281 replies to this topic

[hamishm00]

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!

Yeah Barry Marshall's story is a great one. I went to a talk by him a couple of months ago, where he gave the audience a run down on his Nobel Prize efforts. He got rejected so many times by peer review he decided to ingest the Helicobacter pylori bacteria himself to prove his claims. What a legend.

[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!

Yeah Barry Marshall's story is a great one. I went to a talk by him a couple of months ago, where he gave the audience a run down on his Nobel Prize efforts. He got rejected so many times by peer review he decided to ingest the Helicobacter pylori bacteria himself to prove his claims. What a legend.

Indeed. Trevor Marshall's been on his own protocol for, what, at least 6yrs, and is still on it and telling others to do so too due to time being needed. Comparatively, people on vitamin D find sustained improvement within a season.

[wiserd]

T. Marshall makes a good case for using his protocol for sarcoidosis. But people with diabetes, say, have low levels of calcitriol.
T. Marshall used to argue for testing levels of calcitriol relative to calcidiol, but seems to have abandoned this. Why?

It seems to make sense to separate those few who may benefit from the protocol from those many who couldn't.

If people have functional VDRs, and most seem to, then they don't need benicar.

[113H]

Haven't you ever learned what kind of trouble a quick fix can get a person into? Anyone with active sarcoidosis can tell you that taking vitamin d supplements is like suffocating a man who has been shot numerous times and is bleeding to death.

Since when did the sun/skin interaction stop working to make enough vitamin d for the vast majority of folks? Not likely, not unless all those unnatural clouds up in the sky have something to do with it lol!

I have sarcoidosis. I spent 3 years trying every vitamin and supplement under the sun from A-Z, and nothing worked. I found that it was sarcoidosis at the end of that 3 year span. If someone would have told me before I 'got sick' that I would be deathly ill within 2 weeks, I would've laughed at them. In fact, it was 3 years prior to this last 3 year block that I was in the most active form of vibrant life, in a stage called DRIVEN... I hadn't a clue I was sick with anything. The only things that I noticed before-hand was that as long as I got my sleep, 8-12 hours a day, that I was fine, and I was taking massive doses of sugars and carbohydrates into my body to uphold this enormous demand for energy through my body.

Well, sadly, that ended... And I'm going to tell you flat out, if you haven't been down this road, you simply do not know what you're talking about!

And you say Vitamin D deficiency caused it... then humans came before dinosaurs lol! No way I was deficient in dietary Vitamin D because I was craving foods naturally high in vitamin d, and eating large amounts of them. And weird, though albeit true, my HDL cholesterol was always exceeding the upper limits of every lab I had done. Must have been about 20 over the coarse of 3 years.

I had persistent skin problems, granulomas, that nothing would cure. Chest tightness, bradycardia, anxiety and panic attacks (of coarse when you feel like you're gonna die 24/7), raynauds, floaters, yellowish skin, intracellular dehydration (no amount of fluid would take, only pass right through), numb face/scalp, lower back pain, tendon problems in shoulders and elbows, arthritis in my hands and knees, elevated TSH, T3, T4, and reverse T3 all in range, maladapted phase 1 adrenal insufficiency, food allergies to bakers yeast, brewer's yeast, cow's milk, sunflower seeds, canola oil, radish, kidney beans, msg, aspartame, caramel color, ect. ect. ect... lmao! So what is it that could cause so much trouble???

Well, it entered our family in the 1950's - 1960's through vaccination programmes, and I was born with it (CWD bacteria), took 25 years to take me down. My father came down with this at 28 years of age. It isn't a genetic syndrome, but more likely an altered genetic sequence tranferred though sperm/egg used for it's stealthy propagation down through procreation.

I started benicar and minocycline in October '08, and I have been greeted with several milestones that I would have never even scratched when treating myself with supplements. If you can imagine climbing out of hell on a firey rope, this is it. At least now I am climbing, instead of just hanging there, hanging on for dear life.

To test myself before I started treatment, I totally quit vitamin d in food and in supplement, and I had an immediate immune response. My skin started looking better. The changes were subtle and first, and, oh hell I have had some super bad immunopathologies, but it's never been worse than my worst day before I started treatment. For anyone wishing to tinker with their Vitamin D resources, restrict first, and then supplement. If you feel a little off but otherwise fine, then take vitamin d. If you feel or notice any significant anomalies either improvements/worsenings in any specific area of bodily interest, you really need to get tested for vitamin d... especially 1,25.

The only reason you would feel better by taking large amounts of vitamin d is because it's immunosuppressant, but it's not a constant immunosuppressant. It's more like hypovitamin-d-emia, where it fluctuates so rapidly almost like hypoglycemia.

