all things vitamin D

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

Postby sou » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:22 am

Hi.

Indeed, it could exacerbate autoimmune diseases. But not a word about MS. Why do many studies conclude that vitamin D prevents such diseases? And how sure are we that MS is autoimmune? Unlike other such diseases, the evidence of autoimmunity and MS is lacking.

sou
Shortest joke: "We may not be able to cure MS but we can manage its symptoms."
User avatar
sou
Family Elder
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Greece

Advertisement

Postby patientx » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:26 am

I know I keep harping on this, but the article about the negative effects of Vitamin D is based on the ideas of Trevor Marshall. This isn't anything really new; he's been saying this for years. And everything in the article is a re-hash of what he's already written. I won't go into his ideas; I think he has a website where you can read all about it. But suffice it to say he and his small following are the only ones advocating this.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby mrhodes40 » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:15 am

That THEORY is that ms is caused by cell wall deficient germs and the whole problem is that your immune system is suppressed by vitamin D and causing thus the supposed infection to go wild...

and that if you decrease your vitamin d intake to deficient levels, like under 10, and at the same time take very high doses of benicar, an angiotensin (ARB) receptor blocker (usually used as a blood pressure medicine), this will activate your immune system and make it so super strong that the infection that causes MS will be relieved.

This theory is called the Marshall Protocol.

You can search this site for some "MS angle" information on it, but it is important to understand that the reason Trevor Marshall thinks benicar will activate the vitamin d receptor (while actual D will not) is from a computer model. He used this computer model to create all his theories, he is not a doctor, he is not even a medical professional, he is an electircal engineer with a PhD so he uses the term "doctor".

Please see this thread written by biodocfl who is a TIMS member who uses computer models to make new drugs (in legitimate pharmaceutical research).
CLICK HERE

Notice that biodocfl says that these models are well known to be unreliable and MUST BE FOLLOWED UP BY STANDARD RESEARCH TO VALIDATE THE SUPPOSED "FINDINGS". A computer model "result" is never taken as the truth until it can be shown to be true in real research.

In contrast, Trevor Marshall, an electical engineer whose field, EE, is entirely mathematical, puts out the incorrect notion that computer models are SUPERIOR to real reasearch. He claims regular lab research is "interpretive and prone to bias" while the computer models are "accurate".

While I believe it is possible for MS to be germ related, specifically Chlamydia pnuemoniae, the notion that it is helpful to reduce vitamin d intake to induce a clinical deficiency and that this will somehow help MS is dangerous to advance without rigorous studies, and I mean standard medical studies not an online group of people who are claiming success with no verification of that (it is well known that people who do not do well on the treatment are banned from the site and not allowed to post their experience).

Please be sceptical of this unproven theory. There is as JL said vast amounts of material supporting the addition of vitamin d to people with MS.
and as PX said this is an old idea, not an important advancement of any kind.
User avatar
mrhodes40
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: USA

Postby peekaboo » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:26 am

touche' well written...H.
User avatar
peekaboo
Family Elder
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby patientx » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:48 am

Good summary, Marie.

I would just add that his original theory and treatment plan were developed for Sarcoidosis, under the assumption that it was caused by cell wall deficient bacteria. For some reason, this was picked up and applied to any disease that has a possible infectious cause.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby Wonderfulworld » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:54 pm

Very interesting...excellent riposte MrRhodes too.
I actually had a brief bout of sarcoidosis 16 years ago, but it resolved itself. And I'm deficient in Vitamin D despite 3 years of supplementation.
TBH I'm not sure WHAT to think any more. :roll:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concussus Resurgo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RR-MS dx 1998 and Coeliac dx 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tecfidera, Cymbalta, Baclofen.
EPO, Fish Oils, Vitamin D3 2000 IU, Magnesium, Multivitamin/mineral, Co-Enzyme Q10, Probiotics, Milk Thistle, Melatonin.
Wonderfulworld
Family Elder
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby jimmylegs » Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:30 pm

ww i was just reading that boron affects your body's ability to deal with d3 have you ever heard about that?
what's your daily? have u ever done a megadose stint?
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9569
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby mrhodes40 » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:11 pm

Thanks! Glad it helped

I have personally almost gone for this thing. I had to work very hard to understand it, then worked just as hard to decide it was NOT a good theory.

I suggest anyone who is thinking of it study it hard and read all the material they can. The most damning thing is that when you get down to it and follow the rabbit hole of their theories, at the bottom, you always get down to "molecular genomics". In other words, at the heart of every idea, it comes from that computer model, not from real studies.

They talk about real studies, but they approach them from the beleif that the computer model has given them some factual basis first, the real study is then assigned the role of supporting the theory or of being wrong.
There is no room there for actual scientifc debate.

I was most pleased to learn at the knee of biodocfl and grateful for his time to help me understand how those molecular genomic programs are known to be in the real world of actual researchers doing pharmaceutical reseasrch They are an important tool, but not fool proof. Their role is to help reduce the number of scientific experiments you have to do in the lab by letting you know ahead of time the things that will NOT work ---but they cannot tell for certain what WILL work.

Glaxo smith kline actually did a study on the most popular molecular genomics programs available to see how well they work and if a single program was superior. The result was that no program was correct all of the time and that the different programs all had things they did better and things they did more poorly than the others.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... _match.php

If you read through the paper, technical as it is, you see how really bad these results are. You will find it hard to imagine someone would EVER have the arrogance to imagine that such a thing, just because it is mathematical is somehow "accurate". THAT is a person overly impressed with computers, and insufficiently humble about their limitations. No human being should put their health in the hands of a computer apologist with no respect for limitations of the program in question.

