all things vitamin D

Discuss herbal therapies, vitamins and minerals, bee stings, etc. here

Postby Dixie_Amazon » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:51 am

jimmylegs wrote:dixie, that's 31 in ng/ml right? if that's your units then you're getting there, you're probably doing okay against osteoporosis at that level, 40 is the minimum for the immune sys. somewhere in here there's a post of mine that tells you how to calculate how long such and such dose will take to achieve such and such level, i'll have to see if i can find that again
Thanks for the info.

I just noticed that my endo switched form LabCorp to Quest. Not exactly reassuring!
Dennise

In diagnosis limbo.
User avatar
Dixie_Amazon
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA

Low Vitamin D levels

Postby Sharon » Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:35 pm

Interesting article from the January Townsend Report. I have quoted the "Conclusion" The full report can be accessed at the link below. Does anyone know what the "Marshall Protocol" is?

"Reversing Bacteria-Induced Vitamin D Receptor Dysfunction to Treat Chronic Disease: Why Vitamin D Supplementation Can Be Immunosuppressive, Potentially Leading to Pathogen Increase
by J.C. Waterhouse, PhD"

Conclusions
In silico and clinical data indicate that it is likely that associations between low vitamin D levels and chronic diseases are not evidence of deficiency, but result from a bacteria-induced blockage of the vitamin D receptor, leading to down-regulation of 25-D levels.1,6 According to this model of chronic disease, the short-term benefits sometimes perceived with high vitamin D levels are not due to correction of a vitamin D deficiency but due to suppression of bacterial killing and the immunopathological reaction that accompanies it. Data on reversal of a range of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases through an anti-bacterial protocol that includes vitamin D avoidance and a VDR agonist support this view.6,11

As discussed in detail above, it appears that increasing vitamin D supplementation is not the answer to these chronic diseases and is likely to be counter-productive. Other researchers have also raised concerns regarding vitamin D supplementation's potential adverse effects. Potential dangers include increased aortic calcification55,56 and brain lesions shown by MRI57 (also see above). In addition, some studies have even found evidence of increased danger from cancer in association with higher levels of vitamin D.32,33,39,40,42

Many have been attracted to the area of vitamin D research, recognizing interesting patterns and responses to supplementation that at first seemed to indicate widespread deficiency and, at the very least, indicate that vitamin D plays a powerful role in physiological processes. Great strides have been made in the last 30 years by scientists with a range of perspectives, and this has led to great excitement and a laudable commitment to use that knowledge to help patients.

However, new genomic and molecular research and the positive response to a new anti-bacterial protocol that involves the avoidance of vitamin D indicate the need for a reappraisal of the data gathered so far. It appears that attempting to raise 25-D through vitamin D supplementation or sun exposure is not the right approach to many, if not most, common chronic diseases. Instead, as discussed above, the evidence supports the effectiveness of a new protocol in restoring vitamin D receptor function, which appears to be a crucial factor in recovery.

One of the most commendable attributes of a truly objective scientist is the willingness to be open to changing long-held positions in the light of new evidence. It will be interesting to see how many have this all-too-rare quality, as research and discussion of vitamin D and the VDR continues. It is to be hoped that the tremendous healing potential likely to be available from eliminating the pathogens that cause chronic disease will inspire an especially high level of open-minded discussion and cooperation.

Caution: The immunopathological reactions from killing the high levels of bacteria that have accumulated in chronically ill patients can be severe and even life-threatening, and thus the Marshall Protocol must be done very carefully and slowly, according to the guidelines.7,96 For the sake of safety, antibiotics must be started at quite low dosages, starting with only one antibiotic. Health care providers are responsible for the use of this information. Neither Autoimmunity Research, Inc., nor the author assume responsibility for the use or misuse of this protocol.


http://www.townsendletter.com/Jan2009/vitaminD0109.htm


Sharon
User avatar
Sharon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby Sharon » Wed Jan 28, 2009 3:59 pm

I should have searched the forum for the Marshall Protocol -

http://www.thisisms.com/ftopic-704-0-da ... rasc-.html

I think the article from the the January Townsend Letter must be "new" old news - Anecdote and Happy Daddy were talking about it in 2005!

Sorry if I wasted anyone's time
:oops:
Sharon
User avatar
Sharon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby patientx » Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:06 pm

Ah, the Marshall Protocol. Hopefully Jimmylegs will see this and chime in. But I'll try to give a brief overview.

