I dont think this invalidates lyons point; i.e. that MS might cause the lower vitamin D readings. Intervening and increasing your vitamin D does not prove that your low vitamin D was NOT because of MS.Nick wrote:I believe your supposition could be refuted by a few lines of evidence but the simplest is that people with MS can easily increase their internal vitamin D levels with modest supplementation or UVR exposure.
I *think* the reason researchers think its the other way around, is because there are studies that have shown that people with MS have low vitamin D before they are diagnosed. But, I can see, maybe the low vit D is the first symptom.
Wonderfulworld wrote:Have there been any clinical trials of increasing vit d levels in pwms already? Or is it purely being studied in a preventative context?
A long while ago I found that rates of skin cancer tend to be lower in pwms, but can't rem where I located that piece of epidemiology............is this the payoff for increasing our vit d levels?
gwa wrote:Every study I have seen describes how Vit D in childhood MAY help prevent MS.
Since I have not seen any studies that conclude taking Vit D lessens or improves MS symptoms, I do not believe the vitamin does much, if anything, for people that already have the disease.
It is becoming more studied and may help in many other diseases, such as certain cancers, bone health, etc.
If I suddenly start walking better or have other symptoms vanish as a result of taking this vitamin, I will post about my results. Right now, my belief is that it is at best too little, too late for those of us already diagnosed.
It is a cheap pill to purchase and I do take about 2000 units a day, but do not see that I am better.
Lyon wrote:Hi Nick,
Numerous studies have shown that Vit D doesn't alter the course of MS. A closer look also shows that D only fits the geographic gradient if someone is very creative and wishful. Vitamin D preventing MS? I've read of lots of runners, bikers, mountain climbers and other health nuts who've gotten MS. Surely some of them took Vitamin D and other vitamins long before being diagnosed and it didn't help them.
Lyon wrote:I can't comment because I don't understand why you think a person with MS being able to raise their vitamin D to the proper level proves anything one way or the other.
Lyon wrote:As I'm sure you're aware, a diagnosis is only the point in which a doctor recognizes that you have MS and has absolutely no relationship to the actual inception of the MS disease process, which some researchers think might have began years or decades before presenting the signs that we recognize as MS
Lyon wrote:We know NOTHING about the underlying process leading to the permiable bbb..etc. It's foolish and most likely inaccurate to think or say that a process we know nothing about is capable or incapable of anything.
Lyon wrote:In reality, the entirety of what this study shows is that people who were later diagnosed with MS had lower levels of Vitamin D when they were tested at a younger age. Whether or not the MS disease process was already well underway at that point, we currently have no way of knowing. Don't get me wrong, I think this study is valid, provides meaningful information and the researchers worded it cautiously enough "If confirmed, this finding suggests that many cases of MS could be prevented by increasing vitamin D levels," Ascherio said. so it's only your interpretation of what the study implies that I disagree with.
Lyon wrote:First, that statement isn't saying that people with the highest levels didn't get MS but that they were 62% less likely than the people with the lowest Vit D levels. In this type of statistic, 62% less likely isn't a huge amount.
Lyon wrote:I've never seen anything which would justify that statement but if you provide it I would be grateful.
Users browsing this forum: Leonard