281 replies to this topic

[rwac]

I was doing research to decide if I should take vitamin K2 and found that K2 is synthesized from Vitamin K1 by the bacteria that line the gastrointestinal tract. So I wonder if it's enough to just eat foods with vitamin K1 and take probiotics?

I don't know if you can absorb K2 from the GI tract.

There was a study on osteoporosis in Japan where K2 had effects on bone density that K1 didn't.

[malbecman]

The popular press version:

Vitamin D may protect people -- especially those with asthma and other chronic lung conditions -- from colds and other respiratory tract infections, according to the largest study to date to look at the link.
People with low blood levels of vitamin D were more likely to have had a recent cold.
Unlike other vitamins, a deficiency of vitamin D (which is known as the sunshine vitamin because sun exposure triggers production in the body) is quite common in the United States -- particularly in winter.
At least 50 percent of people in the new study, which included nearly 19,000 people 12 and older, had levels that suggested less-than-optimal protection against respiratory tract infections, according to the report in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
"People think that if they have a good, balanced diet that they will get enough vitamin D, and that's actually not true," said Dr. Michal Melamed, an assistant professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. "Unless you eat a lot of fish and drink a lot of milk, you can't get enough vitamin D from diet."
In the study, Dr. Adit Ginde of the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine and colleagues at Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital Boston found that people who had low blood levels of vitamin D were more likely to report having had a recent cold than those with higher amounts. What's more, the risk of a recent cold or other respiratory infection seemed to rise as vitamin D levels dropped. Overall, 24 percent of people with the lowest levels (under 10 ng/ml) had had a recent cold, compared with 20 percent of those with slightly higher levels (10 to 29 ng/ml) and 17 percent of those with the highest levels (30 ng/ml or more). The link was even stronger in people with asthma, who had about six-fold greater risk of colds with low vitamin D, and in those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, who had a two- to three-fold greater risk.

and the original study:

Arch Intern Med. 2009 Feb 23;169(4):384-90.
Association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d level and upper respiratory tract infection in the third national health and nutrition examination survey.
Ginde AA, Mansbach JM, Camargo CA Jr. Emergency Medicine Network, Massachusetts General Hospital, 326 Cambridge St, Ste 410, Boston, MA 02114. ccamargo@partners.org.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest a role for vitamin D in innate immunity, including the prevention of respiratory tract infections (RTIs). We hypothesize that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels are inversely associated with self-reported recent upper RTI (URTI). METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a probability survey of the US population conducted between 1988 and 1994. We examined the association between 25(OH)D level and recent URTI in 18 883 participants 12 years and older. The analysis adjusted for demographics and clinical factors (season, body mass index, smoking history, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). RESULTS: The median serum 25(OH)D level was 29 ng/mL (to convert to nanomoles per liter, multiply by 2.496) (interquartile range, 21-37 ng/mL), and 19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18%-20%) of participants reported a recent URTI. Recent URTI was reported by 24% of participants with 25(OH)D levels less than 10 ng/mL, by 20% with levels of 10 to less than 30 ng/mL, and by 17% with levels of 30 ng/mL or more (P < .001). Even after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, lower 25(OH)D levels were independently associated with recent URTI (compared with 25[OH]D levels of >/=30 ng/mL: odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.84 for <10 ng/mL and 1.24; 1.07-1.43 for 10 to <30 ng/mL). The association between 25(OH)D level and URTI seemed to be stronger in individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 5.67 and 2.26, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Serum 25(OH)D levels are inversely associated with recent URTI. This association may be stronger in those with respiratory tract diseases. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the effects of vitamin D supplementation on RTI.

PMID: 19237723

[krillin]

I was doing research to decide if I should take vitamin K2 and found that K2 is synthesized from Vitamin K1 by the bacteria that line the gastrointestinal tract. So I wonder if it's enough to just eat foods with vitamin K1 and take probiotics?