Here are the main points:

Healthy person: takes vitamin d supplements: life goes on fine
Asymptomatic Healthy person: takes vitamin d supplements: life goes on fine
Asymptomatic Sick person: takes vitamin d supplements: life is only minorly affected, symptoms so vague, attributed to overworking, or too much stress/not enough sleep.
Sick person: takes vitamin d supplements: without symptomatic relief: Don't know what the hell is going on. Thinks he/she's had a really bad flu. Thinks he/she's been poisoned. Thinks he/she has fallen from grace. He/she is scared, anxious, and other innumerable frightening symptoms.

Well, anyways, sarcoidosis affects the very essence of life, it gets into every nook and cranny, and every bodily system is in total disarray.

If you can identify with what you have just read, you need to read a little deeper into vitamin d supplementation. YOUR LIFE COULD DEPEND ON IT. But as always, you must must must talk to your doctor before starting any treatment or protocol. But, you can try a theraputic probe by elimination of vitamin d from your diet. If it is a problem, you will know soon enough; trust me.

It isn't the CWD bacteria that kills the body... most have quite a bacterial load that they are immune to that they continue to live with without major consequence. so, it's the immune response, or lack thereof, to the bacteria that kills the body.

Edited by 113H, 01 January 2009 - 04:34 AM.

[stephen_b]

No way I was deficient in dietary Vitamin D because I was craving foods naturally high in vitamin d, and eating large amounts of them.

This sounds implausible. There are no foods high in vitamin D.

StephenB

[meursault]

No way I was deficient in dietary Vitamin D because I was craving foods naturally high in vitamin d, and eating large amounts of them.

This sounds implausible. There are no foods high in vitamin D.

StephenB

Fish?

[pro-d]

Fish isn't high in D, not even if you consumed it daily. The only thing that matches full body solar exposure is supplements.

While sarcoidosis is a definite area of caution for D repletion, the "D is an immunosupressant camp" consistently fail to also explain that it boosts the immune system.

Edited by pro-d, 01 January 2009 - 11:01 AM.

[113H]

Fish isn't high in D, not even if you consumed it daily. The only thing that matches full body solar exposure is supplements.

While sarcoidosis is a definite area of caution for D repletion, the "D is an immunosupressant camp" consistently fail to also explain that it boosts the immune system.

Fish like makeral, tuna, and the higher order of predatory fish are 'higher' compared to other foods. Bacon fat and egg yolks are the same way. Milk is fortified, as are almost all foods these days. And these types of ingredients are in almost EVERYTHING, plus fortification from the companies on top of the foods they process. I'm not going to argue with you jokers over this;-) I know better; this is my practice, and this is what I preach to those who are on a need to know basis.

I didn't 'fail' to explain that it boosts the immune system. I did, however, fail to explain that vitamin d can do either supress OR boost the immune system. In my case, it causes hypersensativity to normally present antigens in the blood. When the immune system is confused, it is overworked and underpaid. It knows something has run amok and it goes after numerous uncloaked, but similar antigens. It is HIGHLY dependent upon which side of the ball your immune system is on. Imagine fat kid vs. skinny kid on a see-saw...

So in my experience, yes, supplementing vitamin d did cause a SLIGHT improvement in my symptoms, but, it was short lived, and it made matters worse, especially since it caused terrible food cravings of the type I was not allowed to eat.

In a nutshell, vitamin d synthesis within the body has yet to be fully understood. Much progress is being made with the Marshall Protocol, and many more things will come to light as the puzzle nears completion. Vitamin d cannot be tracked as easily as blood sugar, and the immune system isn't fully understood by those who offer poison as a means to improving health. Everything in the body is lock and key, and if you don't give it the right keys, it's not going to function properly, period.

Oh yeah, last point... if the stored vitamin d in the body is at it's upper limit, then anytime a person eats ANY vitamin d, there are immediate repercussions. I have never been able to gain weight, so this leads me to surmise that my current body fat is super-saturated with it. And I also give credence that this may be one of the contributing factors to the obesity epidemic. It's highly dependent on which side of the ball the immune system is on. Let the arguments begin!

Edited by 113H, 01 January 2009 - 06:05 PM.

[Dmitri]

Fish isn't high in D, not even if you consumed it daily. The only thing that matches full body solar exposure is supplements.

While sarcoidosis is a definite area of caution for D repletion, the "D is an immunosupressant camp" consistently fail to also explain that it boosts the immune system.