Basically, it was a regimen supposedly developed to treat Sarcoidosis, with the idea that it is due to a bacterial infection. Trevor Marshall argues that the bacteria somehow uses the vitamin D in your body to suppress the immune system, allowing it to proliferate. Thus, your serum 25 OH vitamin level will be low, while the 1,25 DOH vitamin D (the active form) will be elevated. So, the treatment involves antibiotics and avoiding sources of vitamin D (including sunlight).

There is an entire website devoted to all this. At one time I read through it and some other stuff I found on this protocol. And I came to the conclusion that it's a lot of bull. First, Marshall (even though he usually puts a Dr. in front of his name), is not a medical doctor, but a PHd in electrical engineering. Although, he does know a lot of medical and biology terminology. Second, as far as I know, his theories are based mainly on computer simulations - I don't think he has ever tried to verify them in a biology or chemistry lab. Other than on his website (and now the article you posted), I haven't seen anyone else subscribe to this theory.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby furch » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:47 am

hm, i feel the consensus on this forum is very hostile to the new ideas presented by trevor marshall.. he may not be an md, but so what?

fact is, marshall's hypothesis focuses on the l-form or CWD bacteria, which are there. In all of us. This is a whole dimention that hasnt been taken into consideration in any other "treatment" - and to neglect their existence would be pretty stupid, until one has proven beyond a doubt that these are harmless artifacts - which is highly unlikely.

Im in no way persistent on gloryfying the marshall protocol, but you have to admit the results of the ongoing study reflects marshall is definitly on to something. but of course it breaks from everything we've ever heard about vitamin d and the miraculous effects of sunlight so it requires one to forget all dogma and read and tri to understand the logic - IMO:)
User avatar
furch
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:35 am

i think, furch, that the problem is in distinguishing between too much d3 and too little, and ratios with and interactions between other biochemical components of a healthy, balanced immune system.
i think there is a big problem with discouraging people suffering from inflammatory conditions and low d3 levels from attempting to normalize or even optimize them.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby patientx » Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:06 am

fact is, marshall's hypothesis focuses on the l-form or CWD bacteria, which are there. In all of us. This is a whole dimention that hasnt been taken into consideration in any other "treatment" - and to neglect their existence would be pretty stupid, until one has proven beyond a doubt that these are harmless artifacts - which is highly unlikely.


No one is denying the existence of cell-wall deficient bacteria. I just don't think Marshall's theory holds any water. And, no real attempt had been made to prove it.

And just because someone proposes a theory that is far different from the mainstream, does not mean that theory is correct.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby furch » Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:36 pm

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... :D
User avatar
furch
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby patientx » Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:37 pm

Well, we're all responsible for our own health, and I wouldn't try to dissuade you from the using this protocol, if that's what you feel it best for you.

But to answer your question, I was saying that CWD bacteria exist; nobody disputes that. Whether they are the root cause of Sarcoidosis, I don't know. I know even less about Sarcoidosis than MS, but in the reading I've done, I don't think much evidence has been shown that bacteria is the cause. And what I was primarily questioning was Marshall's ideas about vitamin D.

I'm sorry to hear about your relapse. It does seem coincidental that it occurred just as you were getting your vitamin D levels up. But for me, I think I'm going to stick with the supplements. Much research has shown that vitamin D has important effects in turning off the inflammatory response. And researchers, like Cantorna, have been able to stop autoimmune diseases in animals using vitamin D supplementation. I know - these animal models are far from perfect models for humans, but, in my opinion, they are much better than a computer simulation.

I agree that a hypothesis shouldn't be dismissed just because it bucks a trend. But it shouldn't be readily accepted for that reason, either. And lots of theories seem to make sense, but just aren't right - the plum pudding model of the atom made sense at one time.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:45 pm

i certainly have not read the latest posts carefully but certainly can vouch that supplementing d3 without attention to related elements is not necessarily the wisest thing. i did have some issues with after hi-dose d3, but then a wise pharmacist turned me on to magnesium which helped, and i also found out i was quite seriously zinc deficient and paying careful attention to all the various aspects (that i know about so far) seems to have helped in spite of my ongoing d3 supplementation. i'm currently taking about 25,000IU d3 per week. it's winter, i'm in canada, yada yada.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby furch » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:46 am

