281 replies to this topic

[lucid]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. No one sells 25-D. Everything is D (Except Perque sells some things with 1,25-D, but I wouldn't recommend them. The therapeutic and toxic doses are too close.), which gets converted to 25-D in the liver. Conversion to 1,25-D is feedback controlled (gets higher with lower dietary calcium) unless you have macrophages going crazy. In that case you can justify purging D from your diet until you kill all the bacteria. But healthy people benefit from 25-D above 36-40 ng/ml. Figure 6 from my first post makes the case rather convincingly.

Ok I feel dumb. I had thought that D2 went straight to 25-D bypassing the the calcium downregulation. Ugg.. I hate making dumb posts lol. I'll have to hit the books and refresh everything.

[amyproal]

I disagree that healthy people will benefit from a 25-D level of 36-40ng/ml. If 25-D reaches an immunosuppressive level around 20 ng/ml, then why would we want even the healthy portion of the population to become immunosuppressed? This puts them at much greater risk for acquiring L-form bacteria and a host of other pathogens that will turn them into sick people, and does turn them into sick people

Also, how was that “healthy” range determined?

From the section of my vitamin D article “Healthy people are not deficient in vitamin D”

http://bacteriality..../15/vitamind/#4

Since the vast majority of the public still consume large amounts of fortified products, it is difficult to find people who have a truly natural level of vitamin D in their bodies. Consequently, over the past few years, the “healthy” range for 25-D obtained from bloodwork has been adjusted upward to reflect the fact that people consume fortified dairy products. The FDA now suggests that people maintain a level of 25-D between 30-32 ng/ml, which is in the range at which it becomes immunosuppressive. This means that the levels of 25-D in people eating a diet without fortified foods is inevitably considered to be too low, out of range, and ultimately a menace to their health.

With all the extra vitamin D we have added to the food chain, we no longer know what amount of 25-D the body would maintain under natural circumstances. Could it be that the people we call “Vitamin D deficient” actually have a normal level of 25-D? Studies which have tested the level of 25-D in people who live in countries where vitamin D is not added to the food chain prove this scenario to be true. A study which tested the level of 25-D in “healthy, ambulatory Chilean women” showed that 27% of the premenopausal and 60% of the postmenopausal women had 25-D levels under 20 ng/ml.55 A study on healthy Bangladeshi women found that approximately 80% of the women had a level of 25-D under ng/ml.”

I do not put much weight on those sunshine latitude studies. There are far too many variables involved besides sunshine that could effect cancer rates. Maybe those populations simply harbor less L-form bacteria (which have also been implicated in cancer). Vitamin D proponents also like to site studies along the same lines saying that people in the Northern US States have higher rates of cancer.

But for example, Darrell S. Rigel, M.D, president of the American Academy for Dermatology has also argued consistently that no scientific studies exist which prove the statement that low vitamin D levels lead to increases in cancers and other diseases. “The claim is based on a study that finds that overall cancer rates are higher in the northeast United States, a location with lower sunlight levels than many other places in the country. Those making this claim conclude that since the Northeast has lower UV levels, this is the reason why cancer rates are higher in this region. However, several studies prove this theory is false,” says Rigel. These include studies which show that cancer rates are low in the Northern Plains states – areas of the United States that have lower UV levels then the states in the Northeast. Furthermore, several regional studies have shown that the increased levels of cancer observed in the Northeast states are tied to levels of industrial pollutants rather than levels of UV light.”

Best,

Amy

PS. How can i get permission to participate in a live chat? Who do I contact?

[rabagley]

I disagree that healthy people will benefit from a 25-D level of 36-40ng/ml. If 25-D reaches an immunosuppressive level around 20 ng/ml, then why would we want even the healthy portion of the population to become immunosuppressed?

Good question. Does 25-D become immunosuppressive at levels above 20 ng/ml? That doesn't seem even slightly credible. So far, the studies I've seen (see Krillin's posts) correlate lower cancer incidence with higher levels of serum 25-D. Based on those datapoints alone, it's effects are at worst, a net positive. If it's immunosuppressive, it must have some significant positive effects to overcome that negative effect. Personally, I'm less sick and I have fewer allergies than I have had in the past, but I made too many simultaneous changes to say if it's the 6800 IU/day of Vitamin D3 (2800 IU from April-September) or something else.

Dr Davis is a cardiologist who recommends that people with measurable quantities of athersclerotic plaque supplement softgel D3 until serum levels of 25-D are over 60ng/ml. When people successfully raise 25-D to 60 ng/ml, and eat a diet which raises total HDL above 60 and lowers triglycerides below 60, atherosclerotic plaque accumulation slows, stops, or reverses. Eliminating any one of those three (60-60-60) criteria radically reduces the effectiveness of the approach, indicating that higher levels of 25-D are significant in preventing and/or reversing progressive heart disease.

This puts them at much greater risk for acquiring L-form bacteria and a host of other pathogens that will turn them into sick people, and does turn them into sick people

There's exactly one place saying this, and after reading over the website, I haven't seen any compelling evidence backing up this assertion or any other of the anti-Vitamin D statements. Not to say that you're wrong, but so far, you haven't presented any compelling arguments.

Also, the whole hiding in the dark aspect of the treatment really brings out my "quackery radar".

Also, how was that “healthy” range determined?

Look at people who have lifestyles similar to paleolithic man (i.e. spend lots of time outdoors but are not sunburned). Measure their serum 25-D levels. Put the normal, excessive and deficient levels at +/- 1 and +/- 2 standard deviations on the curve you find. You'll find remarkable consonance with current recommendations for normal 25-D levels.