The bacteria live downstream from the absorption sites. Non-ruminants get around this problem either by eating K2 or by, um, coprophagy.

[StrangeAeons]

I was doing research to decide if I should take vitamin K2 and found that K2 is synthesized from Vitamin K1 by the bacteria that line the gastrointestinal tract. So I wonder if it's enough to just eat foods with vitamin K1 and take probiotics?

The bacteria live downstream from the absorption sites. Non-ruminants get around this problem either by eating K2 or by, um, coprophagy.

Glorious; so you trade in arterial calcification and low bone density for giardia and hepatitis
I hope that's not where my LEF Super K gets it.

[pycnogenol]

Check out this very informative video about vitamin D and diabetes

Vitamin D and Diabetes: Can We Prevent it?



"Frank Garland, PhD, discusses vitamin D and the opportunity for prevention of diabetes. "

Please Note: the running time is 48 minutes.

Edited by pycnogenol, 27 February 2009 - 02:31 PM.

[aikikai]

I eat 2000 IU vitamin D everyday (+ other supplements) and I can't personally say that if fights of any colds. I am struggling with a chronic cold (a light one) since several months, but no bigger effect is seen with vitamin D.

[makoss]

I eat 2000 IU vitamin D everyday (+ other supplements) and I can't personally say that if fights of any colds. I am struggling with a chronic cold (a light one) since several months, but no bigger effect is seen with vitamin D.

Have you taken a vitamin D blood test? Even though you're taking 2000 iu, your blood levels may stilll be too low to ward off colds or/infections. You may have to double or triple your dosage depending on your vitamin D blood level. I take 4000 iu daily and my levels flucuate between 50-65 ng ml.

[nancyd]

I eat 2000 IU vitamin D everyday (+ other supplements) and I can't personally say that if fights of any colds. I am struggling with a chronic cold (a light one) since several months, but no bigger effect is seen with vitamin D.

I don't think how many colds a person gets is a good indicator of vitamin D deficiency. (Of course I'm not saying it's not linked.) When the number for my test was 4 I had not had a cold in years. At the time I worked with this woman whom was coming to work with a cold/high fever often and getting in my space. Anyway I didn't get sick the entire time. After my second test when my D level was high I got a cold.

Edited by nancyd, 01 March 2009 - 07:40 PM.

[kismet]

I eat 2000 IU vitamin D everyday (+ other supplements) and I can't personally say that if fights of any colds. I am struggling with a chronic cold (a light one) since several months, but no bigger effect is seen with vitamin D.

I don't think how many colds a person gets is a good indicator of vitamin D deficiency. (Of course I'm not saying it's not linked.) When the number for my test was 4 I had not had a cold in years. At the time I worked with this woman whom was coming to work with a cold/high fever often and getting in my space. Anyway I didn't get sick the entire time. After my second test when my D level was high I got a cold.

Obviously it is not a good indicator because it is completely unscientific. Personal anecdotes are bordering on "worthless", because of huge individual variability. Although, lots of personal anecdotes taken together have some merit (e.g. 8 out of 10 people saying that vitamin D helped them). We need interventional studies and indeed we have at least one such study (even though vitamin D influence on colds was a secondary outcome IIRC).
Read Cannell's "Vitamin D in clinical practise" or his influenza papers, great read.

Edited by kismet, 01 March 2009 - 08:28 PM.

[TianZi]

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 suppose in the minds of the Marshall devotees there must also be a conspiracy aimed at causing us to get more, rather than less, unprotected sunlight. I am not sure who benefits financially from that. Certainly cosmetic and other companies selling sun screen products profit from persuading people to use their products daily before ANY sun exposure.

[aikikai]

I have been reading that high doses of vitamin-D can cause calcification in the kidneys and the lungs. Does someone know at what doses, and how to avoid the risk if taking higher doses (over RDI)?