Fish like makeral, tuna, and the higher order of predatory fish are 'higher' compared to other foods. Bacon fat and egg yolks are the same way. Milk is fortified, as are almost all foods these days. And these types of ingredients are in almost EVERYTHING, plus fortification from the companies on top of the foods they process. I'm not going to argue with you jokers over this;-) I know better; this is my practice, and this is what I preach to those who are on a need to know basis.

I didn't 'fail' to explain that it boosts the immune system. I did, however, fail to explain that vitamin d can do either supress OR boost the immune system. In my case, it causes hypersensativity to normally present antigens in the blood. When the immune system is confused, it is overworked and underpaid. It knows something has run amok and it goes after numerous uncloaked, but similar antigens. It is HIGHLY dependent upon which side of the ball your immune system is on. Imagine fat kid vs. skinny kid on a see-saw...

So in my experience, yes, supplementing vitamin d did cause a SLIGHT improvement in my symptoms, but, it was short lived, and it made matters worse, especially since it caused terrible food cravings of the type I was not allowed to eat.

In a nutshell, vitamin d synthesis within the body has yet to be fully understood. Much progress is being made with the Marshall Protocol, and many more things will come to light as the puzzle nears completion. Vitamin d cannot be tracked as easily as blood sugar, and the immune system isn't fully understood by those who offer poison as a means to improving health. Everything in the body is lock and key, and if you don't give it the right keys, it's not going to function properly, period.

Oh yeah, last point... if the stored vitamin d in the body is at it's upper limit, then anytime a person eats ANY vitamin d, there are immediate repercussions. I have never been able to gain weight, so this leads me to surmise that my current body fat is super-saturated with it. And I also give credence that this may be one of the contributing factors to the obesity epidemic. It's highly dependent on which side of the ball the immune system is on. Let the arguments begin!

Certain Fish do have nearly 100% RDA of Vit D, though not everyone eats fish much less every single day. Egg Yolk only has 20 IU and Milk has around 98 IU. Also, a lot of the people here use sunscreens which may block Vit D production in the body.

Now, there is one thing I do agree with, more research is needed since the D3 studies appear to be Coerelational (at least the ones I‘ve seen). For example, scientists examine those suffering from chronic diseases and determine they have low levels of D, but could it also be that illness itself is causing the low levels and not the other way around? Are there any studies that use the experimental design that I am not aware off?

[pro-d]

Higher still doesn't mean high enough. Fish (all types in general) still contain less than 1000IU and the ridiculous Recommended Daily Amount is still the outdated 400IU - which was calculated as enough to stave off rickets.

I understand in the US there is a lot of D product fortification, in Europe however there's virtually none.
Even so D fortification of an average day's food still doesn't compare with 20mins of UVB in youthful skin. What I'm trying to say is that if man lived as nature intended; birthday suits and and work was hunting, we would get approx. 10k on days with good UVB exposure. Fact. There is nothing yet to suggest that supplementing orally as an alternative is bad for you, seeing as we can 'top up' orally from nature.

In regards to whether disease lowers vitamin D, please read the last part of this: http://www.vitamindc...008-april.shtml

I am well aware that vitamin D causes problems in some. But that doesn't mean that those that can benefit from it - and there are vast amounts - should be denied it.

[stephen_b]

Oh yeah, last point... if the stored vitamin d in the body is at it's upper limit, then anytime a person eats ANY vitamin d, there are immediate repercussions. I have never been able to gain weight, so this leads me to surmise that my current body fat is super-saturated with it. And I also give credence that this may be one of the contributing factors to the obesity epidemic. It's highly dependent on which side of the ball the immune system is on. Let the arguments begin!

Vitamin D isn't stored until levels reach 40-50 ng/dL. Most people are (unfortunately for them) below these levels. I don't think you can draw that conclusion about weight gain. Why not just have your levels measured?

Certain Fish do have nearly 100% RDA of Vit D, though not everyone eats fish much less every single day. Egg Yolk only has 20 IU and Milk has around 98 IU. Also, a lot of the people here use sunscreens which may block Vit D production in the body.

Which I'm sure you'd agree are basically negligible levels.

Now, there is one thing I do agree with, more research is needed since the D3 studies appear to be Coerelational (at least the ones I‘ve seen). For example, scientists examine those suffering from chronic diseases and determine they have low levels of D, but could it also be that illness itself is causing the low levels and not the other way around? Are there any studies that use the experimental design that I am not aware off?

You can be sure of that, given the interest in the topic and the rate at which new studies have been coming out this year. Have a look at this link: "Found 696 studies with search of: vitamin D".

StephenB

[Dmitri]

Higher still doesn't mean high enough. Fish (all types in general) still contain less than 1000IU and the ridiculous Recommended Daily Amount is still the outdated 400IU - which was calculated as enough to stave off rickets.