Sorry, but I'm going to go with the heart doctor who's stopped and reversed heart disease many times over. And the significant body of studies that show NNT numbers from 1.1 to 1.5 for Vitamin D3 supplementation on all sorts of conditions. Based on the body of studies I've read, Vitamin D3 is a wonder-substance that, with restoration to 25-D levels of 40-60ng/ml, helps just about everything in the body. Bone strength, inflammatory markers, digestion, skin tone, endurance, cancer, heart, brain, intracellular tissue strength, blood pressure, insulin sensitivity and yes, even the immune system seems to be stronger. All for a trivial cost per day. My own experience matches up with all of those observations (again with the caveat about changing a LOT of things, so it's impossible to isolate the effects of the D3).

[krillin]

If 25-D reaches an immunosuppressive level around 20 ng/ml

This has not been established, and no, the computer models don't count. Back in 2006, Marshall's modeling said that Benicar (olmesartan) was a VDR antagonist. But your article says he thinks it's an agonist now.

Theor Biol Med Model. 2006 Jan 10;3:1.
Common angiotensin receptor blockers may directly modulate the immune system via VDR, PPAR and CCR2b.
Marshall TG, Lee RE, Marshall FE.
Autoimmunity Research Foundation, Thousand Oaks, California 91360, USA. trevor.m@AutoimmunityResearch.org

BACKGROUND: There have been indications that common Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) may be exerting anti-inflammatory actions by directly modulating the immune system. We decided to use molecular modelling to rapidly assess which of the potential targets might justify the expense of detailed laboratory validation. We first studied the VDR nuclear receptor, which is activated by the secosteroid hormone 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin-D. This receptor mediates the expression of regulators as ubiquitous as GnRH (Gonadatrophin hormone releasing hormone) and the Parathyroid Hormone (PTH). Additionally we examined Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor Gamma (PPARgamma), which affects the function of phagocytic cells, and the C-CChemokine Receptor, type 2b, (CCR2b), which recruits monocytes to the site of inflammatory immune challenge. RESULTS: Telmisartan was predicted to strongly antagonize (Ki asymptotically equal to 0.04 nmol) the VDR. The ARBs Olmesartan, Irbesartan and Valsartan (Ki asymptotically equal to10 nmol) are likely to be useful VDR antagonists at typical in-vivo concentrations. Candesartan (Ki asymptotically equal to 30 nmol) and Losartan (Ki asymptotically equal to 70 nmol) may also usefully inhibit the VDR. Telmisartan is a strong modulator of PPARgamma (Ki asymptotically equal to 0.3 nmol), while Losartan (Ki asymptotically equal to 3 nmol), Irbesartan (Ki asymptotically equal to 6 nmol), Olmesartan and Valsartan (Ki asymptotically equal to 12 nmol) also seem likely to have significant PPAR modulatory activity. Olmesartan and Irbesartan (Ki asymptotically equal to 9 nmol) additionally act as antagonists of a theoretical model of CCR2b. Initial validation of this CCR2b model was performed, and a proposed model for the Angiotensin II Type1 receptor (AT2R1) has been presented. CONCLUSION: Molecular modeling has proven valuable to generate testable hypotheses concerning receptor/ligand binding and is an important tool in drug design. ARBs were designed to act as antagonists for AT2R1, and it was not surprising to discover their affinity for the structurally similar CCR2b. However, this study also found evidence that ARBs modulate the activation of two key nuclear receptors-VDR and PPARgamma. If our simulations are confirmed by experiment, it is possible that ARBs may become useful as potent anti-inflammatory agents, in addition to their current indication as cardiovascular drugs.

PMID: 16403216

Also, how was that “healthy” range determined?

http://www.ajcn.org/...nt/full/84/1/18

Figure 6 summarizes the findings.

[amyproal]

Sorry, I posted twice....

Edited by amyproal, 20 January 2008 - 02:48 AM.

[rabagley]

...

Amy,

You said all of that before. Was there anything else you wanted to contribute?

[amyproal]

...

Amy,

You said all of that before. Was there anything else you wanted to contribute?

That was obviously a mistake on my part. I thought it hadn't posted because my version of firefox seems to be skrewy. I'll delete it now. I do have more to contribue, but tonight I'm busy....

[amyproal]

First off, sorry for making such a dumb posting error before!

Rabagly,

The fact that Dr. Marshall made one mistake does not mean we should discount all his work and other models. He quickly corrected that error. He is after all, human.

Those on this site seem like a very forward thinking bunch so I am surprised to hear you question the validity of molecular modeling research. Personally, I see molecular modeling as being a staple of most future medical endeavors – a way to use the precision of mathematics rather than just intuition to derive a disease model. Then the model should be back by a clinical study, but that is exactly what Dr. Marshall has done. There are now thousands of people on the Marshall Protocol all testing whether the treatment Marshall developed based on his modeling research is able to cure disease. And many patients are reporting recovery.

I said before that Dr. Marshall was the first to create a molecular model showing that 25-D is a VDR antagonist, but the notion that vitamin D is an immunosuppressant is common knowledge to those who have researched vitamin D in depth.

