Hmm that is directly,opposite of what most articles o. The subject state. They state that k is needed so that stones don’t form, as it supposedly,redirects calcium in the. Blood stream back to the bones- as your article suggests- that seems to,be the standard viewpoint from all I’ve read onmthe issue.
The article seems to be saying 2 things opposite, that k causes calcium to remain in blood, then in another sentence that k redirects calcium back to bones? Am I reading it wrong?
When I was severely low in d (the number was 8) they put me on high dose d. And I got stones like mad- the stones stopped when I stopped the d.
your problem was lack of mag, not abundance of D.
This article is an endless pile of bs to see how high it can get. If the author wanted to claim Vit D & K cause kidney stones or something - say it and prove it!
Instead miles of words wasted on saying things like they are easy to get from your diet.
If there was a point, it was that these vitamins increase your calcium and that might lead to kidney stones and who wants kidney stones.
The article is a word smorgasbord with little substance.
“Hmm that is directly,opposite of what most articles o. The subject state. They state that k is needed so that stones don’t form, as it supposedly,redirects calcium in the. Blood stream back to the bones- as your article suggests- that seems to,be the standard viewpoint from all I’ve read onmthe issue.”
I noticed the same thing. It’s good to consult with your doctor as well as read lots of scientific opinions on the topic. Not saying she is wrong but ...