I understand in the US there is a lot of D product fortification, in Europe however there's virtually none.
Even so D fortification of an average day's food still doesn't compare with 20mins of UVB in youthful skin. What I'm trying to say is that if man lived as nature intended; birthday suits and and work was hunting, we would get approx. 10k on days with good UVB exposure. Fact. There is nothing yet to suggest that supplementing orally as an alternative is bad for you, seeing as we can 'top up' orally from nature.

In regards to whether disease lowers vitamin D, please read the last part of this: http://www.vitamindc...008-april.shtml

I am well aware that vitamin D causes problems in some. But that doesn't mean that those that can benefit from it - and there are vast amounts - should be denied it.

Thank you for the link. Anyway, I'm usually not in the sun, only eat fish once or twice a week, milk 3 times a week and supplement D3 (1,000 IU) about 3 days out of the week. With that in mind do you think I still need that Vit D blood test? I don't think I'm in danger of having toxic levels at those dosages?

Edited by Dmitri, 01 January 2009 - 09:28 PM.

[pro-d]

I think a vitamin D test is advisable for everyone. I wish it was a routine part of a general checkup.

I seriously doubt you're in danger of toxicity with your regimen. But a blood test will probably reveal how you can tweak yourself to an optimal level.

[113H]

Yes, the RDA is based on old information. My vitamin d level was 47 ng/dL when it was last measured 4 months ago. My doctor at first said that he would like to see it higher. Then I asked him to let me try the MP and we forgot about trying supplementation.

It's been 3 months since I started treatment, and my HDL actually went down some finally, along with a linear drop in LDL. But, I think that this correlation is more to do with cholesterol being commonly found alongside fat and vitamin d. And the MP site stated that my body's need for thyroid medication would drop... this too has occured.

It is very difficult to explain all of the vaugities of the vitamin d dysregulation processes having experienced them myself, because I know there are many many subtle symptoms, and they all add up to a major problem.

As far as getting plenty of sun, I am dark complected and of czech and german descent, even through winter I maintain a slight tan thoughout the cloud laden winters here. So, I know my skin has the potential to be a 1,25 vitamin d powerhouse. The cold season here lasts only about 4 months, and half of that time it's still almost t-shirt weather. Most of the year there's more than enough sun exposure. Nature's way is always right.

To me, just testing plain vitamin d doesn't give enough information. That is a static statistic among a dynamic system. I would personally be afraid to make a supplementation decision just based upon one measured variable. But as always, it's your body and you can do with it as you please! Erring on the side of caution with it is the main thing IMO.

[Dmitri]

Yes, the RDA is based on old information. My vitamin d level was 47 ng/dL when it was last measured 4 months ago. My doctor at first said that he would like to see it higher. Then I asked him to let me try the MP and we forgot about trying supplementation.

It's been 3 months since I started treatment, and my HDL actually went down some finally, along with a linear drop in LDL. But, I think that this correlation is more to do with cholesterol being commonly found alongside fat and vitamin d. And the MP site stated that my body's need for thyroid medication would drop... this too has occured.

It is very difficult to explain all of the vaugities of the vitamin d dysregulation processes having experienced them myself, because I know there are many many subtle symptoms, and they all add up to a major problem.

As far as getting plenty of sun, I am dark complected and of czech and german descent, even through winter I maintain a slight tan thoughout the cloud laden winters here. So, I know my skin has the potential to be a 1,25 vitamin d powerhouse. The cold season here lasts only about 4 months, and half of that time it's still almost t-shirt weather. Most of the year there's more than enough sun exposure. Nature's way is always right.

To me, just testing plain vitamin d doesn't give enough information. That is a static statistic among a dynamic system. I would personally be afraid to make a supplementation decision just based upon one measured variable. But as always, it's your body and you can do with it as you please! Erring on the side of caution with it is the main thing IMO.

How can your skin be a powerhouse of VIT D? Those with darker skin produce less Vit D as far as I know. Also, where is the evidence that many foods are high in Vit D? The ones that are fortified in the U.S. are dairy products which only contain around 25%. Those levels are not enough to cause any harm if you supplement low levels of D.

[stephen_b]

Thank you for the link. Anyway, I'm usually not in the sun, only eat fish once or twice a week, milk 3 times a week and supplement D3 (1,000 IU) about 3 days out of the week. With that in mind do you think I still need that Vit D blood test? I don't think I'm in danger of having toxic levels at those dosages?

I got overly complicate with my quoting. I was suggesting that for 113H.

If I were you my choice would be for the blood test. At the levels you take vitamin D, the danger would be taking too little. Some people need far more D than others to achieve the same blood level.

StephenB

Edited by stephen_b, 02 January 2009 - 05:13 PM.