[FunkOdyssey]

Yes, take sufficient vitamin K2. Vitamins A, D, and K have to be balanced for optimal health, they interact heavily with each other and we are learning that what used to look like toxicity of one of those vitamins turns out to actually be a relative deficiency of another.

[kismet]

Does someone know at what doses

No one does. We can make an educated guess, though. Stay below 80ng/ml, or even better stay slightly below 50ng/ml as long as there are no studies proving 50ng/ml+ to be benefical for anything. Read my last post there to see the rationale for those cut-offs: http://www.imminst.o...o...60&start=60
I second the vitamin K2. We can savely assume that at the correct dose vitamin D will actually prevent tissue calcification.

Edited by kismet, 10 March 2009 - 05:15 PM.

[RoadToAwe]

Yes, take sufficient vitamin K2. Vitamins A, D, and K have to be balanced for optimal health, they interact heavily with each other and we are learning that what used to look like toxicity of one of those vitamins turns out to actually be a relative deficiency of another.

The relative deficiency part - Any scientific studies that prove this?  

[FunkOdyssey]

http://www.westonapr...mina-osteo.html

Happy reading (set aside an hour or two).

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 10 March 2009 - 07:54 PM.

[RoadToAwe]

I have already read the article by Chris Masterjohn. His hypothesis that Vitamin D protects against Vitamin A is a wild extrapolation of findings of some small studies.

I am not aware of any good quality human studies that involved a combination of high vitamin A and high Vitamin D. There was one osteoporosis study where reasearchers hypothesized that high Vitamin D dosage could prevent bone damaging effects of Vitamin A. But the mechanism they proposed are not relevant for other damaging effects of high vitamin A like teratogenecity and hepatotoxicity.

[FunkOdyssey]

I have already read the article by Chris Masterjohn. His hypothesis that Vitamin D protects against Vitamin A is a wild extrapolation of findings of some small studies.

I am not aware of any good quality human studies that involved a combination of high vitamin A and high Vitamin D. There was one osteoporosis study where reasearchers hypothesized that high Vitamin D dosage could prevent bone damaging effects of Vitamin A. But the mechanism they proposed are not relevant for other damaging effects of high vitamin A like teratogenecity and hepatotoxicity.

I guess we'll have to disagree about the "wildness" of the extrapolation. I haven't seen any human studies that involved a combination of high vitamin A and high vitamin D either. I pointed that out earlier today in the other thread about vitamin D.

[kismet]

I have already read the article by Chris Masterjohn. His hypothesis that Vitamin D protects against Vitamin A is a wild extrapolation of findings of some small studies.

The hypothesis may be wrong after all, but in no way was it a "wild extrapolation", it must be a scientifically sound hypothesis: as it was repeatedly mentioned and addressed in some huge publications and journals.
Recently a cancer paper based on the NHANES III addressed the question. They did not find retinol to influence vitamin D metabolism and cancer incidence, though. The paper, however, is interesting in many regards, mostly because they did not show a protective effect of vitamin D on total cancer mortality (only colorectal and possibly breast cancer). I'm not sure if one can completely trust their results, I'd at least expect reduced mortality from lung cancer and non-hodgkin's lymphoma; rather short follow-up and low cancer incidence may explain the weak associations found. This is is the same cohort were the benefits of vitamin D on all-cause mortality were demonstrated (mostly reduced diabetes and CVD).

"The relationship between 25(OH)D (whether treated as a continuous or categorical variable) and total cancer mortality was not modified by serum retinol (in two categories, split at the median) (test of interaction, P = .13 and P = .41, respectively). There was also no interaction between 25(OH)D and serum retinol for colorectal cancer mortality ( P = .76, P = .91)." [1]

Vitamin D and K both act on MGP, vitamin D increases MGP transcription, while vitamin K is necessary for complete activation (i.e. carboxylation). There is one interventional study combining both, but they only used 400IU of vitamin D.

