281 replies to this topic

[Frans]

pro-d says:
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.

[pro-d]

Frans, it's clear that after much time on this debate you're not going to be swayed just like I'm not going to be swayed. There's not much point in me adding more to the argument as I'll only end up repeating myself, so this will pretty much be my last points to you.

1) I'm from the UK and you have to part the ground looking for supplements or fortified products with D3. *Everything* here is D2. I have to rely on the US for effective strength D3.

2) 1,25D is a drug, an expensive drug you need to be careful with which is why we supplement with D3. Why not 25D? Because despite the higher IU, it would still be cheaper and safer and virtually mimics skin cholesterol conversion. So we start at the beginning, like nature, with D3.

3) At one point my 25D was 10nmol/L (for many years). And yet I wasn't ill, neither am I knowingly now too. 25D deficiency, as you may search for is seen as virtually pandemic. So you're suggesting that everyone with low D is ill rather than has the capacity to? Yes, I'm using a personal reference, but since this is my result it's strong evidence for myself. I live in London; it's polluted and I don't get much sun.
My brother (once 2nmol/L) suffered seizures and major muscle weakness. He recovered from intense D. Also of note is that at 2nmol/L his 1,25D was severely low...inadequate substrate you see.

4) Since we know that vitamin D supplementation boosts the immune system (whether you contest this), and is a natural occurence, there is reduced need to worry about it than a patented drug. You don't explain why cholesterol gets pushed to the skin, or why D3 from this (max. 10,000IU a day) is then used to become 25D. It would be illogical for our bodies to do something to our detriment.

5) Mark London's article which was posted on this thread way back up also describes the way in Benicar affects the body, so even you cannot readily admit that D reduction is crucial to the Marshall Protocol for many people.

6) The reason why much of Cannell's 'cult' talks more about fact than hypotheis is because much of what is referenced is deemed as fact, whether you like it or not. Those people who live in liberal UVB exposure and utilitise it have higher 25D and less disease incidinces. Co-incidences maybe, but then on the polar side why people with lower 25D, further from the equator, have more illnesses makes a presumption not illegitmate.

Edited by pro-d, 20 July 2008 - 09:09 PM.

[krillin]

Cannell also says: Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period.

Again he is not thinking clearly: Marshall explains that too high levels of 25OHD suppresses the immune system, which might be a very interesting hypothesis, since it explains exactly why these people were not SHOWING signs of cancer after 4 years.
Think about what prednison does to people with serious disease: they feel better, but they are still sick... it is called immunosuppression.

I am also not having problems with my calcium nutritional status. I have several blood test results to prove it.

Immune system suppression can't hide cancer and blood calcium cannot tell you anything about your calcium status, other than that you have some. Were you drunk when you wrote this?

[theone]

Cannell also says: Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period.

Again he is not thinking clearly: Marshall explains that too high levels of 25OHD suppresses the immune system, which might be a very interesting hypothesis, since it explains exactly why these people were not SHOWING signs of cancer after 4 years.
Think about what prednison does to people with serious disease: they feel better, but they are still sick... it is called immunosuppression.

I am also not having problems with my calcium nutritional status. I have several blood test results to prove it.

Immune system suppression can't hide cancer and blood calcium cannot tell you anything about your calcium status, other than that you have some. Were you drunk when you wrote this?

Zheng Cui's work on Cancer showed a correlation with lower granulocytes counts during the winter months.

In a small study of human volunteers, the scientists found that cancer-killing activity in the granulocytes was highest in people under age 50. They also found that this activity can be lowered by factors such as winter or emotional stress. They said the key to the success for the new therapy is to transfuse sufficient granulocytes from healthy donors while their cancer-killing activities are at their peak level.


http://www.scienceco...ested_in_humans

I can`t seem to find the link to one of his seminars, but he goes into great detail on how the seasons of the year affect the granulocytes counts.

[Frans]

Hi all,

http://www.cbc.ca/te...s-vitamind.html

Here is another piece from reporter Steven Strauss showing how another member of the vitamin D council (F. Garland) is manipulating statistics and leaving out important information out of a study in where he portends to have proven that -you guessed it- swallowing loads of supplemental D3 will protect and cure you from diabetes.

Interestingly, he uses the word: contradictions.

