And just because someone proposes a theory that is far different from the mainstream, does not mean that theory is correct.
true, absolutely true, but nor does it make it incorrect because all the other theories that differs from mainstream is different. strange sentence:P
but do you mean that the CWD arent necceserily the underlying mechanism in autoimmune disease? or do you mean that they are, but the rest of marshalls theory is incorrect?
what about the results? people are clearly recovering with the mp, some diagnoses more than others perhaps. but what separates the various antibiotic-protocols from the marshall protocol is the vitamin-D-issue, it has to be some sort of factor that makes more people recover from mp than for example wheldon? (or do i have it all wrong?) of course very few with ms have done the marshall protocol, so things might be different from those with sarc,lyme,cfs etc... but I must admit im pretty astounded by the research of marshall - to me it makes perfect sense after spending hours daily for months reading about it, so thats my point of view anyways..
partly the reason i got very into reading about the MP, was because the hypothesis that vitamin is good for autoimmune disease, didnt fit my situation. Ive been doing relatively well since i got dx'd with ms. and some time in august i measured my to find myself D-deficient and started taking lots of supplements, went from 18 to 45 nmol in a couple of moths. But what happened to me then was that i had my first attack in three years after following the guidelines for d-deficiency treatment. Of course it wouldnt neccesarily have to be the d-levels fault, but one has to wonder... and marshalls theory does seem to explain this, and just because its controversial doesnt make it incorrect..
the question of normalization or optimization in d-levels seems to me like an unproven theory - since the studies telling us this - have major methodological flaws, who has proven vitamin d to be a causative agent of MS? no one(the sunlight-theory doesnt add up considering sardinia) - and most of these studies doesnt measure 1,25. so how would we conclude it works in a good way? its just like interferons, given that vitamin-D(which is a steroid according to all sources) will have to be immunosupressive, and naturally lead to a short term-palliation, right? so if the underlying cause is bacteria, immunosuppression cant be a good idea. if marshall actually is on to something, it would be an even bigger problem encouraging people to excessive amounts of it(which i did)
anyways im putting my bets in for marshall, and i guess time will tell what works best...