ATPisit, I have never even heard of anyone being close to rickets, that is shocking. Hope your vit D levels rise and rise. Thank goodness you got tested.
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.
ATP, keep us posted, and i like that you're aiming for 50! go for it!!
hope you too are taking a good mineral blend with your d3. like ww, except perhaps a little less mag ;)
I get no noticeable laxative effects from other types of magnesium. If you want to up your dose, you can also try it in other forms. I often take over 2000mg mag from mag citrate (in two 1000mg doses), with no attributable laxative effect. I have also used "Magnesium Chelate". I do specifically notice it with mag oxide, at much lower doses of mag. The product i mentioned explains how the oxygen separates from the mag to create a clensing effect.
ww, mag oxide is not a soluble form so it does go right through and can actually cause a risk of dehydration with long term use.
mag citrate is more soluble, more absorbable, and is meant for better use by the body rather that for its laxative effect.
for me, it doesn't seem to matter what form i'm after, magnesium is a laxative, some moreso, some less!
- Getting to Know You...
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Thanks for the info.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
I just noticed that my endo switched form LabCorp to Quest. Not exactly reassuring!
In diagnosis limbo.
"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"
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.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
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.
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:)
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.
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.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.
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:PAnd just because someone proposes a theory that is far different from the mainstream, does not mean that theory is correct.
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...
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.
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 5 Replies
- 334 Views
Last post by jimmylegs
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:54 am
- 0 Replies
- 750 Views
Last post by frodo
Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:31 am
MS B-cells in vitro do weird things. CCSVI link?
Last post by frodo « Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:33 am
Posted in Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)by frodo » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:33 am » in Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)
- 0 Replies
- 959 Views
Last post by frodo
Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:33 am
- 1 Replies
- 464 Views
Last post by jimmylegs
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:46 am
- 2 Replies
- 399 Views
Last post by jimmylegs
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:39 am