Most of us, including the Vitamin D Council, are aware that vitamin D is not a true vitamin. The name first came before we learnt that our body could manufacture it from the sun. I've no idea why the name still exists; maybe it's just catchy.
I was rather thinking that people reading along here who don't know this would like to know.
pro-d says:
It's possible that Cannell made an assumption that Marshall has not differentiated between D2 and D3 supplementation as the former is the norm. And erogocalciferol is not the same as sunlight formed vitamin D. But cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol.
First of all, Marshall does differentiate between D2 and D3. Marshall does not even mention D2 at all, since he knows the difference.
Second, supplementing with D2 is not the norm. D3 and 25OHD are the norm, anyone reading this can look what form is supplemented in their pills and their food. I have never even seen a product supplemented with D2, but since I don't live in the USA, people might want to check what they are using. It will most probably be D3 or 25OHD.
third, Marshall never contends that cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol. He actually knows... read the paper and you will see that he really, really knows.
pro-d says:
What's the point in measuring D3 when you know how much you are supplementing with? You want to measure how it affects your 25D.
Even Marshall's paper points out that D3 is the result of sunlight exposure.
What I was implying is that it is strange to supplement with D3, since only a portion of it is hydroxylated to 25OHD. Why aren't they suggesting supplementing with 25OHD? The answer is simple. You need more D3 than you would 25OHD, so commercially it is a lot more interesting to push D3 instead of 25OHD, or even the active metabolite, 1,25D (calcitriol).
pro-d says:
The paragraph you've bolded is simply a precursor to what he then wanted to prove that there are studies that show quite strongly that low 25OHD is indicative of disease development.
Again: That is exactly what Marshall is telling us, somehow you cannot grasp what he is telling, over and over again.
The disease development is lowering the leves of 25OHD, ie Low 25OHD is a result of disease.
Marshall's paper also delivers the mechanisms by which it does so which have been elucidated buy literally hundreds of molecular Biologists.
pro-d says:
Insufficient/deficient 25OHD increases the likelihood of the illnesses mentioned and further lowers 25OHD in a fighting response by speeding up renal hydroxylation of what material (25D) there is available.
Which again fits Marshall's work perfectly.
Low D is indicative of disease progress. Which logically leads to the conclusion that people with low D (WHO ARE NOT SUPPLEMENTING !) are actually already showing signs of disease, which is why, logically, this increases the likelihood of them progressing to showing the illnesses mentioned. See Lappe et al for conformation on this...
pro-d says:
The analogy that car collisions are caused by ambulances could be flipped: Does a large police presence (25D) prevent car collisions (disease)? Marshall needs to prove that people with consistently optimal 25OHD later develop stated illnesses. If insufficent 25OHD further lowers in response to a disease (a handful of cops getting run over), does an army of cops keep things in control in the first place? That's what many studies suggest.
Oh boy, first of all I wasn't talking about police presence
Secondly I was explaining that correllation studies show just that, correllations, not cause or result. They cannot.
pro-d says:
Not everyone with low 25D will develop cancer as there are co-factor variables that predict what disease you will get if at all within your lifetime.
Finally we almost agree on something.
The only problem is that this actually screams for studies measuring a whole lot more than just the levels of 25OHD. They will NEVER be able to explain Exactly what we want to know
Yet, somehow, you cannot stop referring to them. Even though, in Cannell's words: They don't know what is causing what.
In fact, the simple fact that they are not measuring the things that, according to your own words, might be co-factor variables, as well as all the other factors I have provided that play a role in the vit. D pathways make that these studies are totally and absolutey useless in elucidating what causes what.
They can show us correllations, but that's it. They show correllations, nothing more, nothing less.
Explaning study results in the way Lappe et al have done theirs is misleading and presumptuous, since they are trying to point you in a certain direction and I believe I have explained their results are certainly open to other interpretation, seeing as Marshall's hypothesis fits the study exactly. People were already showing signs of disease, and supplementing D only suppressed signs of disease, like immunosuppression always will and always does.
pro-d says:
Also, what is the difference between a comprehensive review and an opinion? Whatever you label it, this is not a piece where 'we studied...and we conclude'.
True, but Marshall's review actually delivers a sound, scientifically based hypothesis, that explains all the papers on vit. D that are coming out.
