from page 7 of "mega D" under "regimens":
CureOrBust
Family Elder
Joined: Jul 28, 2005
Posts: 956
Location: Sydney, Australia
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:50 pm
Quote:
Vitamin D deficiency, long interpreted as a cause of disease, is more likely the result of the disease process, and increasing intake of vitamin D often makes the disease worse. "Dysregulation of vitamin D has been observed in many chronic diseases, including many thought to be autoimmune," said J.C. Waterhouse, Ph.D., lead author of a book chapter on vitamin D and chronic disease (2). "We have found that vitamin D supplementation, even at levels many consider desirable, interferes with recovery in these patients."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94642.php
Although, the name "Marshal" (in other parts of the article) is worth a second check...
and I just did. Trevor Marshal is the same name as the guy pushin the Marshal Protocol. Apply salt liberally.
CureOrBust
Family Elder
Joined: Jul 28, 2005
Posts: 956
Location: Sydney, Australia
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:57 pm
Vitamin D2 Is As Effective As Vitamin D3 In Maintaining Concentrations Of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D
Quote:
Researchers from Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM) have found that vitamin D2 is equally as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining 25-hydroxyvitamin D status. The study appears online in the December 2007 issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/92952.php
jimmylegs
Family Elder
Joined: Mar 12, 2006
Posts: 1121
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:57 am
an interesting set of contradictions, but that's what the process is about
would be a good idea to compare the methodologies out there that evaluate efficacy of D2 and D3 and arrive at opposite conclusions.
re: the disease process, i've heard that concept voiced regarding uric acid too, that levels are down as a result of the disease process. now i think it is a pretty ridiculous assertion when you talk about something like vitamin D, which clearly varies with sun exposure regardless of disease, and which is clearly supplemented through natural dietary ingestion, never mind pills. again, i'd be interested to see the methodologies that arrive at opposite results. and which form of ingested D was used when negative impacts were noted. without having seen specific research, i'm relatively confident that ingested D is pretty damned useful in the arctic.
Quote:
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
i'd suggest that could be because the supplementation amounts to date have merely been aimed at prevention of rickets, and have not been implemented in sufficient levels to deal with other chronic diseases.
at first glance, these articles appear to be pretty good at leaving out some inconvenient portions of the picture![/i]