:1 and this is clearly too high.    
    
From the Abstract      
Although the reported lethal dose 50% for cholecalciferol is 88mg/kg, deaths have been seen with an individual exposure of 2mcg/kg in dogs.    
    
From the second section Toxic Dose      
The oral lethal dose 50% has been reported to be 88 mg/kg in dogs, however lethal outcomes have occurred at exposures as low as 2 mg/kg.1,4,5    
    
Michael E.Peterson & Kerstin Fluegeman, Cholecalciferol (Topic Review), Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, Volume 28, Issue 1, February 2013, Pages 24-27.     
DOI: 10.1053/j.tcam.2013.03.006 , PMID: 23796485     
    
Elsevier ScienceDirect       
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1938973613000287    
    
ELIXIR EuropePMC     
https://europepmc.org/article/med/23796485        
85.131.100.60 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in units