[youandme]

Hi 113H

Your more than interesting !, to have thyroid meds reduced in just 2 months of trying MP I am impressed..please can I ask a couple of questions (actually a few) for my understanding and reference.
Can you tell me what thyroid condition you have been diagnosed with ?
How long have you been taking Thyroid meds...and what meds ?
Also Ive noted that people taking LDN also reduce thyroid meds did you know that ?

For my part I tried the probe Vit D elimination and also AB's for 4 months..unfortunately zero change for me..
Perhaps one hat does not fit all.
I agree we need more understanding to put this whole thing into perspective to help us all.


Thanks in advance

.

And the MP site stated that my body's need for thyroid medication would drop... this too has occured.

Edited by youandme, 02 January 2009 - 04:15 AM.

[pro-d]

113H,

1,25D is a useless test because it remains normal or even high when D deficient due to increased renal hydroxylation to compensate. Only when gravely deficient, with absolutely no iota of 25D to use does 1,25D decline. And this is dangerous as you risk seizures and muscles weakness which I've witnessed first hand.
And with an unoptimal 25D status, local tissue 1,25D is compromised.

As I said, if you have problems with D by all means try the alternatives. However, don't assume that what's bad for you is bad for others. D supplementation is there to mimic what nature does naturally, so it really isn't such a dangerous ball game compared to any pharamaceutical.

[113H]

youandme,

I basically had a subclinical thyroid condition. The thyroid tissues were still working fine, but my TSH was staying elevated to a point where my doctor perscribed T4 synthroid to bring it down into normal range. This aligns quite closely to there being alpha and beta thyroid receptor problems coinciding with the vitamin d receptors. I'm in no way a doctor myself, so sometimes explaining these things in an appropriate manner is difficult. I'm not able to get everything right, as my health too is still a work in progress. I don't have all the answers right yet, but if I don't try myself, I will suffer, and that's a guarantee.

Right now, I'm on 75 mcg synthroid, 6 days a week. It was 7, but my liver enzyme alkaline phosphatase was starting to elevate probably due to too much T4. So my doctor advised me to back off on that medication by 75 mcg a week. I am not familiar with LDN, perhaps you could explain what that is.

I see a time in the future when all treatment programs will be specifically tailored for each individual, since each individual is unique, and requires an exact set of medications in certain proportions. One hat has never fit all in the field of medicine, though results often said that they could. There are so many processes and chemical reactions going on in the body at any single time... who knows for sure if certain medications are more dangerous to some than others, especially when the end result of getting better is identical?

If you do indeed have a chronic health issue, do not give up trying to find your answer. I can't tell you how many times I ran into a dead end, and had to go back to the drawing board, and start over. The answers are out there, all around you... you just have to know how to listen to your body. Sometimes food cravings are a direct link to the problem. The body craves it's poison;-)

dmitri,

i realized later on that it didn't make sense about the dark skin making a higher conversion of vitamin d... lol. i can say though that, my skin was darker, but after i became i'll, it got lighter... kind of like a pale light tan, or light olive color... i used to be able to tan alot darker than i can now, i just got confused on what i was trying to say. brain fog is a problem for me sometimes. vitamin d threads are alway hot with debate, but many find the answers they need on open forums, and that's why I would like to contribute to them;-)

[113H]

pro-d

i definately have had muscle weakness for the last 3 years. an oddity about it is that no matter how much i exerted my muscles, they never get sore... still haven't figured out why.

along with the bradycardia, my pulse was about 40-45 bpm at it's lowest right at the beginning of my illness. for two years, i could literally feel my heart beating all day, and whenever i would try to go to sleep, it would start acting up beating too slow, then a panic attack would kick it into overdrive. Also, i experienced alot of skipped beats or what feels like my heart rolling over in my chest. thats some scary ****! i never knew if i would live through the night for sure lol.

they only reason the 1,25 test is important is to provide a ratio to tell if the immune system is in th1 mode. but i have seen some conflicting opinions about this. sounds like they don't have it totally figured out, since it probably depends on the combination of l-form bacterias causing the trouble, and at which point a person is in the disease state. it would help if it was possible to culture the causative agents for diagnosis, but as of right now, there's only a few types they have learned to do this with.

but with the current treatment available, it isn't necessary to know which are the culprits per say. as usual, a dynamic system is very hard to stabilize, because any kind of wrong supplements can throw it all into an uncontrollable swing that could take weeks or months to recover from, all the while confusing the patient even more. slow but steady is definately the way to go for chronic ailments.