[1] Prospective study of serum vitamin D and cancer mortality in the United States.
Freedman DM, Looker AC, Chang SC, Graubard BI.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Nov 7;99(21):1594-602. Epub 2007 Oct 30.

[RoadToAwe]

A more accurate hypothesis would be something like - Vitamin D could protect against high Vitamin A induced bone loss. There is reason to believe this because of Vitamin A competing with Vitamin D. But as I said earlier you cannot extrapolate this to other effects of Vitamin A like Teratogenecity and Hepatotoxicity.

What I am trying to say is a statement like "Vitamin D Protects Against the Toxicity of Vitamin A" is potentially misleading since it ignores other aspects of Vitamin A toxicity.

[Steve_86]

Currently I am taking 5000iu D3 + 90mcg K2 (as MK7) + Ortho-Core randomly (3-6 caps a day). Is this safe?
Do I need to supplement Vitamin E (AOR Total E) or Vit A with the Vit D3?

I'm getting a little confused here :(

Edited by Steve_86, 11 March 2009 - 09:27 AM.

[kismet]

A more accurate hypothesis would be something like - Vitamin D could protect against high Vitamin A induced bone loss. There is reason to believe this because of Vitamin A competing with Vitamin D. But as I said earlier you cannot extrapolate this to other effects of Vitamin A like Teratogenecity and Hepatotoxicity.

What I am trying to say is a statement like "Vitamin D Protects Against the Toxicity of Vitamin A" is potentially misleading since it ignores other aspects of Vitamin A toxicity.

I thought we are talking about the hypothesis: "Vitamin A reduces the efficacy/benefits of vitamin D (possibly via some receptor interaction)", that's the one that was addressed in the study I mentioned. Whether we can reverse it and apply it to all vitamin A side-effects is another issue.
If it was a receptor interaction extrapolating it to other organ systems is not that far off. Our ability to generate hypotheses, without the potential to mislead, is limited anyway (it's actually zero). The nature of a hypothesis is such that it is unproven to begin with.

Currently I am taking 5000iu D3 + 90mcg K2 (as MK7) + Ortho-Core randomly (3-6 caps a day). Is this safe?
Do I need to supplement Vitamin E (AOR Total E) or Vit A with the Vit D3?

I'm getting a little confused here :(

I think 5k IU is way too much without blood tests. Taking orthocore randomly is also not particularly safe or a particularly well thought out plan. I think you should reduce the orthocore to 2-3 caps and cut your vitamin D intake in half if you don't want to test your 25(OH)D levels (only way to know if your levels are optimal ~40-45ng/ml; 32-50ng/ml is a safe range). I wouldn't take any vitamin E and A for simplicity's sake and because I'm not very impressed by the study data.

Edited by kismet, 11 March 2009 - 10:26 AM.

[FunkOdyssey]

I think 5k IU is way too much without blood tests. Taking orthocore randomly is also not particularly safe or a particularly well thought out plan. I think you should reduce the orthocore to 2-3 caps and cut your vitamin D intake in half if you don't want to test your 25(OH)D levels (only way to know if your levels are optimal ~40-45ng/ml; 32-50ng/ml is a safe range). I wouldn't take any vitamin E and A for simplicity's sake and because I'm not very impressed by the study data.

I agree that 5000iu is too high without testing, the most I think you can safely recommend taking without testing is 2000iu. I disagree that taking ortho-core randomly is unsafe though, what is the basis for that? That's basically the way nutrients are obtained by the vast majority of the population: periods of poor nutrition interspersed with bursts of accidently good nutrition. You could probably draw some paleolithic parallels too. Not that this is by any means ideal, I just don't see the "unsafe" in it.

[caston]

It may be that it's vastly different for everyone depending on their environment, living habits, ethnicity, genome, proteinome, microbiome and so on.

Trevor Marshall lives in Perth and works at Murdoch uni I believe. I might ring my enterprise club to see they can try to get him in one evening to present a talk.

