Medicalnewstoday.com had an article about the dangers of taking Vit D supplements and how they make people with immune disorders sicker. I spent several hours reading more on this topic and am now trying to decide whether to continue with my D regimen. I didn't post the article because I knew the Vit D lovers would impale me on a pole.
I think I found it... and now to get impaled.
I don't wish to impale anyone either as I believe that a scientific based discussion benefits all of us. I read the article, New Research Challenges Concept Of Vitamin D Deficiency
. What I found interesting is that it seemed to be linking the prevalence of many chronic diseases to an apparent lack of efficacy in vitamin D supplementation.
Molecular biology is now forcing us to re-think the idea that a low measured value of vitamin D means we simply must add more to our diet. Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse.
Now I personally have never heard of a suposed benefit of vitamin D on obesity (in my opinion, people should eat less, more healthily, and get more exercise). But this statement did get me interested enough to persue the investigation further. At the bottom of the article are some links to more information. One is a link to a paper published in the journal Bioessays
. I wasn't familiar with the journal, but it appears to be something like the Medical Hypotheses journal. A description of the journal
BioEssays is a review-and-discussion journal publishing news, reviews and commentaries in contemporary biology that have a molecular, genetic, cellular, or physiological dimension. The journal is divided into two main sections, Reviews and Features. The Reviews consists of both short articles highlighting issues of interest and broader review articles that have a wider scope and attempt to give rounded pictures of particular subject areas. The Features focus on subjects of special interest, including novel hypotheses, discussions of difficult issues in biology, presentations of molecular or cellular model systems, specific advances in genomics, first-hand accounts of discoveries of importance, or subjects in applied biological science, particularly medicine. What's New Articles, commentaries, meeting reports, book reviews, and a page of extracts of stories in the news complete the coverage provided by BioEssays. The journal's insightful analysis makes it essential reading for professional researchers, as well as an invaluable tool for classroom instruction.
... which doesn't sound too bad but it still leaves room for articles which might contain more hypothesis than data. My local research university does not subscribe to BioEssays so I cannot access the full content to read T. G. Marshall's paper. However, the other link http://autoimmunityresearch.org/
goes to T. G. Marshall's site which appears to be promoting the "Marshall Protocol" which sounds similar in some ways to the antibiotic protocol used by some members of ThisIsMS. I then found this document
which describes the "Phase I" treatment plan of the Marshall Protocol. In it, I found the following passage confusing...
If the level of 1,25-D is elevated (above 45pg/ml) and/or the 25-D depressed (below 20ng/ml), a Th1 infection should be suspected. Remember, however, that as the level of 25-D rises above 20ng/ml
(usually due to artificial supplementation) it is providing an mmunosuppressive action. High levels of 1,25-D are often not evident until the 25-D drops to a therapeutic level (under 15ng/ml). If D-metabolites
tests do not indicate Th1 inflammation but clinical observation suggests Th1 inflammation, the MP may be used as a therapeutic probe.
...which seems to be saying that vitamin D is a problem and an indicator of a Th1 infection if it is either too high or too low.
Anyways, I have yet to come to a conclusion on the benefits, or lack thereof, of the Marshall Protocol. Perhaps people more familiar with long term antibiotic use could offer some comments on it. I did find this statement
from T. G. Marshall with regards to a lipid he calls capnine...
I had thought of making a big song and dance and trying to persuade a journal to publish this stuff. But that would be a complete waste of our time. At this point we have to start focusing on 'saving the world' not on being ''first to publish."
... and I can only say that I've never thought publishing data to be a waste of time. If the data from a study is good, and other people can reproduce it in the case of controversial or new research, then it should be published so that the scientific community can evaluate it. But then, that's just my personal view. Hmmm. I just noticed that there were several articles
published on capnine back in the 1980's and the full papers are freely available through PubMed.