[kismet]

Why does the vitamin d council advise tanning and sun bathing instead of supplementation even though they are of the opinion that supplemental vitamin d and vit d from the sun are the same and produce the same effects? Don't they care about skin cancer? Supplementation allows much tighter control of blood levels anyway. What gives?

BTW 113H you do know that "Nature's way is always right." is quite a ridiculous claim. Nature's way is death, disease and decay (and we're trying to stop her), I wouldn't say this is 'right' if I were to start judging things and delve into morals (but I won't). This is not meant as an offense. What you are doing is probably the opposite of caution.

Edited by kismet, 03 January 2009 - 10:44 PM.

[balance]

Kismet,

I think the vitamin D council wants to show people that there are various means of obtaining vitamin D. Maybe they also want to elude the fact that John Cannell's wife sells a vitamin D supplement. Still, I feel they are doing a good job. The only thing I find ironic is that they try to get people to think that vitamin A is toxic, while the whole purpose of the vitamin D council is to enlighten people that vitamin D is important and essentially non-toxic.

[113H]

I'm not sure to say whether you quoted me out of context or not lol. What is natural is by far more controversial than chit chat about vitamin d! The fact is, we live unnaturally. We don't do things the old fashioned way for the most part, and that is, or could be part of the problem. Maybe nature is rejecting our destructive ways.

Bacteria have an intrinsic important job on this planet. Farmers are just now starting to realize this, as their practices are killing the soil, which in turn severly impairs it's ability to provide us with nutritious foods. I would go as far as saying Mother Earth has an immune system also, and if she decides we are the enemy, then we're gone!

Of coarse everyone is going to die sooner or later, but these imbalances within the body are only a reflection of the health of the planet. Is it not the bacteria within the body that starts the decomposition soon after death???

[pro-d]

Kismet: UVB exposure is preferred because it's thought that there might be extra benefits from this natural method than via supplements. Also, in this way you don't have to worry about dosing as the body stops making more than it needs on optimal exposure.
The worry over skin cancer seems to be slightly catch 22. A lot of people only sunbathe now and then which means most people have a level of D that is either suboptimal or deficient. So, if someone with low D gets too much exposure they're likely to burn first before they convert substrate in the skin.
A further worry for the pale skinned is that they adapted to 'sponge' as much vitamin D from low light, so when they go on holiday to some place exotic or experience non-typical local weather, they weren't really designed for it. The same goes for darker skin people who adapted that level of pigment to deal with sunnier climes.
Also, by promoting tanning or the sun, Cannell avoids coming across as a salesman, for though he has an affiliation with Bio Tech (because they share a cause) he doesn't sell tanning beds and can't sell the sun.

piet3r: I think the reason why the council warn of vitamin A is due to A&D being commonly found together in supplements. I know this is the case in England where you have to look a litte bit harder for D without A.

113H: I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of problems are due to not living a life as nature intended. I think as humans 'develop' more, the more problems we create, so solutions are going to be non-traditonal too; be it supplements or anything else.

[kismet]

113H, the context is not important, because I cannot imagine any context were I'd agree with "Nature's way is always right." Neither can I ever agree with "Maybe nature is rejecting our destructive ways.", but let's not discuss those unrelated subjects in this thread.

Kismet: UVB exposure is preferred because it's thought that there might be extra benefits from this natural method than via supplements. Also, in this way you don't have to worry about dosing as the body stops making more than it needs on optimal exposure.

The weather changes throughout the year and the seasons, this requires to adjust your sunexposure (to think and waste some time doing so) or use tanning beds (which cost money). Most people will accidentaly or on purpose supplement with additional vitamin d (in the winter, via multivitamins, fortified foods). To me this does not seem optimal at all.
The only way to fully and conveniently control your bloodlevels would be supplementation, sun-avoidance and blood tests. Which coincidentally may reduce your risks of skin cancer and slow down photoaging.  Although, I have to admit that I have not had enough time to research the issue of photaging myself, I'm inclined to believe our heliophobes and skin experts.
Most experts admit that they don't have a clue what else there is to sunlight. Vitamin d, heat producing endorphins and bright light regulating melatonin synthesis, that is all AFAIK.

The worry over skin cancer seems to be slightly catch 22. A lot of people only sunbathe now and then which means most people have a level of D that is either suboptimal or deficient. So, if someone with low D gets too much exposure they're likely to burn first before they convert substrate in the skin.
A further worry for the pale skinned is that they adapted to 'sponge' as much vitamin D from low light, so when they go on holiday to some place exotic or experience non-typical local weather, they weren't really designed for it. The same goes for darker skin people who adapted that level of pigment to deal with sunnier climes.
Also, by promoting tanning or the sun, Cannell avoids coming across as a salesman, for though he has an affiliation with Bio Tech (because they share a cause) he doesn't sell tanning beds and can't sell the sun.