Edited by caston, 11 March 2009 - 03:28 PM.

[kismet]

I agree that 5000iu is too high without testing, the most I think you can safely recommend taking without testing is 2000iu. I disagree that taking ortho-core randomly is unsafe though, what is the basis for that?

Leaving the amount to chance is not the problem in itself, the issue is that 6 caps of orthocore (=full dose) are probably too much for non-calorie restricted life extensionists. I think most don't take the full dose (so it's some sort of "consensus" anyway), MR always reminds to never take a full dose of a multi and I'm weary of the high dose folic acid. At best I believe the full dose to be a waste of money and at worst it could be detrimental to long term health, because a good diet is loaded with folic acid and many nutrients anyway. Random choice between 1-3 caps, why not?

You mean a sunday evening interview with Trevor Marshall? That'd be nice, but I hope we can balance the fringe scientific view with some more mainstream science (interview Holick, Cannell, Hollis, Vieth, Heaney, or some other vitamin D researchers)

Edited by kismet, 11 March 2009 - 04:11 PM.

[caston]

You mean a sunday evening interview with Trevor Marshall? That'd be nice, but I hope we can balance the fringe scientific view with some more mainstream science (interview Holick, Cannell, Hollis, Vieth, Heaney, or some other vitamin D researchers)

More likely we could get in someone like Amy Proal http://bacteriality.com/

I was talking about my local enterprise club though.. although having him give a talk there might not help imminst I might be able to throw in a couple of questions that people suggest.

I think the whole "aging is mostly caused by bacteria meme" does deserve very serious consideration and fiercely competitive debate even if it does turn out that the Marshall supporters are raping it for their own hidden motives. I'm not suggesting they are and that statement was purely hypothetical.

It is possible that pharmaceuticals are spreading counterfeit information but i'm sure so are some supplement suppliers. The level of sophistication put into counterfeiting makes something harder to distinguish from genuine scientific credibility. It is possible that even some accepted mainstream science is counterfiet. Some people even believe fiat money to be counterfeit.

Perhaps bacteria take over peoples cognitive function and make them industrially manufacture and promote D for the proliferation of their bacterial species.

I'd love to get to the bottom of this and make everything as open as possible. Health before wealth. Make love not war. Open source, develop and network as much as possible and so on.

Well I found the following discussion of the Marshall protocol. http://heartscanblog...airy-tales.html

it's interesting reading and has some people arguing for and against...

Edited by caston, 12 March 2009 - 02:33 PM.

[RoadToAwe]

A more accurate hypothesis would be something like - Vitamin D could protect against high Vitamin A induced bone loss. There is reason to believe this because of Vitamin A competing with Vitamin D. But as I said earlier you cannot extrapolate this to other effects of Vitamin A like Teratogenecity and Hepatotoxicity.

What I am trying to say is a statement like "Vitamin D Protects Against the Toxicity of Vitamin A" is potentially misleading since it ignores other aspects of Vitamin A toxicity.

I thought we are talking about the hypothesis: "Vitamin A reduces the efficacy/benefits of vitamin D (possibly via some receptor interaction)", that's the one that was addressed in the study I mentioned. Whether we can reverse it and apply it to all vitamin A side-effects is another issue.
If it was a receptor interaction extrapolating it to other organ systems is not that far off. Our ability to generate hypotheses, without the potential to mislead, is limited anyway (it's actually zero). The nature of a hypothesis is such that it is unproven to begin with.

The following is only a rat study. But it made me question the hypothesis that bone resorption of retinoids may be due to relative Vitamin D deficiency.


Bone Resorption Activity of All-trans Retinoic Acid Is Independent of Vitamin D in Rats

http://jn.nutrition..../full/133/3/777

[TheLion]

Hi, all. My first post.