It is easy to see why biodocfl, a genuine researcher, uses several programs to screen things THEN does an actual study.

By the way, Marshall uses a program available for free on the internet.
User avatar
mrhodes40
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: USA

Postby patientx » Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:40 pm

By the way, Marshall uses a program available for free on the internet.


That's not so damning; I got a whole operating system for my PC for free over the internet.

But I'm glad you took the time to read through his theory and figure out where it is flawed. The guy can throw some medical jargon. I'm open to non-conventional theories; but I read enough to think this is crackers. Relying only on computer simulations clinched it for me. He even coined a new phrase (at least his website is the only place I've seen it): "in silico."

I'm an electrical engineer by trade. And we use computer simulation software on a daily basis. It's easier to change things and try them in software before you actually build something. But the accuracy depends on the models. And, in the end, we also verify on the bench with a real piece of hardware.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby CureOrBust » Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:58 pm

his "theory" is specifically for another medical condition
User avatar
CureOrBust
Family Elder
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby sou » Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:08 am

Hi.

We have had a course in computer assisted molecular modeling and simulations. One important conclusion was that algorithms of today give different results compared to the algorithms of yesterday. We can easily assume that algorithms of tomorrow will give different results from those of today.

At the rise of bioinformatics, big pharmas thought that simulations could replace classic lab research. But that didn't happen. Even worse, molecules tested with older algorithms will have to be tested again and again with newer. I wonder how many drugs have been erroneously thrown to the rubbish bin.

In conclusion, simulation is a very useful tool for evaluating probabilities. But just like you can't use a hammer to unscrew, you can't simulate and expect to have a 100% accurate model of the functionality of a cell, not to mention a zillion cells that make up a human body.

sou
Shortest joke: "We may not be able to cure MS but we can manage its symptoms."
User avatar
sou
Family Elder
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Greece

Postby Wonderfulworld » Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:09 am

Computer and mathematical models are easily controlled....well, easier than live humans :lol: . I don't feel that this theory is a runner for me.

JL :
No boron in my multi but the new cal/mag/d3 tablet I got recently includes boron in it. My current daily D3 is 5000iu, has been since November. Calcium 1400mg, Mag 750-1000mg.

Off topic, but an interesting one for you JL! - found that migraines are linked to D3 deficiency/insufficiency. Also Cal/Mag. So I upped my magnesium this month and for the first time in 6 months I got through a month without a migraine. For some reason I can tolerate up to 1000mg mag at the moment but in 3 doses during the day.

Due to visit neuro on 20th April, will be getting D3 test then, my gp is at a loss as to what to do so I'll check with neuro. The dept is doing work on vit D receptor genes; see: http://www.stvincents.ie/E.R.C/Neurology_Group.htm

Sorry for wandering off topic to the rest of the people on the thread :oops:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concussus Resurgo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RR-MS dx 1998 and Coeliac dx 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tecfidera, Cymbalta, Baclofen.
EPO, Fish Oils, Vitamin D3 2000 IU, Magnesium, Multivitamin/mineral, Co-Enzyme Q10, Probiotics, Milk Thistle, Melatonin.
Wonderfulworld
Family Elder
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Ireland

Testing your children for D3 levels?

Postby Wonderfulworld » Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:23 am

Having read so much about vitamin D3 and MS recently I got my now 14 month old son tested for D3 levels.

The rest of you MS-D3-fans will be happy for us when I tell you that his level is 76nmol, just into the normal range. Yay!

The reason I'm posting is in case any of you MS parents are interested in getting your children tested for D3 levels, based on this news from Feb this year. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... ncy_and_MS

I am a sun-fan and have been taking 200% RDA vitamin D for the years prior to my pregnancy. I also got as much sun (albeit very limited in Ireland) as I could during the pregnancy. During the pregnancy I chose a pre-natal supplement with vitamin D in it.

DESPITE all this I was insufficient in vitamin D after I gave birth and have continued until last Nov at my last test.

**I was concerned about my sons' level of Vitamin D as he would inherit my levels of the vitamin. **

I have been giving him approved Vit D3 drops (see: http://www.fsai.ie/details.aspx?id=6984) and I got him tested at 1 year, so that his GP and I could see how his levels were.

I find it very interesting that despite the supplementation he is just inside the normal range. His GP advises he continue the drops and get tested again in a few months. I am so grateful to other ThisisMS'er's for the information about all this and I am hoping that I have reduced my son's risk for MS a bit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concussus Resurgo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RR-MS dx 1998 and Coeliac dx 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tecfidera, Cymbalta, Baclofen.
EPO, Fish Oils, Vitamin D3 2000 IU, Magnesium, Multivitamin/mineral, Co-Enzyme Q10, Probiotics, Milk Thistle, Melatonin.
Wonderfulworld
Family Elder
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby jimmylegs » Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:57 am

that is great ww. cheerleader fixed her migraines with magnesium (among other things) also. pretty neat huh!
hope you hear that d3 is improving on the 20th :) maybe the boron will help.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9569
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:00 am

good job ww, very important.
see if you can get the level up over 100, for lowest ms risk!
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9569
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 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