Take, for example, this quote which is taken from an article on the National Academy of Sciences website called “Unraveling the Mysteries of vitamin D”

http://www.beyonddis...w.txt.asp?a=414

“In the mid 1980s, a group of researchers led by S. C. Manolagas found that vitamin D hormone also seemed to play a part in modulating the immune system. In 1993, S. Yang and other researchers in DeLuca's laboratory found that rats given a large dose of vitamin D hormone were protected from the inflammation normally associated with wounds and chemical irritants. This unexpected immunosuppressant function for vitamin D hormone suggested a whole new range of possibilities--including its use in the control of autoimmune diseases.”

The only problem with DeLuca’s work is that he, like most other researchers today, mistakenly thinks that vitamin D from supplements is converted into 1,25-D, rather then 25-D (hence his comment that the hormone form is an immunosuppressant). However, now that we know that that vitamin D from supplements remains as 25-D, we understand that 25-D is the corticosteroid that acts as an immunosuppressant.

So, in reality, 25-D is an excellent immunosuppressant. Now consider that “autoimmune” diseases are actually caused by bacteria, as are most other diseases of unknown cause. When a patient takes vitamin D their innate immune system begins to kill fewer bacteria. The immune system then releases less cytokines (cytokines are released in response to bacterial death) and less bacterial endotoxins. This results in a temporary drop in inflammation and the patient feels better. It is very similar to giving a patient a corticosteroid, which can temporarily alleviate symptoms by dampening immune function.

So when Dr. Davis gives his patients such high levels of vitamin D, in the short-term their inflammation (which is what precipitates the formation of plaque) is temporarily reduced. But in the long term, these patients will become much, much sicker as the bacteria causing their heart disease in the first place are able to spread with great ease.

That’s the pattern observed with vitamin D – a perceived short-term benefit but long-term harm. Hence the fact that no doctor using high doses of vitamin D has actually cured any disease – reduced inflammation for a while yes, but not cured any disease.

On the contrary, people are the Marshall Protocol are reporting complete resolution of symptoms. As I said before these are all people who could not effectively kill bacteria until their level of 25-D sank into a range under 20 ng/ml. So, as I said before, Dr. Marshall’s molecular models showing that 25-D is a VDR antagonist are backed up by a tremendous amount of clinical data.

Best,

Amy

[pro-d]

Because Dr. non-MD Marshall made one mistake, we aren't allowed to think he made others?

The term 'molecular modelling' sounds very authoritative, but all it implies is a hypothesis by software. And software, like Marshall can often be fallible.

The fact that vitamin D is an 'immunosuppresant' simply states that the immune system can become relaxed and not always have to be in super fight mode.
A 'suppressed' immune system would suggest something akin to immunodeficiency, i.e. AIDS. People with optimal levels of vitamin D are far from unhealthy.

Levels of 25-D make no noticeable change to 1,25D levels. No dispute.

Time will tell if Dr. Davis patients will get more sick. But I highly doubt it.

And oh, my brother was very low in vitamin D and calcium which resulted in fits and muscles weakness. Even though he was prescribed D2, he got better - been a good while now. If this wasn't found out he'd have been deemed as an epileptic and put on anticonvulsant calcium channel blockers. Do antibiotics help with epilepsy? I haven't heard that.
Calcium channel blockers used to treat epilepsy are merely doing a weird role of vitamin D. Instead of blocking stray calcium, D metabolises calcium properly. The same goes for heart disease.

I'm aware there are MPers reporting benefit. But how many are not, that's what I want to know? I can understand why this may seem a currently entertainable option for those with certain autoimmune diseases, but it's not for everyone.

Furthermore, on the most basic level, many plants and animals synthesise vitamin D (cats lick it off their coats after sun exposure or get it from the livers of prey, iguanas make it, and if they don't they get osteoporosis and osteomalacia) because naturally we went out and sought the sun. Clothes are a human invention. Work was hunting and farming. The sun was our pharmacist. Antibiotics are a man made drug. What happens to plants taken out of the sun?...
That's not to negate pharmaceuticals, but when it's a choice between nature and man, it's not hard to decide. Keeping yourself away from sunlight as much as possible is a nutty idea, and unfortunately something most of us do due to social norms. And who gets sick most? Them.

Edited by pro-d, 20 January 2008 - 04:46 PM.

[krillin]

As I said before these are all people who could not effectively kill bacteria until their level of 25-D sank into a range under 20 ng/ml. So, as I said before, Dr. Marshall’s molecular models showing that 25-D is a VDR antagonist are backed up by a tremendous amount of clinical data.

There is a more likely theory. The people infected with these bacteria have elevated 1,25-D due to unregulated 1,25-D production by macrophages. Their 25-D's are not particularly high: your article repeatedly mentions that these people have low 25-D due to feedback control. (25-D production is inhibited by 1,25-D, while renal 1,25-D production is inhibited by dietary calcium through PTH. pp. 253-254) Bringing 25-D to a very low level is the only way for them to get their 1,25-D into a range that allows for bacteria killing. There is no need to invoke 25-D immune suppression to explain the results.

[nameless]

As patients accumulate L-form bacteria, the level of the active vitamin D metabolite 1,25-D rises as a result of bacteria-induced blockage of the VDR.

I am not as knowledgeable as many posters here regarding vitamin D and molecular modeling, but I have a question for Amy about the above statement. If D supplementation causes immune suppression, causing L-form bacteria to rise (even in previously healthy individuals), wouldn't they see their 1, 25-D rising to above normal ranges too? And if their 1, 25-D doesn't rise above the normal range, wouldn't this disprove the immune suppression/L-form theory?

Or am I misunderstanding what Dr. Marshall is theorizing?

Edited by nameless, 20 January 2008 - 07:10 PM.