Now, where have we heard that word before?

Strauss is smelling a rat somewhere. A council full of them actually.

Best, Frans

[pro-d]

Strauss is a complete pillock who misused the headline. I'm surprised you resorted to him.

The article referenced a study that compared disease incidence with latitude. Not disease incidence with 25D. You actually have to get a good amount of exposure which is why you won't see a perfect trend. Just like you have to turn on a UVB lamp and sit near it to avail of it. Garland's explanation for the data is valid.

Not only this, but a study in Scotland showed insulin resistance improves as 25D increases. Scotland wasn't the only
one to study this: http://www.ajcn.org/...stract/79/5/820

I honestly don't know why you bother coming here to repeatedly get shamed. It seems to me like you have doubts about the MP to keep worrying what horrible masochistic vitamin D advocates think.

Edited by pro-d, 22 July 2008 - 06:05 PM.

[aikikai]

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

Most of the people eating high doses of vitamin D (I assume the majority is using D3) also eats foods and supplements that stimulates and supports the immune system from getting suppressed. Vitamin E is example of a vitamin which is supporting the immune system, why it is therefore important to use vitamin E in conjunction with anti-inflammatory omega-3 fish oil, which could act as an immunosuppressive substance. So, many vitamin D users may solve this issue, if there is any with the vitamin D.

There can't be an isolated study on vitamin D only and say it is immunosuppresseive when you don't look at other synergetic factors and how it acts.

I don't believe the saying the healthy portion of the population is immunosuppressed, because, then they are not healthy. Majority of healty living people, including vitamin D users, are healthier than people not caring about health, which scientific studies supports. If vitamin D users would be sicker due to immunosuppressive effects, then the cancer rates would be higher in this group, but scientific data shows the opposite.

Regards

Edited by aikikai, 17 October 2008 - 11:48 AM.

[mustardseed41]

Since upping my daily dose of D3 to around 5000IU a day, I have gone the longest period of time I can remember without catching the typical cold I get once or twice a year. http://www.lewrockwe...r/miller25.html

[mconte]

Wow, this topic has generated heaps of discussion. I personally have read many of the articles posted etc. Trevor Marshall's science is rock solid. This whole discussion reminds me of the similar hell that Trevor's name sake Barry Marshall went through with the establishment, when he proposed that bacteria ( Helicobacter pylori ) was the cause of stomach ulcers. The phamaceutical juggernaut derided Barry Marshall for more than 10 years, before it was finally accepted that stomach ulcers could be cured with a simple course of antibiotics. All the knockers had to then eat their hats ( read reputations ).

It was clear that it was in the interests of the drug companies, like the tobacco companies, to promote a different view and sell hope to their band of followers. Any way, to cut a long story short, Barry Marshall eventually received a Nobel Prize in medicine for his trials. Tevor Marshall's protocol does not make any drug company rich, or in fact himself rich. The internet cohort study is run largely by volunteers, who spend their valuable time assisting others on the road back from crippling chronic illness, with great success. So I guess what I'm trying to say is for those of you who are fit as mallee bulls and have not been cruely struck down by chronic illness, to just pull in your heads and opinions and let others get on with their healing.

ciao!

[mustardseed41]

Wow, this topic has generated heaps of discussion. I personally have read many of the articles posted etc. Trevor Marshall's science is rock solid. This whole discussion reminds me of the similar hell that Trevor's name sake Barry Marshall went through with the establishment, when he proposed that bacteria ( Helicobacter pylori ) was the cause of stomach ulcers. The phamaceutical juggernaut derided Barry Marshall for more than 10 years, before it was finally accepted that stomach ulcers could be cured with a simple course of antibiotics. All the knockers had to then eat their hats ( read reputations ).

It was clear that it was in the interests of the drug companies, like the tobacco companies, to promote a different view and sell hope to their band of followers. Any way, to cut a long story short, Barry Marshall eventually received a Nobel Prize in medicine for his trials. Tevor Marshall's protocol does not make any drug company rich, or in fact himself rich. The internet cohort study is run largely by volunteers, who spend their valuable time assisting others on the road back from crippling chronic illness, with great success. So I guess what I'm trying to say is for those of you who are fit as mallee bulls and have not been cruely struck down by chronic illness, to just pull in your heads and opinions and let others get on with their healing.

ciao!