I really hope it is the latter, not wanting to come across as a salesman. What you said supports my point, tanning and using the sun does not provide a stable source of vitamin d, because there are so many variables  (season, weather, time of exposure, melanin content of the skin, altitutde, latitute, clothing, sun screens, accidental supplementation) changing all the time, which need to be controlled for. Avoiding toxicity is not that difficult, but without a tanning bed you will have to continually adjust your exposure to keep the risk of sunburn and cancer as low as possible and get the optimal level of vitamin d.

[pro-d]

One plus of UVB though is that it benefits the skin directly. i.e. UVB lights are used on psoriasis and I don't know if supplementation has as good an effect, if at all.
I myself supplement just as it's pretty much impossible to get much usable natural UVB ever.

[Mixter]

Hmm. I read up on this discussion. Interesting. The marshall theory can't be fully
denied currently. On the other hand, we have no idea which is cause and which
effect in these correlations (high 1,25-D, low 25-D). High 1,25-D mitigates autoimmune action.

A great paper regarding Vitamin D to read would be the this one (free full text available):
Dusso, A.S. et al. (2005): Vitamin D. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 289:F8-F28.
http://ajprenal.phys...t/full/289/1/F8

Evaluating this paper, it might be that the marshall protocoll is right, however it might also
well be that if the observed high 1,25-D is relevant at all, it may be a beneficial response
to autoimmunity and intracellular infection which the body uses to fight these.

A (seeming?) contradiction of VDR agonism in chronic intranuclear/intracellular infection would
be that chronic infections shortem telomeres, whereas high Vitamin D is known to be associated with
longer telomeres: http://ouroboros.wor...tens-telomeres/

In general, I think exploring the applications of low-dose antibiotics could be very interesting,
also potentially for reversing damage to an aged immune system due to chronic infection. For all
we know, one possibility for cause-and-effect may even be that low-dose antibiotics directly affect
the diseased immune system, and thus might improve Th1/Th2 response in autoimmunity.

Future ongoing research about epidemology and effects of intranuclear "Th1 pathogens" may be interesting
though, IMO this may prove very relevant to aging. In conclusion, for people without confirmed autoimmunity
it doesn't make too much sense to explore the protocol. For with autoimmunity (other than maybe sarcoidosis),
as long as this is not established or discarded, it may be wiser to use natural antibiotics like garlic, green tea,
propolis, olive leaf and others against potential chronic infections. And to shift Th1/Th2 using established supplements:

http://www.citeulike...article/3731349 (Great free paper about Th1/Th2 balance)

Several nutrients and hormones measurably influence Th1/Th2 balance, including plant sterols/sterolins, melatonin, probiotics, progesterone, and the minerals selenium and zinc. The long-chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) significantly benefit diverse inflammatory and autoimmune conditions without any specific Th1/Th2 effect. Th1/Th2-based immunotherapies, e.g., T-cell receptor (TCR) peptides and interleukin-4 (IL-4) injections, have produced mixed results to date.

Edited by mixter, 05 January 2009 - 12:55 PM.

[youandme]

Mixter/All
The jury is still out on Autoimmunity...we know so much more about it than we did even 5 years ago..yet we still seemingly know very little.

Until the first person with an Autoimmune Disease is cured we will not find out who is right.

The problem with Marshall theory is for me its based on L-Form bacteria...if you watch any of Marshall Video Lectures you will see him repeatedley present a B&W slide from 1989 showing an L-form in a cell...and then a Microscopic video of an L-form busting out a cell.

If it is that easy why can we not see these critters in all Autoimmune Diseased people...easy to prove. Yet this is where Marshall stops with his presentation as he quickly moves on...

In short the evidence has not been presented..it sounds so easy though..why have we not seen it yet...I offer my blood to you Marshall, show me the critters !

Antibiotics are being tried for all/any Autoimmune Disease all the time..there are many differing Antibiotic protocols that people try..some have success some dont..it does appear that not all Autoimmune Diseases are same...yet its the same with Marshall's Protocol not all get better.


One thing I am sure (personal experience) is that
A) Genetics give you a higher predisosition to acquiring disease.
B) Viruses - Pathogens - Diet - Environmental are the triggers.
C) Your Metabolism health is key, as well as your male/female hormones.
D) Once you get on Autoimmune Disease you are more likely to acquire more.
E) Even restting the immune system with killer drugs does not cure you, it only gives remission.
(this gives perhaps some credance to the thought that critters are still in you ?!)
F) If Marshall's Protocol was the answer, then all of his tryers would be fixed.