[lhobbs1]

Hi al, my name is Frans, I am from The Netherlands

Yes, Marshall made a mistake, but was not too proud to admit it. In fact his further research pointed out his own mistake which he immediately made clear to those following his work.

What I only partly understand is the reluctance several of you are showing when it comes to accepting or even considering that the data provided by epidemiologists might have been interpreted the wrong way.

Let me give an example, one of you posted about a paper in 2005 by prof. Garland (http://www.ajph.org/...stract/96/2/252), who showed a correlation between low levels of vit. D and different cancers.

However, if you look at this article, you will see that several authorities added some serious questionmarks to his conclusions. Especially look at the remark by prof. Colin Cooper who stated that 'they failed to provide any mechanism for how low levels of vitamin D are actually linked to high incidence of cancer'.
- see: http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4563336.stm
Professor Cooper is a molecular biologist. Now if he is being careful, why shouldn't we be?
- see: http://www.icr.ac.uk...iles/2911.shtml

The fact of the matter is that in his new paper, Marshall delivers just such a mechanism as what prof. Cooper is calling for, which however leads to exactly the opposite conclusion. Work through it and you will understand.

A preprint version of the entire paper is available at:
- http://TrevorMarshal...ll-Preprint.pdf

The abstract is on pubmed, PMID 182000565
- http://www.ncbi.nlm....p;term=18200565
or at the publisher:
- http://www3.intersci...885976/ABSTRACT


Another simple and logical observation is the following. What the epidemiologists are seeing is that cancer is accompanied by lower levels of 25OHD. But there are at least TWO different explanations for that: high 25OHD is protective OR and that is nowhere to be read: CANCER's diseas process LEADS TO LOWER LEVELS OF 25OHD.

From what I know of what epidemiologists do, they should have mentioned at least BOTH these possibilities! But they didn't, which is bizarre to me. Considering prof. Coooper's remarks their conclusions are not founded on scientific fact, premature, misleading and in my opinion downright unethical. They found a correlation, no more, no less.


I would like you to check out the following paper:
- PMID: 16598763

They found that several cell-lines are capable of producing 1,25D from 7-dehydrocholesterol, via the normal steps, indicating that several cell-lines that are not in a position to receive

UV in any way, are still capable of manufacturing 1,25D.

This means that the two pathways that have been established for getting vit. D: via sunlight

and diet are not the only two, but that the body is most probably capable of producing vit. D

even in total absence of (sun)light.

The step from going from 7-dehydrocholesterol to pre-vitamin D probably involves an enzyme.

Which makes sence, since most of the steps from 7-dehydrocholesterol to the eventual 1,25

dihydroxyvitamin D involve enzymes. (see the steps in Marshall's paper)


BTW Instead of the piece on wikipedia about Marshall, you can read a short bio here on Asia's Nature:
- http://network.natur...profile/trevmar

Hope this helps,

Sincerely, Frans


BTW somehow my post is listed as being from lhobbs1 which is obviously not my profile..... I don't understand

Edited by lhobbs1, 20 January 2008 - 07:39 PM.

[pro-d]

Er, no, I don't need any studies to answer this.

My vitamin D level 2yrs ago was <15nmol/L (severely deficient). I haven't had cancer and was largely well. However certain diseases (like heart disease, calcium problems) affect some of my family members at a later date. And as seen in my young brother, it led to poor calcium metabolism. Now completely cured.

My 25-D level is likely to reflect living in England, being olive skin and have a routine that often bypasses the sun. Compares this to Baywatch beach babes that achieve 160nmol/L and aren't toxic!

Low vitamin D doesn't guarantee you getting diseases. It increases your likelihood. Also bare in mind that a large majority of the world is likely D deficient due to modern living, which is why you'll find low D in cancer and non-cancer patients.

Marshall seems to be touting his molecular modelling as the holy grail. He made it and said "it's great!" No one out of the MP camp is raving about it.

My objection though is not at MP itself (if nothing's working for you, up to you to try it), rather that it's overstepping it's borders and saying vitamin D is bad for everyone. Most vitamin D advocates are talking about things not even associated with MP treatment. I agree with what krillin just said too.

Edited by pro-d, 20 January 2008 - 10:58 PM.

[amyproal]

Hello,

I am very busy with two other projects so this might have to be my last post. I think I’ve explained the basics here of what Dr. Marshall has put forth. All I ask is that you take the time to read Dr. Marshall’s entire paper, my article about vitamin D that started this thread, and watch some of Dr. Marshall’s presentations before coming to the conclusion that he is wrong. I ask you to keep an open mind and try to consider the issue from this new perspective.

I know that some of you had trouble viewing the version of Dr. Marshall’s lecture at the 2006 Amercian Academy of Environmental Medicine conference that I put up a few days ago. You can also watch the presentation over Google video.
http://video.google....315864442431912

These are also good presentations:

Marshall TG: Molecular Mechanisms Driving the Current Epidemic of Chronic Disease. Seminar presentation, Bio21, University of Melbourne, Australia, 16 Nov 2006
Online Video available from URL: http://autoimmunityr...h.org/bio21.ram
Transcript available from URL http://autoimmunityr..._bio21_2006.pdf

Marshall TG: Molecular genomics offers new insight into the exact mechanism of action of common drugs - ARBs, Statins, and Corticosteroids. FDA CDER Visiting Professor presentation, FDA Biosciences Library, Accession QH447.M27 2006
Online Video available from URL http://autoimmunityr...ssor-7mar06.ram

The key points that I’ve tried to stress are:

1. A consensus has formed among vitamin D researchers that the vitamin D obtained from supplements is converted into its active form called 1,25-D, the form of vitamin D that activates the Vitamin D Receptor - one of the body's most fundamental receptors that controls the activity of the innate immune system, the antimicrobial peptides, and the transcription of thousands of genes. Marshall's molecular models have confirmed that this assumption is incorrect. The vitamin D obtained through oral supplements remains in its precursor form 25-D. 25-D is a secosteroid that BLOCKS the activity of the Vitamin D Receptor. This means that taking extra vitamin D reduces immune function and gene transcription, making a person who supplements with the substance sicker in the long run.