I've been following the MP and vitamin D for some time. Have a few things to offer that I didn't see mentioned earlier regarding the validity of the exogenous D displacing and deactivating the VDR theory presented by Marshall. My apologies in advance if this info. has already been posted.

The latter quote provides a detailed explanation as to why the in-silico (not even in-vivo) theory presented by Marshall that 25OHD displaces and deactivates the VDR in a dose dependent manner is proposed to be non-applicable in-vivo. Being a D supplementor myself, I have my own personal reasons why I don't believe that exogenous D3 binds and deactivates the VDR based on response to high dose supplementation. Hope this adds to the portfolio of information that moves toward further dispelling this specific claim by the MP camp (that exogenous D displaces and deactivates the VDR).

Wikipedia Bio: Trevor Marshall - Discussion

Myself being a molecular biologist and competent in the use of molecular dynamics simulations it is apparent that Mr. Marshall's work is incorrect and he consistently refuses to provide any parameters used in his simulations. See comments on: http://precedings.na...ts/52/version/1

http://precedings.na...s/164/version/1

PS. Nature precedings is Non-peer reviewed

The article says "Marshall developed sarcoidosis in the seventies and pursued a degree in biomedicine". He received a degree in Electrical Engineering, the statement that he pursued a degree in biomedicine does not add to the article and is missleading. Jzayner—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.11.172 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an M.D. whose attention was drawn to Trevor Marshall recently. Going to his website, he appears to be an intelligent, somewhat charismatic person who has sold some interesting ideas to a bunch of chronic disease sufferers and in the process has created the usual cult of hopeful pseudoscientists who are drawn to such efforts. There are a few interesting ideas presented there, and in fairness I suspect he may even be onto a few things with respect to sarcoidosis and maybe one or two other conditions that actually are exacerbated by high levels of D/calcium. Otherwise, it's apparent that there's a lot of sloppiness, speculation, and spin, and frankly I find many of their claims with respect to Vitamin D's harmfulness to be not only unsubstantiated but downright scary and having the potential to do great harm--particularly since he/they have a paucity of evidence for their positions and seem to disdain a great many actual clinical research studies that contradict their thesis that Vitamin D supplementation is generally bad. (A greater value is apparently placed on his 'in silico experiments'. That smacks of just a wee bit of hubris in my book.) 11 December 2007

His topics are deep (seeing as how they deal with biochemistry and molecular biology on a level that's too complex to be properly followed by any who aren't versed in those subjects), but despite the richness of detail of his arguments there are some important errors. For any of his followers who happen to be reading this, one such example would be talking about binding constants and the measured competitive antagonism of calcidiol (aka 25-OHD) on the VDR. Such antagonism may be measurable in vitro, but in vivo it's actually irrelevant. As Marshall's followers all well know, VDRs are NUCLEAR receptors, and as such they aren't directly exposed to circulating (plasma) calcidiol. In the plasma, calcidiol is bound to DBP (D binding protein) and (to a much lesser extent) albumin. Following transport through the plasma, DBP and calcidiol in turn bind to megalin proteins that are expressed on some cell surfaces, which binding in turn triggers clathrin to induce endocytosis. Following endocytosis, calcidiol is released from DBP into the cytoplasm, where it is immediately bound to hsc70 (a constitutively expressed chaperone protein that binds many things, including other D-metabolites such as calcitriol). From there, different metabolites of D appear to be selectively directed to specific intracellular organelles. Most relevantly, hsc70-bound calcitriol (aka 1,25(OH)2D, aka the "active D metabolite") has a higher binding affinity to a nuclear chaperone called BAG-1 than hsc70-bound calcidiol does (see http://jme.endocrino...pe2=tf_ipsecsha). This is important because since BAG-1 guides D-metabolites to the VDR, it means that high calcidiol levels won't significantly interfere with VDR binding of calcitriol--and thus Marshall's "in silico"-supported hypothesis that exogenous Vitamin D supplementation interferes with VDR activation turns out to be erroneous. (For his fans, I also don't know what the significance of this VDR-presenting mechanism might be with regard to Marshall's proposed use of Benicar as an artificial VDR agonist. It might or might not be relevant.)