As for the VDR concept...Im not sold...as for many people with Autoimmune Disease it follows that they are defficient in Vit D.

All good stuff though...Id like to see these arguments push Marshall to get his finger out and start to produce some real evidence of L-Forms in AI Diseased people...we need a bit more regarding Vit D and disease as well...despite the paper..its concluding remarks says it for me.

"Future studies in this area should help optimize the use of the vitamin D endocrine system in disease prevention."
That was one big study to read....I wonder if Marshall borrowed from it ?!

Hmm. I read up on this discussion. Interesting. The marshall theory can't be fully
denied currently. On the other hand, we have no idea which is cause and which
effect in these correlations (high 1,25-D, low 25-D). High 1,25-D mitigates autoimmune action.

A great paper regarding Vitamin D to read would be the this one (free full text available):
Dusso, A.S. et al. (2005): Vitamin D. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 289:F8-F28.
http://ajprenal.phys...t/full/289/1/F8

Evaluating this paper, it might be that the marshall protocoll is right, however it might also
well be that if the observed high 1,25-D is relevant at all, it may be a beneficial response
to autoimmunity and intracellular infection which the body uses to fight these.

A (seeming?) contradiction of VDR agonism in chronic intranuclear/intracellular infection would
be that chronic infections shortem telomeres, whereas high Vitamin D is known to be associated with
longer telomeres: http://ouroboros.wor...tens-telomeres/

In general, I think exploring the applications of low-dose antibiotics could be very interesting,
also potentially for reversing damage to an aged immune system due to chronic infection. For all
we know, one possibility for cause-and-effect may even be that low-dose antibiotics directly affect
the diseased immune system, and thus might improve Th1/Th2 response in autoimmunity.

Future ongoing research about epidemology and effects of intranuclear "Th1 pathogens" may be interesting
though, IMO this may prove very relevant to aging. In conclusion, for people without confirmed autoimmunity
it doesn't make too much sense to explore the protocol. For with autoimmunity (other than maybe sarcoidosis),
as long as this is not established or discarded, it may be wiser to use natural antibiotics like garlic, green tea,
propolis, olive leaf and others against potential chronic infections. And to shift Th1/Th2 using established supplements:

http://www.citeulike...article/3731349 (Great free paper about Th1/Th2 balance)

Several nutrients and hormones measurably influence Th1/Th2 balance, including plant sterols/sterolins, melatonin, probiotics, progesterone, and the minerals selenium and zinc. The long-chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) significantly benefit diverse inflammatory and autoimmune conditions without any specific Th1/Th2 effect. Th1/Th2-based immunotherapies, e.g., T-cell receptor (TCR) peptides and interleukin-4 (IL-4) injections, have produced mixed results to date.

Edited by youandme, 06 January 2009 - 12:16 PM.

[FunkOdyssey]

Until the first person with an Autoimmune Disease is cured we will not find out who is right.

Well stop the presses, because I successfully cured my mother of Sjogren's Syndrome with 5000iu of Vitamin D. Her sjogren's antibodies dropped to zero about six months after beginning supplementation and have stayed there since. No more Sjogren's.

Of course, she is still very sick, because she actually had Lyme Disease and the autoimmunity was just a downstream consequence as it so often is -- however, she is improving now that she is on antibiotic therapy. In my opinion autoimmunity is usually a red herring.

[youandme]

Hey Funk

Thanks for sharing the good news .. your mum

Ive Sjogrens yet Im seronegative as are many others.
Hope you dont mind me asking a couple o questions, please can you tell me
Was your mum found to be defficient in D ?
Did she get rid of the AB's by Vit D alone or in combo with AB's

Not all do better on AB's..Im one of those unfortunately...yet I still wonder if somehow bugs are still there..

Why cant we find evidence of the pathogen from biopsies ? Has anyone searched for evidence.?
Electron Microscope ? Quantifying DNA ?

Either that or molecular mimicry sounds plausible..whereby the pathogen comes into the body..looks like one of our genes..the immune system gets confused..stays confused.?

Again surely we can test this over and over..growing celllines from ones own skin is now possible..so we should be able to replay disease/cause over and over again and watch what happens as the cells get disease.


Cheers

Until the first person with an Autoimmune Disease is cured we will not find out who is right.

Well stop the presses, because I successfully cured my mother of Sjogren's Syndrome with 5000iu of Vitamin D. Her sjogren's antibodies dropped to zero about six months after beginning supplementation and have stayed there since. No more Sjogren's.

Of course, she is still very sick, because she actually had Lyme Disease and the autoimmunity was just a downstream consequence as it so often is -- however, she is improving now that she is on antibiotic therapy. In my opinion autoimmunity is usually a red herring.