2. We are constantly told that people with a wide variety of illnesses are deficient in vitamin D. It is true that people with
chronic disease often have low levels of 25-D, but a low level of 25-D is not causing a given disease. Instead, a low level of 25-D is a RESULT of the disease process. In his paper, Dr. Marshall shows all the feedback pathways between the two forms of vitamin D. 1,25-D rises in patients with chronic disease as a result of increased inflammation. A high level of 1,25-D naturally downregulates the body's level of 25-D, the metabolite used to determine vitamin D "deficiency."

Thanks for listening and I wish all of you the best!

Amy

[krillin]

Let me give an example, one of you posted about a paper in 2005 by prof. Garland (http://www.ajph.org/...stract/96/2/252), who showed a correlation between low levels of vit. D and different cancers.

However, if you look at this article, you will see that several authorities added some serious questionmarks to his conclusions. Especially look at the remark by prof. Colin Cooper who stated that 'they failed to provide any mechanism for how low levels of vitamin D are actually linked to high incidence of cancer'.

Do these two PubMed searches:

vitamin D differentiation: 3274 hits
vitamin D apoptosis: 655 hits

Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Jan;24(1):139-49.
Molecular basis of the potential of vitamin D to prevent cancer.
Ingraham BA, Bragdon B, Nohe A.
University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5737, USA. bingraham@umche.maine.edu

OBJECTIVE: To review current research findings in cell biology, epidemiology, preclinical, and clinical trials on the protective effects of vitamin D against the development of cancers of the breast, colon, prostate, lung, and ovary. Current recommendations for optimal vitamin D status, the movement towards revision of standards, and reflections on healthy exposure to sunlight are also reviewed. Search methodology: A literature search was conducted in April and updated in September 2007. The Medline and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for primary and review articles published between 1970 and 2007, using the search terms 'vitamin D', 'calcitriol', 'cancer', 'chemoprevention', 'nuclear receptor', 'vitamin D receptor', 'apoptosis', 'cell cycle', 'epidemiology', and 'cell adhesion molecule'. Articles that focused on epidemiological, preclinical, and clinical evidence for vitamin D's effects were selected and additional articles were obtained from reference lists of the retrieved articles. FINDINGS: An increasing body of research supports the hypothesis that the active form of vitamin D has significant, protective effects against the development of cancer. Epidemiological studies show an inverse association between sun exposure, serum levels of 25(OH)D, and intakes of vitamin D and risk of developing and/or surviving cancer. The protective effects of vitamin D result from its role as a nuclear transcription factor that regulates cell growth, differentiation, apoptosis and a wide range of cellular mechanisms central to the development of cancer. A significant number of individuals have serum vitamin D levels lower than what appears to protect against cancer, and the research community is currently revising the guidelines for optimal health. This will lead to improved public health policies and to reduced risk of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Research strongly supports the view that efforts to improve vitamin D status would have significant protective effects against the development of cancer. The clinical research community is currently revising recommendations for optimal serum levels and for sensible levels of sun exposure, to levels greater than previously thought. Currently, most experts in the field believe that intakes of between 1000 and 4000 IU will lead to a more healthy level of serum 25(OH)D, at approximately 75 nmol/L that will offer significant protection effects against cancers of the breast, colon, prostate, ovary, lungs, and pancreas. The first randomized trial has shown significant protection against breast cancer, and other clinical trials will follow and ultimately lead to improved public health policies and significantly fewer cancers.

PMID: 18034918

[Frans]

Let me give an example, one of you posted about a paper in 2005 by prof. Garland (http://www.ajph.org/...stract/96/2/252), who showed a correlation between low levels of vit. D and different cancers.

However, if you look at this article, you will see that several authorities added some serious questionmarks to his conclusions. Especially look at the remark by prof. Colin Cooper who stated that 'they failed to provide any mechanism for how low levels of vitamin D are actually linked to high incidence of cancer'.

Do these two PubMed searches:

vitamin D differentiation: 3274 hits
vitamin D apoptosis: 655 hits

Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Jan;24(1):139-49.
Molecular basis of the potential of vitamin D to prevent cancer.
Ingraham BA, Bragdon B, Nohe A.
University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5737, USA. bingraham@umche.maine.edu

OBJECTIVE:FINDINGS: An increasing body of research supports the hypothesis that the active form of vitamin D has significant, protective effects against the development of cancer.

Exactly what we mean to tell you: THE ACTIVE FORM, which is 1,25D NOT the 25OHD which is being measured

They do not call it the active form just for fun, it is because 25OHD does not atctivate the VDR and therefore does not lead to the benefits purported here

levels of 25OHD do NOT predict the levels of 1,25D therefore their conclusion is, again, misleading.