Anyway, history may yet vindicate some of Marshall's other ideas and prove me wrong about him, but for now I see every indication that this guy is well-meaning but dangerously overconfident about the veracity of his theories. If I'm right, then unless/until such theories are thoroughly discredited he will remain an intelligent and articulate person who can convince a lot of other people to join him in his misguided crusade to get the "truth" out about the dangers of Vitamin D. For his fellow co-sufferers of sarcoidosis (and possibly those few other rare conditions exacerbated by high calcium levels) this might be forgivable. For the other 99+% of us, such efforts may have potentially grave consequences. If the thrust of the emerging body of peer-reviewed Vitamin D research is to be believed, a billion people on this planet currently suffer from Vitamin D deficiency, and many of those will enjoy longer and much healthier lives (less cancer, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, possibly even asthma and depression) as a result of getting proper Vitamin D3 supplementation. With that at stake, I'd just as soon let people who look up Trevor Marshall know that his ideas are not necessarily as well-respected within the mainstream scientific community as some people here might suggest. He certainly deserves to have a bio, but his claims remain *quite* controversial. Slowgenius (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited by TheLion, 13 March 2009 - 11:59 PM.

[caston]

A good person to compare and contrast Marshall's views with is the views of Jon Barron.

http://www.google.co...&...earch&meta=

http://www.jonbarron...y_a_silent.html



http://www.google.co...&...earch&meta=

http://www.jonbarron.../05-01-2004.php

Something like the above "immune tonic" could give a general idea of a possible non-pharma anti-bacterial / anti-fungal regimen

He also seems to be very anti- antibiotics but pro probiotics.

Especially read this page:

http://www.jonbarron.../12-05-2005.php

I don't know how much scientific credibility to give it but it seems a much better idea than cycling antibiotics.

Another possible thing I like to suggest is using bacteriophages to fight bacteria this is known as phage therapy. If you get in before the person has bacterial infections you could even immunise against them.

So while there is still disagreement over vitamin D let individuals chose their own lifestyle / vitamin D habits and provide them with the ability to safely control and destroy bacterial and fungal infections.

If aging is largely caused by chronic bacteria you need to remember we have an aging population. This is so politically incorrect it's not funny but that means that very large proportion of the population will be old people that are chronically infected with bacteria. If there's no pension or super left for them then they are forced to remain in the workplace. Many of them will be working in food production which could cause all kinds of health issues.

So imagine a world where doctors routinely put their patients on the MP or something very similar. Possibly this is only a hop, step and a jump away from current realities.

It may be more about epidemiology than it is about care for the patient and this is so wrong I don't know to begin.

The MP is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. We need to help put forward an alternative to enable people and doctors to do the right thing.


The lion:

that's a good post. *goes to pop some vitamin D3*

Edited by caston, 15 March 2009 - 05:43 AM.

[TheLion]

Thanks, I'm glad you found it beneficial.

[kismet]

Anyone got access to the Am J Clin Nutr?
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Mar;89(3):719-27. Epub 2009 Jan 28.
Dietary reference intakes for vitamin D: justification for a review of the 1997 values.
Yetley EA, Brulé D, Cheney MC, Davis CD, Esslinger KA, Fischer PW, Friedl KE, Greene-Finestone LS, Guenther PM, Klurfeld DM, L'Abbe MR, McMurry KY, Starke-Reed PE, Trumbo PR.
"...Members of the working group concluded that significant new and relevant research was available for reviewing the existing DRIs for vitamin D while leaving the decision of whether the new research will result in changes to the current DRIs to a future IOM-convened DRI committee."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19176741

What does that mean? They are not going to change the DRIs?

Edited by kismet, 15 March 2009 - 10:32 PM.