Wow..... another Kool-Aid drinker.

[pro-d]

Wow, this topic has generated heaps of discussion. I personally have read many of the articles posted etc. Trevor Marshall's science is rock solid. This whole discussion reminds me of the similar hell that Trevor's name sake Barry Marshall went through with the establishment, when he proposed that bacteria ( Helicobacter pylori ) was the cause of stomach ulcers. The phamaceutical juggernaut derided Barry Marshall for more than 10 years, before it was finally accepted that stomach ulcers could be cured with a simple course of antibiotics. All the knockers had to then eat their hats ( read reputations ).

It was clear that it was in the interests of the drug companies, like the tobacco companies, to promote a different view and sell hope to their band of followers. Any way, to cut a long story short, Barry Marshall eventually received a Nobel Prize in medicine for his trials. Tevor Marshall's protocol does not make any drug company rich, or in fact himself rich. The internet cohort study is run largely by volunteers, who spend their valuable time assisting others on the road back from crippling chronic illness, with great success. So I guess what I'm trying to say is for those of you who are fit as mallee bulls and have not been cruely struck down by chronic illness, to just pull in your heads and opinions and let others get on with their healing.

ciao!

How is it rock solid when he hasn't got any peer reviewed investigations? 


How I wish Trevor's Marshall's surname was Mengele and see you praise comparisons with the Angel of Death.

[wayside]

How I wish Trevor's Marshall's surname was Mengele and see you praise comparisons with the Angel of Death.

Here of all places, I never expected to see Godwin's Law fulfilled. This statement is just absurd.

As for the Barry Marshal comparisons, that is also totally ridiculous. The two situations are not comparable.

[DukeNukem]

Wow, this topic has generated heaps of discussion. I personally have read many of the articles posted etc. Trevor Marshall's science is rock solid. This whole discussion reminds me of the similar hell that Trevor's name sake Barry Marshall went through with the establishment, when he proposed that bacteria ( Helicobacter pylori ) was the cause of stomach ulcers. The phamaceutical juggernaut derided Barry Marshall for more than 10 years, before it was finally accepted that stomach ulcers could be cured with a simple course of antibiotics. All the knockers had to then eat their hats ( read reputations ).

It was clear that it was in the interests of the drug companies, like the tobacco companies, to promote a different view and sell hope to their band of followers. Any way, to cut a long story short, Barry Marshall eventually received a Nobel Prize in medicine for his trials. Tevor Marshall's protocol does not make any drug company rich, or in fact himself rich. The internet cohort study is run largely by volunteers, who spend their valuable time assisting others on the road back from crippling chronic illness, with great success. So I guess what I'm trying to say is for those of you who are fit as mallee bulls and have not been cruely struck down by chronic illness, to just pull in your heads and opinions and let others get on with their healing.

ciao!

The Big Difference is that vitamin D3 is also a very cheap, easily available supplement. No one in Big Pharma or at the FDA is lifting a finger trying to protect D3 from Marshall's "science." No one is going to make anything close to a financial killing from D3, or by protecting the status quo. In fact, D3, too, is having trouble becoming mainstream, even though it could potentially cut depression victims by half, cancer victims by half, and reduce heart disease by a significant degree.

There is OVERWHELMING support for the benefits of D3, versus a non-peer-reviewed hypothesis by Marshall, in which I've seen significant numbers of disappointed patients of this program complain that it did not work (on various health blogs).

[pro-d]

How I wish Trevor's Marshall's surname was Mengele and see you praise comparisons with the Angel of Death.

Here of all places, I never expected to see Godwin's Law fulfilled. This statement is just absurd.

As for the Barry Marshal comparisons, that is also totally ridiculous. The two situations are not comparable.

I know it's absurd, however I was just trying to point out with tongue in cheek (and not trying to be distasteful) that sharing a surname doesn't make you equal to someone in a given profession - albeit invoking Godwin's Law. First time I heard of that by the way.

Edited by pro-d, 10 November 2008 - 07:10 PM.

[mpe]

I've currently got Shingles (after not taking D3 for 2 months).

I took antiviral medication to no avail.