My 25OHD in now below 4ng, but my 1,25D is still in the normal, healthy range of about 25pg

[balance]

Just wanted to add that people should keep in mind that fish oil is an immune suppressant at high dosages, but enhances immunity at lower dosages. I think the cut off was something around 4grams total EPA + DHA. I had a ton of information on it, but had to delete my bookmarks once again because all the science links were slowing down my computer too much. That said, when I spoke about this with a specialist he told me that the only way he could think of fish oil being an immune suppressant is due to it's anti-inflammatory effects. Anything that significantly lowers inflammation may be immune suppressive. Chronic inflammation is bad, yet some inflammation after intense exercise is very important if you want your muscles to recover and grow stronger than last time. Trying to supplement that inflammation away will limit your gains. That said, I could imagine that since vitamin D is also anti-inflammatory, it could have that effect too... yet again I think it's gonna be something only seen in very high dosages. Sometimes very great anti-cancer supplements are immunosuppressant, as odd as that might be. Curcumin is one such as that for instance, and higher dosages of resveratrol do that as well.

Also, I've seen so many vitamin d3 research over the last 8 months that shows contradictory findings to what you say, that I'm gonna stick with it until further research on this L-bacteria comes out. So far it seems like bs to me. I don't want to get too paranoid. But sadly we live in a world where often times the corporate giants like the dairy industry get some fake studies out, done by some sneaky scientists to make false claims. They say that you can get it all by the food, so you better keep buying! Also, you have the pharma dogs who try to make synthetic versions of about every natural thing on the planet, because synthetic = able to be patented = big dollars. I'm not saying all pharma is bad, etc.. But you gotta look behind the motivation for some of these studies, people, and organizations telling you the "truth". We have seen in the last few months a ton of desperate scientists trying to get the stubborn government to get that RDA up a notch... Of course the government is not all the evil, they are also being pressured by the pharma dogs. Just like in schools here, you got the coke machines near the cafeterias. So then the school tries to get rid of them. Then Coke says "ok, but since we also sponsor your books, you need to find your own way of affording that...." Guess what that means? The school doesn't have the money to get their own quality books. It's just another example of how those corporate rats nestle in power positions so that we not just want them, we NEED them. There's no way around it. Here with the L-bacteria it sounds more like a crazy pharma sponsored nonsense site that is trying to get people off the health, just like they try to take away our rights to take supplements... People like me and you are ok, because we are critical thinkers, we don't just believe this crap, but what I find sad is that there are so many people like my father, who doesn't know jack shit about nutrition, who then goes to check on the internet about vitamin d because I talk to him about it, and would find a site like the l-bacteria. Since it is written quite neatly, he would believe it and get him off the supplement. I'm just saying, innocent hard working people get fooled more often than not. I don't know if this site is for real or not, but it just seems like it belongs in the bullshit department.

Cheers, hopefully research will lead us closer to our subjective truth and comfort.

Edited by piet3r, 21 January 2008 - 11:15 PM.

[pro-d]

To Amy,

Well, Marshall is right if his model is right. Everything seems to fit his model, but is his model correct? There's an abundance of molecular biologists who either scoff at his model or don't have much material to analyse to make an informed opinion at all. If I raved the earth is flat at a model no one else inspected, I too would be questionable.

Two words: peer review.

I'm aware Marshall has a number of articles outside of PubMed, but that's the problem. Outside of PubMed. Therefore not interested. He can rave all he wants about anti-establishment but many an intelligent fringe thought made it into PubMed.

In regards to your 2 points. In England, at least, there is no assumption that 25-D has any effect on 1,25D levels. This is due to the fact that only deficiency of 25-D has been noted with associated illness, with 1,25D often being normal (except in cases as sarcoidosis).
As far as I know, to date, no one has got sicker in the long run from D repletion. Toxicity yes in rare overdosage, but this is shockingly hard to achieve. You also have to note that supplementation with D3 is better than D2. D3 is made by humans and other animals when UVB converts cholesterol in the skin and becomes 25-D in the liver (that's it), therefore D3 supplementation is pretty much equivalent. D2 is made by iradition of plants, is the most popular prescribed form and in many cases much less effective. It is also a patented drug.

To the other point, I think you'll find that vitamin D deficiency is virtually pandemic. Meaning that even most healthy people have low 25-D and are therefore more succeptible to associated illnesses somewhere down the line. You'll often find a cancer and non cancer patient will have non-optimal levels of 25-D. The difference is currently a patient or future patient.
Various other factors determine when and what type of diseases you get. i.e. testosterone and estrogen play a part in staving off osteoporosis.
25-D levels are affected by amount of UVB exposure/supplements and time since last significant exposure (sufficient storage can get you by in the colder months).
If 1,25D down regulates D in *all* cases it would be more efficient for our clever bodies to not push cholesterol to the skin. And yet when you get sufficient UVB or supplementation your body raises 25-D regardless. Your body would fight the D3 *before* it becomes 25-D it didn't need it.

Vitamin D reduces PTH. PTH rises as D decreases. Why? To maintain blood calcium (priority A), calcium is leeched from the bones, this protects the brain by stopping seizures. Good metabolisation of calcium has been shown in studies to also reduce blood pressure; can antibiotics do this?

On a positive note, I think your Bacteriality posts on L-form bacteria are great to read and very informative. I just don't buy Marshall's panacea through it. It is full of holes and possibly more holes that many can't yet pick at.

[lucid]

I don't think that this has been cited yet but it is a pretty recent randomized placebo controlled clinical trial involving close to 1200 women (age > 55). Results show that Ca + Vitamin D supplementation reduced cancer by 60%. I have briefly read over the design and I didn't see any real problems; This seems pretty open and closed to me.

Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial^1,2
Joan M Lappe, Dianne Travers-Gustafson, K Michael Davies, Robert R Recker and Robert P Heaney ¹ From the Osteoporosis Research Center, Creighton University, Omaha, NE



Background: Numerous observational studies have found supplemental calcium and vitamin D to be associated with reduced risk of common cancers. However, interventional studies to test this effect are lacking.

Objective: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of calcium alone and calcium plus vitamin D in reducing incident cancer risk of all types.

Design: This was a 4-y, population-based, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer incidence. The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged >55 y in a 9-county rural area of Nebraska centered at latitude 41.4°N. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 1400–1500 mg supplemental calcium/d alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium plus 1100 IU vitamin D₃/d (Ca + D), or placebo.

Results: When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P < 0.03). With the use of logistic regression, the unadjusted relative risks (RR) of incident cancer in the Ca + D and Ca-only groups were 0.402 (P = 0.01) and 0.532 (P = 0.06), respectively. When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not change significantly for the Ca-only group. In multiple logistic regression models, both treatment and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations were significant, independent predictors of cancer risk.

Conclusions: Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170.

[ortcloud]

Hi! This is Amy Proal.

One last thing. Dr. Marshall is not leading a cult! True, maybe a handful of people have been banned from the Marshall Protocol study site, but that is not a common occurrence. The thing is, the moderators of the board make it clear that the study site is not a support board or really a discussion board. It is a board where you come to post progress when your are on the Marshall Protocol. All questions should pertain to the treatment and how to best follow the guidelines. If you have problems with the Marshall Protocol then the study site is not the place to post them. You can bring them up elsewhere. But the site has one mission only – to help people who want to do the Marshall Protocol proceed with treatment as effectively as possible.

Best, Amy

Amy, boy you sure think the world of Trevor, might I even say you worship him.

Seriously, you make the situation on his board seem so innocent and just dismiss my concerns
but go ahead and ask your leader about research showing immune modulation with compounds
other than what he prescribes and see what he says, he will not only be speechless because he
doesnt know anything about it, but he will be very upset. I posted a question regarding this
and his disciples posted crazy rhetoric and other weird responses, it was quite scary.
He has personally told me that there is no substance that will modulate the immune
system away from th2 dominance. Quite a bold statement considering these pages.

http://www.diagnose-...nd/C104791.html

http://www.immunesup...2925/t/CFIDS_FM

I am sorry Amy but your emperor has no clothes.

My suggestion to you is you take 2,000 iu's D3 and call a cult deprogrammer-

[amyproal]

Well, I guess I'll post again, two short things.

The idea that implicating L-form bacteria in disease is pushed by pharmaceutical companies is simply not correct. Quite the opposite is true - pharmaceutical companies have been know to discourage research on L-form bacteria and don't sponsor researchers working with them because it is not in their financial interest to have researchers discover that most diseases are infectious. That means we could kill these bacteria (as the MP does) using only a few simple antibitiocs and one VDR agonist. In a few years people would no longer need any of the many palliative drugs they are buying from drug companies now. For example, I used to take about 20 perscriptions drugs, 18 of which I've dropped by this point into the MP. That's why you see most of the current work on L-forms actually being done in western europe in small labs where finances are low, but the scientists are still willing to work long hours for little pay. Here in the US I doubt an L-form researcher would get funding.

Also, I do not worship Dr. Marshall. I think he is a brilliant scientist but I don't worship him in a cult-like sense. My passion to spread word about his discoveries and the Marshall Protocol stems from the way the treatment has changed my life. Three years ago, I had given up hope. I was completely bedridden, my Mom had to do everything for me. I thought about suicide daily because of the pain. Today I am still reacting to the MP antibiotics but my life is radically different. I have a life, friends. I go on trips and I am beginning to feel like a normal person again. It's the most amazing feeling.

Before the MP I tried the vitamin D route. My doctor had me on extremely high levels of D and fish oil. Then, I was living with my parents who live in Mexico City and would lay out in the sun from morning til night because it made me feel better (suppressed my inflammation temporarily). It got to the point where people told me I looked like a person from another race because I was so tan. During that year I felt a litle better because of the immnosuppressive effects of all the D. Then, I had the worst relapse imaginable. Every part of my body seemed destroyed. I simply could not tolerate the symptoms. It was at that point that I found the MP and ever since, by following the treatment based on Marshall's model, I have slowly improved and turned my life around.

I don't see vitamin D helping people. Instead, as in my case, I see people getting palliative relief at some points by using it for periods of time, only to find they are still as sick as ever down the road. Something is wrong with our current take on chronic disease as every form of chronic disease is becoming more common. Based on my own experience, the experiences of hundreds of others on the MP who have reacted like me, and the sound science behind Dr. Marshall's work, I feel that this information should at least be seriously considered by patients, researchers and doctors alike which is why I've started my webstie etc.

Best,

Amy

[krillin]

Exactly what we mean to tell you: THE ACTIVE FORM, which is 1,25D NOT the 25OHD which is being measured

They do not call it the active form just for fun, it is because 25OHD does not atctivate the VDR and therefore does not lead to the benefits purported here

levels of 25OHD do NOT predict the levels of 1,25D therefore their conclusion is, again, misleading.

My 25OHD in now below 4ng, but my 1,25D is still in the normal, healthy range of about 25pg

Look at post #24 again. 25-D is active. This is physical reality. It has about 1% the activity of 1,25-D, and since there's so much more of it than 1,25-D, it accounted for about 1/8 of total D activity in that study. 4 ng/ml 25-D is stupid unless you have out of control macrophages churning out excessive 1,25-D.

