Remission of Severe Myasthenia Gravis After Massive-Dose D

[PointsNorth]

Remission of Severe Myasthenia Gravis After Massive-Dose Vitamin D Treatment. - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26822380

[CureOrBust]

This a "PubMed - in process" item, and is also from a Journal which commenced in Nov 2015. ie not a publication held highly by the established medical fraternity. http://www.amjcaserep.com/

[tedhutchinson]

This a "PubMed - in process" item, and is also from a Journal which commenced in Nov 2015. ie not a publication held highly by the established medical fraternity. http://www.amjcaserep.com/

Anyone who thinks the opinions of the "established medical fraternity" are worth considering hasn't been paying attention to state of nutritional advice they have been offering over the past 30 years or more.

The whole low fat saga promoted by the established medical fraternity has probably been the root cause of the obesity/diabetes epidemic.
The satin saga is another tale of downright fraud from the established medical fraternity.
I don't see how anyone can trust the peer review process when so much nonsense is published?

We've had nearly 100 years of vitamin D research and only recently was
Dietary Vitamin D and Its Metabolites Non-Genomically Stabilize the Endothelium
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4607301/
that shows how cholecalciferol actually has benefits before it is hydroxylated so all previous research using interval dosing for vitamin D3 probably doesn't reflect what actually happens in practice and any vitamin D research that doesn't get 25(OH)D raised to the 50ng/ml 125nmol/l cannot guarantee to enable CHOLECALCIFEROL in it's unchanged form, to stabilize the endothelium because it's only around that level that cholecalciferol (as distinct from 25(OH)D) is measurable in tissue.

How can anyone regard as credible the "established medical fraternity" who for the past 100 years and probably the next 50 or more base their understandings of vitamin d on a false premise?

We need more public scrutiny of published research. We should not allow the medical journals to buy up research and lock it behind paywalls to prevent members of the public access

This link http://sci-hub.io/ allows you to open up a lot of peer reviewed research that isn't open access.
We should regard with the utmost suspicion every researcher who only publishes their work behind a paywall.
If you can't get the full text then it's always worth asking the researchers, many are willing to forward a pdf of their work

But do bear in mind if you can't understand what the researchers are saying it may be they are deliberately trying to mislead you.
Scientists faking data use puzzling jargon to cover their tracks Bad scientists use big words.
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists- ... mitstart=1

Perhaps I should have pointed out that the paper "Remission of Severe Myasthenia Gravis After
Massive-Dose Vitamin D Treatment" does download if you follow the links through to where it says
Full-text PDF: http://www.amjcaserep.com/abstract/index/idArt/894849

It seems to me that before anyone tries very high dose (by which I mean any daily dosing protocol using more vitamin D3 daily than would naturally be made in the skin 10,000 -20,000iu) they should first see what happens after they replete 25(OH)D status with natural amounts of vitamin D3 daily. The thread MS as a disease of endothelial dysfunction has links to research explaining the role of endothelial function in MS and the paper I've linked to above updates that research.

It may indeed be the case that some people require VERY HIGH DOSE vitamin D therapy to produce the changes required but I think it's possible that using the amounts naturally made in the skin (given the chance of full body sun exposure) and sufficient to attain and maintain the 25(OH)D levels naturally found in indigenous peoples living under the sun and who are able to supply vitamin D3 replete milk to their offspring, should be the starting point.
I don't think anyone can argue against using natural amounts of D3 DAILY to attain/maintain 25(OH)D levels found in those living naturally as human DNA evolved is potentially dangerous.

[vilnietis]

tedhutchinson, I checked your previous posts as well. Seems you like to deny everything, this is just my first impression

I found interesting that you suggest to maintain vitamin D levels .. by drinking a milk? It's strange, diary products is a BIG NO to every MS patient ;)
I propose better solution here to everyone, who wants to see if trials are worth something or not. Just take 1000IU/1kg for a a few months together with 500-600mg of magnesium, avoid diary products and take 2.5L of water per day. Usually fatigue is the first symptom, which disappears. I did that by myself and found first results very encouraging. Of course I have RRMS, people with SPMS/PPMS probably won't see such big difference just only after first few months ;)

[JeanDeEau]

tedhutchinson wrote:
Anyone who thinks the opinions of the "established medical fraternity" are worth considering hasn't been paying attention to state of nutritional advice they have been offering over the past 30 years or more.