Read about Tagamet, showed my doctor, started the course and I got a better response than when I was
taking the antiviral meds.

The shingles still wasnt beaten so i restarted Vitamin D, the response was fantastic, I now only have an itch
where once I had a terrible rash and lots of pain.

Also since stopping Vitamin D I've had 2 colds, but in the 2 years of taking D3 I'd had none.

I know personal experience isnt science but I dont think it can be ignored.

You be the judge.

[mconte]

Wow, this topic has generated heaps of discussion. I personally have read many of the articles posted etc. Trevor Marshall's science is rock solid. This whole discussion reminds me of the similar hell that Trevor's name sake Barry Marshall went through with the establishment, when he proposed that bacteria ( Helicobacter pylori ) was the cause of stomach ulcers. The phamaceutical juggernaut derided Barry Marshall for more than 10 years, before it was finally accepted that stomach ulcers could be cured with a simple course of antibiotics. All the knockers had to then eat their hats ( read reputations ).

It was clear that it was in the interests of the drug companies, like the tobacco companies, to promote a different view and sell hope to their band of followers. Any way, to cut a long story short, Barry Marshall eventually received a Nobel Prize in medicine for his trials. Tevor Marshall's protocol does not make any drug company rich, or in fact himself rich. The internet cohort study is run largely by volunteers, who spend their valuable time assisting others on the road back from crippling chronic illness, with great success. So I guess what I'm trying to say is for those of you who are fit as mallee bulls and have not been cruely struck down by chronic illness, to just pull in your heads and opinions and let others get on with their healing.

ciao!

The Big Difference is that vitamin D3 is also a very cheap, easily available supplement. No one in Big Pharma or at the FDA is lifting a finger trying to protect D3 from Marshall's "science." No one is going to make anything close to a financial killing from D3, or by protecting the status quo. In fact, D3, too, is having trouble becoming mainstream, even though it could potentially cut depression victims by half, cancer victims by half, and reduce heart disease by a significant degree.

There is OVERWHELMING support for the benefits of D3, versus a non-peer-reviewed hypothesis by Marshall, in which I've seen significant numbers of disappointed patients of this program complain that it did not work (on various health blogs).

I drew this similarity for four reasons. 1.) They coincidently have the same surnames 2.) Barry Marshall and Trevor Marshall both attended the same University ( University Of Western Australia ). 3.) Both have postulated a bacterial pathogenisis in common diseases, Barry Marshall for Helicobater Pyroli Re: Stomach Ulcers and Trevor Marshall for CWD bacteria Re: chronic illness. 4.) Both have had to undergo much derision before their work is accepted.

If you care to do further research, you will find that both were mentored by a professor who held the view that as medicine progresses into the future, it will become more clear to the medical establishment that most illnesses plaguing Humans are related to pathogens.

Have a look at where the NIH is now looking for answers to Human health. They have commneced a programme to map out the complete genomes for most of the known pathogens that exist in the Human body. From this research it will become apparent the role that bacteria and the CWD forms play in Human illness. Search for the answer will lead to a better understanding in the role innate immunity plays in combating the threats of these pathogens, then how innate immunity is comprimised, and how. At this point focus will be on the transcription of AMP's ( Anti Microbial Peptides ) that are essential to combatting bacterial threat, then what processes are responsible for their transcrition. The VDR ( Vitamin D Receptor) will be implicated and what compromises its integrity to act in activiting the neceassary signalling, transcription etc. All the evidence will lead to the fact that the VDR is compromised due to high Steroid D supplementation. All of those who have been consuming extremely high doses of Steriod D will have gone backwards in their innate immunity and promoted bacterial proliferation. This will then plague you later in life either as diabetes, chronic ilness, Alzheimers etc.

ciao!

[mconte]

How I wish Trevor's Marshall's surname was Mengele and see you praise comparisons with the Angel of Death.

Here of all places, I never expected to see Godwin's Law fulfilled. This statement is just absurd.

As for the Barry Marshal comparisons, that is also totally ridiculous. The two situations are not comparable.

Duke,

Recovery on the Marshal Protocol is not easy. Depending on the degree, spectrum and extent of bacterial infection, will depend on the pain and time taken to achieve recovery. The protocol is not for everyone, only those who wish to heal. Many have tried the protocol, but have been unable to complete it due to the high level of immunopathology. For some it is far easier to continue taking cortico steroids and suffering through the many damaging symptoms long term steroid use can inflict on the body.

ciao!