[shuffleup]

Related:
http://stuff.mit.edu...on/universe.htm

[ortcloud]

Well, I guess I'll post again, two short things.

Also, I do not worship Dr. Marshall. I think he is a brilliant scientist but I don't worship him in a cult-like sense. My passion to spread word about his discoveries and the Marshall Protocol stems from the way the treatment has changed my life. Three years ago, I had given up hope. I was completely bedridden, my Mom had to do everything for me. I thought about suicide daily because of the pain. Today I am still reacting to the MP antibiotics but my life is radically different. I have a life, friends. I go on trips and I am beginning to feel like a normal person again. It's the most amazing feeling.

Before the MP I tried the vitamin D route. My doctor had me on extremely high levels of D and fish oil. Then, I was living with my parents who live in Mexico City and would lay out in the sun from morning til night because it made me feel better (suppressed my inflammation temporarily). It got to the point where people told me I looked like a person from another race because I was so tan. During that year I felt a litle better because of the immnosuppressive effects of all the D. Then, I had the worst relapse imaginable. Every part of my body seemed destroyed. I simply could not tolerate the symptoms. It was at that point that I found the MP and ever since, by following the treatment based on Marshall's model, I have slowly improved and turned my life around.

I don't see vitamin D helping people. Instead, as in my case, I see people getting palliative relief at some points by using it for periods of time, only to find they are still as sick as ever down the road. Something is wrong with our current take on chronic disease as every form of chronic disease is becoming more common. Based on my own experience, the experiences of hundreds of others on the MP who have reacted like me, and the sound science behind Dr. Marshall's work, I feel that this information should at least be seriously considered by patients, researchers and doctors alike which is why I've started my webstie etc.

I am actually not arguing with anything you are saying here. My point is that the MP is trying to address a th2 dominant disease. Th1 response is needed to mount an attack on intracellular bacteria. My point is that there are other ways, probably easier and more effective but nevertheless other ways of modulating the immune system away from a th2 dominant state. If Trevors disciples realized this then it would jeopardize trevors following(cult). Did you read the two pages I posted ? There is enough kryptonite I mean information to dethrone your leader. I am not saying you have to abandon your leader but if you truly want to improve your health you may want to integrate other means to modulating your immune system to help fight your L- form infection. That is all I am saying is put the goal of improving your health first, and not trevors power hungry biased agenda. Just like the non objective closed minded attitude of pharmaceutical companies towards L-form bacteria, Trevor has compromised his objectivity in favor of his agenda. You have to look out for yourself.

Edited by ortcloud, 22 January 2008 - 07:13 PM.

[pro-d]

As krillin pointed out 25-D *does* have biological functions, one of which is to increase intestinal calcium absorption. A level less than 4ng/ml (which my brother had leading to very depleted calcium, weak leg muscles and seizures - now fine after adequate D/calcium supplementation) is asking for trouble if you don't have an illness resulting in 1,25D elevation.
Even so, like the article shuffleup linked, because MPers are required to lower their D, we don't know if it's things like Beniciar alone that are useful. And Benicar may mask effects of vitamin deficiency due to a handful of positive side effects.

I am sincerely very glad that MP is working for you Amy, but I find it quite scary that anti-vitamin D device is being spread out of the realm of states that cause 1,25D elevation. Due to the open nature of work outside MP we can clearly see most people benefit from vitamin D. A video by Dr. Prendergast (and yes, this is anecdotal) on YouTube showed a patient recover from lung cancer via intense doses of D. Dr. Davis patients are reducing (not temporarily making them feel better) arterial plaque.

There are also other regimes - one by Lassesen I think - that re-introduces vitamin D at a later stage and has been effective. Since you have tried only vitamin D on it's own and MP, which you've understandably settled on, you won't know if other methods are equally effective. Which is why I find that despite your enthusiasm, that the bias is too far.
And to re-iterate the basic level: vitamin D synthesis is meant to be a natural occurrence. It's fine MP might work for some, but it's negligent to offer this approach to people with normal 1,25D (or elevated but easily fixed) and diseases not even covered by the MP. The *vast majority of people* will benefit from an optimal level of D as nature intended, while for some (not many) others it's fine to entertain MP, Lassesen etc. for the time being.

PS: Despite belief, vitamin D advocacy is facing a struggle itself; which drug company wants to back something nature gives free or is purchased in pennies and is very hard to get adverse affects from for most people? Most governments recommend a mere few hundred IU right now, when nature can offer about 10,000IU on a productive 15min sun session per day for the palest skin.

Edited by pro-d, 22 January 2008 - 07:43 PM.

[ortcloud]

For those not totally familiar with the marshall cult, he tell his disciples to wear special sunglasses
that block out all sunlight and to stay indoors so they reduce any evil vitamin d production.

So you can always spot one of the cult members by the glasses.


Here is a glimpse of what a meeting looks like.

[Frans]

Yup, I am on the seventh row, third seat, I am the one wearing sunglasses...

[lhobbs1]

Off topic but how did Frans in post #42 get to use my User I.D.????

Edited by lhobbs1, 23 January 2008 - 12:52 AM.

[resveratrol]

I think I'll stick with Scientific American's advice to take more vitamin D rather than less.

They're seldom wrong, and when they're wrong, they're never wrong by much.

http://www.sciam.com...unshine-vitamin

[lucid]

:::: Placebo Controlled Randomized Trial