Now tell everyone if you are the same Ted Hutchinson who was asked not to keep posting your opinions on the English MS Forum.
Then tell everyone if you are the same Ted Hutchinson who rund a business in England selling vitamins.
Maybe, buddy, it is your opinions that are not worth considering.
And, just answer this question: Do you have MS, or a family member who does?
J

[DrGeoff]

cureorbust wrote:
" ... and is also from a Journal which commenced in Nov 2015. ie not a publication held highly by the established medical fraternity ...

And that is not the whole story.
The American Journal of Case Reports is an offshoot of a respectable set of publications that do an indexing service on citations, that were known as Web of Science (and very useful they were/are).
The new journal is pure and simple vanity publishing. Yes, they claim peer review, but the submission price for a paper for publication is $895.
The market is, of course, those academics coming up for tenure review, who desperately need a publication or two.

Like JeanDeEau, I thought I recognized the name of tedhutchinson.
This person clearly has no concept of how scientific research is conducted, or reported. To quote from Science Alert is to quote from a publication that uses a little truth to make a "Shock, Horror" story believable. To say:

But do bear in mind if you can't understand what the researchers are saying it may be they are deliberately trying to mislead you.

Is verging on actionable if names had been named.
Scientists write for other scientists. They use words that other scientists will understand, and they use words that are used by the scientists working in their own field.
In my own experience, it is usually easy to spot a piece of bad science by looking at the statistics, and the way they are presented, in which case you make up your own mind about the value of a particular paper.
Yes, academics want publications. Most of them also want good peer review. Some will not even attend a conference if the papers in the proceedings are not peer reviewed.
They do not get their science from the National Enquirer
Geoff

[1eye]

Both of the last two posts are examples of what I think cheerleader said someone said to her: "Mom, don't get all ad-hominem on me".

Ad-hominem literally means 'against the man'. It is a logical fallacy where an argument is assumed wrong because the 'arguer' is somehow personally wrong, on some unrelated issue.

While quacks and vanity press are suspect sources, it's a good idea to check the facts before dismissing a theory or argument.

[DrGeoff]

If you want to label something ad hominem it might be a good idea to read the argument in the relevant post (what argument?).
The post from tedhutchinson contained a diatribe against the medical profession.
Since the standard definition of an argument is A logical progression of thought, it can be said that there was no argument to be attacked.
Being interested in the points raised by JeanDeEau, I did have them checked by someone in England, and I believe them to be substantially correct.
Yes, there was someone of that name posting on the English MS Society's Forum on the subject of Vitamin D some years back - the posts stopped suddenly.
Yes, there is someone of that name offering to supply vitamins by mail order.
And that person has a blog that lists his own blog as one that he "follows". That can be defined as a circular argument.
If we take the statement:

Anyone who thinks the opinions of the "established medical fraternity" are worth considering hasn't been paying attention to state of nutritional advice they have been offering over the past 30 years or more.

it would be logical to discount the views of Terry Wahls, Roy Swank, George Jelinek, and Cicero Coimbra, along with those of every nutritionist working in the health field anywhere in the world.
Some of them may be wrong. Logically, if one is wrong, all of them may be wrong. Of equal value, then, in terms of logic, is the thought that Ted Hutchinson, and his opinions, may also be wrong.
Geoff

[ElliotB]

Just to add some 'spice' to the argument:

"diary products is a BIG NO to every MS patient"

Yes, this is a popular thought, but perhaps a misconception. There are some dairy product that are not just good for you, but very good for you including milk kefir and yogurt (I make my own kefir from high fat milk that comes from grass fed cows and consume 3-4 cups a day for the probiotics). I recently also added cheese made from milk that comes from grass fed cows to my diet. And I am doing better than ever!