Also the studies that are clearly showing that maintaining high levels of 25OHD ar NOT beneficial. Something researchers like Lappe don't understand and cannot fit into their simple idea: vitamin in, benefit out.
You can find several papers showing that in Mashall's BioEssay.
It is also logical that the people on this vitamin D cult council cannot explain those results, since we have agreed there are all sorts of factors which they are not even measuring, like cyp27A1, cyp27B1, PTH receptor activity, Interferon Gamma, TGF-beta and others.
pro-d says:
I don't buy the MP study site as observatorally it is nothing but anecdotal until it opens it's doors for inspection. The idea that D is immunosuppressive is sill based a model that could well be wrong.
Two things:
first: The MP-sites' doors have been open for inspection for years. The FDA is monitoring exactly what is happening. Why? Well, as people like Cannell constantly point out, Marshall is not an MD, but a phD, which means he cannot tell people what they should take in the way of medicines. This is solely up to the MD's that are actually prescribing the meds. The FDA is on top of MP, believe me.
second: The model could indeed be wrong. However, the same goes for the ideas people like Cannell and Lappe are trying to shove down your throat.
Marshall says in his paper that his is a hypothesis, based on sound scientific evidence.
Your cult leaders are not saying theirs is a hypothesis, but they are telling you that their version is the only viable explanation, which it clearly is not.
Now, who to believe ?
Someone who founds his theories on solid science or people like the vit. D council who are trying to explain how things work by interpreting statistics?
I don't know, somehow Marshall's grasp of the actual science helps his credibility along....
pro-d says:
The 'Current research indicates vitamin D deficiency' sentence is not incorrect as it summarises peer reviewed studies. Not comprehensive reviews or whatever.
it IS wrong, actually, since it implies people need more, for which there clearly isn't any evidence, only a correllation that is open to interpretation regarding causality. A peer reviewed paper on correllation is still simply a correllation study, nomore, no less
My I also remind you that all the papers Marshall references to in his BioEssay, are all peer reviewed as well? Your guys aren't the only ones doing that, don't suggest this is so.
pro-d says:
The erroneous part of Lappe's study (which I agree a harder hitting study would've been better) is simply that not enough tailored vitamin D was administered (1100IU is below current recommendations with no regard for patient's 25D levels) and calcium alone can equal the other group due to increased renal hydroxylation, via PTH, trying to mimic optimal status.
Oh, wow, this is rich. Suddenly you have forgotten about all those other ca-factor variables that might influence the results and you are actually saying they only shoud only have put more vit. D into those people, instead of saying they should have been measuring all those other variables that are in play. Again not very consistent.
pro-d says:
The point is, it seems apparent insufficent 25D fails to protect from certain illness (like a brittle wall) and lowers further in response to fighting to create 1,25D. Whereas a strong wall (high 25D) prevents disease and provides addequate ammo (substrate) for fighting, which in the case of cancer means using 25D to create intracellular 1,25D.
ROFLMAO: I thought low D was indicative of the disease progressing, but you have forgotten already, again. Remember? We don't know what causes what?
You should have written: The point is, we don't know why D levels are low. The correllation studies are showing a correllation, and the actual science tells us it is probably a result of the disease process underway.
pro-d says:
Until Marshall has a peer reviewed study - that is not a comprehensive review or a message forum full of unexplained hallelujiahs, not many people will take him seriously.
Oh boy, are you kidding me?
Let me paraphrase that:
Until the vit. D cultus does a peer reviewed, double blind, blla, bla study in which they measure all known variables regarding the disease at hand, people should NOT take them seriously, since studies like Lappe et al did are absolutely and totally worthless and clearly open to other interpretations that those delivered by people on the payrolls of pharmaceutical companies that clearly have a financial interest in getting you to buy as much vit. D as possible
Please work through Steven Strauss's piece again, especially the piece where Vieth's wife told him The Vieth Household GROSSED 600.000 dollars in 2 days !! (30000 bottles * 20 dollars) on the basis of the worthless paper by Lappe et al. - http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20080213.html
Talking about financial bias...
In fact, gross is not a bad choice of words in this instance...
Edited by Frans, 20 July 2008 - 07:09 PM.