[HaloTeK]

Question 1: Does the Marshall protocol apply to non-diseased individuals? Do people believe that sunlight and D3 in the non-activated form (25-D) is opening the body up to pathogenic infection (can we do things to increase the activated form (1,25-D) (if that is what we want?), or at least keep that form dominate over the non-activated form)?

Question 2: What is the effect of long term low-dose antibiotic use on intestinal bacteria? We know that most of our immune function originates in the digestive track.

Question 3: Has large amounts of sunlight really hurt indigenous peoples from around the world? Do most of these populations have compromised immune systems from large vitamin D intake?

It's possible that the Marshall protocol might hold some promise for some specific individuals, but to make a blanket statement that vitamin D supplementation (Sunlight or vitamin) is detrimental seems a bit unfounded. People seem to forget that there is a lot of individual variables that come into play with supplementation. While we are all human, small variations can really change what is optimal for an individual.

Most research at the moment seems to support the benefits to vitamin D intake. Who knows, maybe low vitamin D intake for years damages the immune system to the point that when it's reintroduced, it causes problems. Until most research shows otherwise, most people seem to benefit from vitamin D intake.

[pro-d]

Trevor Marshall's work has not yet been accepted which currently does not make him comparable to Barry Marshall at all. Trevor's theory is based on a computer model and personal experience with a disease that causes D hypersensitivity.

As commentators have noted, Trevor Marshall has conducted no study that shows a) a difference between ingested D3 and that which is made by the sun, b) proof that vitamin D is detrimental to the immune system, which is curious when the body pushes cholesterol to the skin, for what we believe is a reason (in us and other animals).
Vitamin D has immunosuppressive *and* immune enhancing effects, that is it optimises the immune system to calm down where necessary (as in an allergic response) and 'fight' where necessary. These are the reports of accepted studies. Marshall thus far has a published opinion. When he has a study published, then I'll give him attention.

Edited by pro-d, 13 November 2008 - 11:28 AM.

[Mind]

Couldn't find a good thread about the flu shot so I thought I would post this here. Not sure about the background of the writer (I haven't heard of him before), but he speculates that the flu might be categorized as a disease relating to vitamin D deficiency (more than one person has linked the 2).

Skip the flu shot and take vitamin D instead.

[stephen_b]

I would be more inclined to get FluMist in place of a shot. I'm concerned about mercury in the flu shot, as well as other things like formaldehyde.

I look forward to the day when the chicken egg method of making vaccines is replaced by something better.

StephenB

[david ellis]

I would be more inclined to get FluMist in place of a shot. I'm concerned about mercury in the flu shot, as well as other things like formaldehyde.

I look forward to the day when the chicken egg method of making vaccines is replaced by something better.

StephenB

StephenB,
I participated this last Saturday in a trial using ver cells (from monkeys). I got either the standard chicken egg flu shot or the new ver cell shot. I hope this new method works for you. (The link is for bird flu shots using ver cells)

[Matt]

Just a few new study reports on vitamin D and innate immunity

Oral Vitamin D May Help Prevent Some Skin Infections
http://www.scienceda...81006130503.htm
A study led by researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine suggests that use of oral Vitamin D supplements bolsters production of a protective chemical normally found in the skin, and may help prevent skin infections that are a common result of atopic dermatitis, the most common form of eczema.

Study participants (14 with atopic dermatitis and 14 without) were all given 4000 IUs of oral Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) per day for 21 days. Skin lesions were biopsied before and after the 21-day period. The researchers found that oral vitamin D use by the patients appeared to correct the skin's defect in cathelicidin.

"These results suggest that supplementation with oral vitamin D dramatically induces cathelicidin production in the skin of patients with atopic dermatitis," said Hata. "It also slightly elevated its production in normal skin in this study."
and

Lung airway cells activate vitamin D and increase immune response
http://www.eurekaler...i-lac110308.php

"When we put the storage form of vitamin D on the lung airway cells, we saw them convert it to the active form," Hansdottir said. "The next step was to investigate whether this active form could affect the expression of genes."