[tedhutchinson]

tedhutchinson, I checked your previous posts as well. Seems you like to deny everything, this is just my first impression

I found interesting that you suggest to maintain vitamin D levels .. by drinking a milk? It's strange, diary products is a BIG NO to every MS patient ;)

I don't ever recall suggesting milk as an effective way of vitamin D replacement.
I doubt I ever have.
First the amount of vitamin D in fortified milk is too little to do much if any good and in the USA milk fortification may use ergocalciferol which actually depletes cholecacliferol status and it's cholecalciferol that is the human form of vitamin D3 made in human skin.
It's also worth pointing out that I come from the UK where we do not fortify milk and although through the summer our cows are mainly grass fed in practice there is so little vitamin D in uk produced milk that it is too low to count accurately so because it's below the test threshold for accuracy it is regarded as too trivial to mention.

[tedhutchinson]

Now tell everyone if you are the same Ted Hutchinson who was asked not to keep posting your opinions on the English MS Forum.

Indeed that is probably true. I don't suffer fools kindly and don't go out of my way to endear myself to those who can't be bothered to provide accurate evidence based replies to the posts I make.
I take the view that if you don't like what I write then you don't have to read it.

I always post in my own name and I have a posting style that doesn't vary depending on where I post.
You will be aware that I always post links to the science that supports everything I write so you should be able to compare posting styles from then to now and see the same pattern of links to pubmed or full text science sources and know you are dealing with credible evidence based answers.

Then tell everyone if you are the same Ted Hutchinson who rund a business in England selling vitamins.

I deny this absolutely and completely.
A business is set up to create profit.
I have never sold vitamin D3 or other supplement for profit.
If you go back to the source where this accusation came from you will be aware that I have offered to supply vitamin D3 at cost price plus uk postage.
That is not a profit motivated business proposition.
Many people, then and still now, are reluctant to order supplements from the USA although IHERB and Vitacost were cheaper then UK sources even including the shipping cost and the fact customs import duty adds 20%to the total cost. (this isn't true any longer for Vitamin D3 Amazon& Ebay both now have vitamin d3 at prices that mean it isn't worth importing vit d from USA)
However, if I'm ordering and getting a bulk discount price and pay only a limited shipping cost I could at that time obtain Vitamin D3 below the cost of equivalent quality products available in the UK;.
The aim being to make vitamin D3 available at prices people with limited means could afford.
Not many people took me up on the offer however but that is irrelevant.
Intelligent people will be able to work out that selling goods at the same price you pay for them is simply offering a service and is not a business model.
A good vitamin k2 complex is still cheaper from Vitacost than from any UK source I've researched as yet, so if you know better then please let me know and if anyone else wants to share the shipping cost with me I'll happily go shares on the purchase so we are both able to buy at the lowest possible price. If that sounds like a business to you then that is a fault of your suspicious mind. I've got nothing to be ashamed of, helping others to buy effective supplements at the lowest possible price is surely being helpful?
Only muck-raking scoundrels would consider otherwise.

Maybe, buddy, it is your opinions that are not worth considering

I agree that is why I mainly base my replies on scientific evidence and provide links to my sources
Your credibility would improve if you adopted the same practice

And, just answer this question: Do you have MS, or a family member who does?
J

Does anyone need to have a specific disability to quote or provide links to scientific sources or do you have to have that specific condition to understand the science that underlies that condition?

Are only people with MS capable of providing links to the science underlying the progression of MS?
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.io ... 4815300201
Important role of mast cells in multiple sclerosis

Or are only people with a family member with MS capable of providing links to supporting evidence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154631/
Vitamin D3 represses IgE-dependent mast cell activation via mast cell-CYP27B1 and -vitamin D receptor activity


If you, or any member of any other MS form don't like the evidence I link to or don't agree with it why fabricate misleading and false accusations, why don't you just provide links to the science showing the evidence I've provided is inaccurate or misleading?
Surely you can work out from a link I've provided above how to get the full text of recent peer reviewed research?