I would say that the CWD bacteria absolutely is to be considered a plausable cause for autoimmune disease. I mean, look at lyme disease, their symptoms are identical to MS and fibro, and the different lyme pathogens are many, not just borrelia if ive understood it correctly.

i found this video pretty interesting, its a presentation by prof. Garth Nicols M.D. where he explains these similarities between ms,lupus,fibro and how they all fit into the lyme disease pathogenesis.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3504&hl=en

I'd say that lyme disease would be a very good conseptual accet for contemplating the MS, and not getting hung up on a spesific diagnosis entirely, since all these diseases are so much alike. If one or more pathogens can cause the disease-patterns in lyme, it would be very probable that another-perhaps unidentified pathogen with the same properties can cause the same mechanisms - where they infect the cells and cause the immune system to damage our myelin in the process of unsuccessfully trying to attack these pathogens. - a very plausable connection indeed - a recent study actually found chalmydia pnemonia in 100% of subjects.

check this out:

http://renegadeneurologist.com/bacteriu ... sclerosis/

100% study subjects with ms have cpn they say! and given that the CWD have parasitized a large quatity of immune-cells and/or red-cells, thereby subjecting the patient to have a reduced defence against the bacteria.

And for the d-vitamin-which is a steroid- if it did help the immune system in any way, the sunbading and d-supplementing MS-sufferers wouldnt be feeling good by taking them - as most do - but worse since bacteria cant be killed in the cells without some sort of discomfort...in-sillico or not, it makes perfect sense to me... thought it took a while to see why, given that i used to be a vitamin-D-patriot before:P

The confusion in research of the infectious cause is probably caused by the search for one spesific pathogen, and thats pretty mind-blowing when we know that under 1% of all bacterial species are identified..thats a fact. And how many that got an MS diagnosis are being tested? and of those that do, the inaccuracy of these tests shouldnt put the indication to rest. We know that the immunresponse in all autoimmune disease have the same pathogenesis as an infection - but the search for evidence and the benefit of the uncertain cause have blinded most proffesionals and put us in the situation were in today where the autoimmune response is being battled with expensive interferons which give no significant benefit. wouldnt you agree on that?
User avatar
furch
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby patientx » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:06 am

I would say that the CWD bacteria absolutely is to be considered a plausable cause for autoimmune disease. I mean, look at lyme disease, their symptoms are identical to MS and fibro, and the different lyme pathogens are many, not just borrelia if ive understood it correctly.


Again, just because something seems plausible does not make it so. And, while having some symptoms similar to MS, Lyme disease symptoms are not identical.

I find it interesting that Perlmutter's article starts with the word "recenty," since the study he cites was published in 1999.

a recent study actually found chalmydia pnemonia in 100% of subjects.


This statement is really taken out of context. The original article found the organism either directly or indirectly in the subjects. C. Penuomoniae was actually isolated in only 64% of the subjects. And the study included only 37 subjects.

But this discussion has gotten way off track from the original subject of vitamin D. Each person can believe what he wants, but I'm not going to deprive myself of a hormone the body needs anyway based on a theory that is questionable, to put it mildly.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby furch » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:12 pm

sorry for the digression from vitamin D, but if this "questionable" theory is correct, which we cannot exclude(IMO), the bacteria are highly relevant...

anyways, good point on the "recentness" of the article:) ive been looking for the article myself but couldnt find any other than the one from 1999, but couldnt it be its so recent its not yet published? i suppose a neurologist have access to non-published papers if one is interested. guess well see, i also saw the perlmutter-article on the MSRC site.. anyways, even if it is from 1999 it doesnt make it any less significant
User avatar
furch
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby CureOrBust » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:12 pm

Have you found published, peer reviewed articles supporting marshal?
User avatar
CureOrBust
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby patientx » Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:04 pm

He is quoting the 1999 article, and the reason I know this is "The evidence of Chlamydia pneumoniae in both progressive MS...." is a direct quote from that article. True, it doesn't call into question its significance, but why is he calling a 10 year-old study recent? And it does ignore the many studies and articles about the relationship between C. Pneumoniae and MS since then.

I am not trying to say that there is no chance that MS (at least in a subset of patients) is caused by a bacterial agent. On the contrary, I think it is very possible. However, I just don't find Marshall's theories on the D3 credible. And there are many here on ThisIsMS who are following antibiotic regimes, with the idea that the cause is C. Pneumoniae, but don't buy into Marshall's ideas.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Natural Approach

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service