The team then showed that vitamin D activated by airway cells affects two genes involved in immune defense. One gene expresses a protein called cathelicidin that can kill bacteria. The second gene, called CD14, produces a protein that helps cells recognize different kinds of pathogens that could be a threat.

"Vitamin D converted by the kidneys circulates in the bloodstream, but vitamin D converted by other organs appears to stay within those organs and protect them from infection," Hansdottir said. "We were able to see this happen in cells lining the trachea and main bronchi."

and

Vitamin D can help combat placental infection
http://lifestyle.in....umentid=1712003

The study involved exposing cultured human trophoblast cells to the active form of vitamin D, leading to the production of protein cathelicidin and an increased antibacterial response in the trophoblast cells.

The team, headed by Dr. Martin Hewison, suspects that the ability of the placenta to synthesize cathelicidin varies widely among women. Their discovery suggests that placental innate immunity can be enhanced if pregnant women supplement their diets with vitamin D.

Induction of cathelicidin production by vitamin D may help the placenta stave off infection by a variety of pathogenic organisms, including staphylococcus, streptococcus, and E. coli bacteri

[Matt]

An interesting article I read today

Vitamin D in Clinical Practice
http://www.thorne.co...text/13/1/6.pdf



Carnell talking about vitamin D and infections

Vitamin D and Infections

Edited by Matt, 03 December 2008 - 08:26 PM.

[madbrain]

Mike,

Also since stopping Vitamin D I've had 2 colds, but in the 2 years of taking D3 I'd had none.

I know personal experience isnt science but I dont think it can be ignored.

Did you ever get your D levels checked ?

I have been taking about 4500 IU of D3 daily for a year. Mostly the dose is so high to counteract the effect of 2 meds I take that deplete the D - tegretol and prilosec. I was originally at 12 ng/ml 2 years ago. Normal range being 30 - 100.

I had gotten my level to rise to 76 one summer ago. My previous last test was 67 in april. I just got my D level checked on tuesday, and it came to only 41. I guess I need to take a little more D in the winter to be in the upper part of normal range. I will try going to 6500 IU.

However I can't relate to your experience about colds. I have gotten several serious ones this year. Along with other infections, one of which has no identified cause yet. I also have HIV but so far my HIV levels are so low that it isn't thought to be the cause of any problems and I don't even take meds for HIV yet for that reason. I have always been getting bad colds long before I had HIV. I'm still no different. The higher vitamin D intake doesn't seem to be a miracle cure for these colds :(

[JLL]

Since upping my daily dose of D3 to around 5000IU a day, I have gone the longest period of time I can remember without catching the typical cold I get once or twice a year. http://www.lewrockwe...r/miller25.html

Did you write that article?

[Matt]

The only time I got lots of colds close to each other was when I had an underlying bacterial infection. Once that was cleared up I haven't gotten sick with a cold for over 20 months. I mentioned a few things here on my blog post about what might help fight off colds and flu http://matts-cr.blog...ecome-sick.html

[pro-d]

My parents both had the flue jab and still got the flue. My brother and I who are both taking physiological D doses and haven't had the jab are doing fine and we're both people who usually get it without fail. Of course I'll see how the rest of the year pans out, but so far I don't get much more than a single sneeze.

[pycnogenol]

My parents both had the flue jab and still got the flu. My brother and I who are both taking physiological D doses and haven't had the jab are doing fine and we're both people who usually get it without fail.

I got the flu last year but then again I wasn't taking as much vitamin D back then; I now take 5,400 IU per day (46 ng/ml)). Vitamin D triggers your body to produce its own antibiotics against the flu.

Edited by pycnogenol, 07 December 2008 - 01:19 PM.

[biknut]

Couldn't find a good thread about the flu shot so I thought I would post this here. Not sure about the background of the writer (I haven't heard of him before), but he speculates that the flu might be categorized as a disease relating to vitamin D deficiency (more than one person has linked the 2).

Skip the flu shot and take vitamin D instead.

Here in Dallas lots of people have been sick lately with something going around. I haven't caught it even though I've been in close quarters with a lot of them. Maybe it's the Vitamin D? This is the first year I've taken it.

Last year I got a flu shot even though normally I never do. Guess what I still got the flu.