281 replies to this topic

[krillin]

If it generates CYP27B1 in the cells, that then leads to faster conversion of 25OHD to 1,25D in the cells themselves, in the mitochondria if I am not mistaken, which accounts for the serumlevels staying the same.

Prove that 25-D can get in and out of cells while 1,25-D cannot.

[pro-d]

"Most hypercalcemic patients with solid tumors have increased plasma PTHrP, whereas PTHrP is not detectable in healthy subjects."
http://www.jle.com/e...12/B8/resume.md

PTHrP draws calcium into a vicious circle in which both raise each other, but those without malignancies don't get hypercalcemia.
Excessive supplementation (and I mean in terms of hundreds of thousands of units daily, not mimicking natural production) and/or out of control PTH results in getting hypercalcemia.

PTHrP gets it's name because it's function is related to PTH. PTH's role is to raise calcium when necessary. PTHrP exists in us but has minimal functions, it's core role being at developmental stages. Elevated PTH will stop you from getting seizures (or at least it will try), but bone loss risk is increased, and is more so apparent when the protective effects of estrogen and testosterone decline or stop in ageing women and men.

25D itself is no lame duck too when it comes to cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

I'm not concerned with any answer more than out of model proof that 25D is immunosuppressive above 20ng/ml. For all I know, Marshall didn't even make a model and dreamt it up. Rates of disease and recovery in those with expert recommended D levels are good, the data is out there. This can't be disputed.

And if 25D can block 1,25D I'd expect to see more inflammation not less when repleting D. But this is not the case.

Edited by pro-d, 03 February 2008 - 08:32 PM.

[Frans]

25D itself is no lame duck too when it comes to cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

did you reallyread this paper?

It says: This led us to hypothesize that 25-OH-D3 would inhibit the proliferation of prostatic epithelial cells because 25-OH-D3 would be converted to 1,25(OH)2D3 intracellularly

So what they proved was that indeed, 25OHD was converted by CYP27B1 to the active metabolite 1,25D which accounts for the activity, just like they hypothesized...

You probably also didn't read the footnote saying:
- The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement

In layman's terms: they paid to get this published

Which makes sense, no magazine in its right mind would publish this kind of garbage for free IMHO

Sincerely, Frans

[krillin]

You probably also didn't read the footnote saying:
- The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement

In layman's terms: they paid to get this published

Which makes sense, no magazine in its right mind would publish this kind of garbage for free IMHO

This is a routine practice for many journals that can't cover their costs through subscription fees alone and is not a reflection of the article's quality. It'll become even more common in the future due to the open access movement.

[pro-d]

Exactly, intracellularly. The converted 1,25D upregulates the p21 gene in cancer cells and initiates cell death. The 1,25D isn't accumulating because it's like a suicide bomber's belt that disappears.
In sarcoidosis, apoptosis is decreased. Hence macrophages that remain churning out vain 1,25D fuelled by 25D. This is the only occasion where an MP-like (I emphasise like) method makes an iota of sense.

And since renal 1,25D can be lowered by calcium it means not all MP members have an issue with haywire macrophages and are thus not suitable candidates for this regime opposed to D3 + calcium supplementation.

The crux of this article was to point out that due to similar potency, but more safety than Calcitriol, D3 isn't something to ignore, particularly as it's part of nature's design and you can take it as prevention without prescription, and without paying anything if you can get adequate sunlight.
Vitamin D experts recommend 4-6kIU, but even nature trumps them by promoting up to 10kIU from skin cholesterol conversion.

For someone who objects to reading 'garbage' I'm surprised you entertain Trevor Marshall's unverified claims.

Edited by pro-d, 05 February 2008 - 12:09 AM.

[oregon]

Unfortunately it is true. Vitamin D can impair immune system and so on.

Why? Because it needs to be balanced with vitamin A. Vitamin D does not occur anywhere in nature without Vitamin A. Take cod liver oil.

Also post something in my lone thread: http://www.imminst.o...als-t20103.html

Edited by oregon, 06 February 2008 - 05:13 AM.

[pro-d]

Not true.

Natural levels of D optimise the immune system and are corellated to less disease incidence and higher recovery.

Vitamin D synthesis occurs naturally in many animals via UVB, and without vitamin A. A is useful but at higher doses is deterimental to health.

Unfortunately it is true. Vitamin D can impair immune system and so on.

Why? Because it needs to be balanced with vitamin A. Vitamin D does not occur anywhere in nature without Vitamin A. Take cod liver oil.

Also post something in my lone thread: http://www.imminst.o...als-t20103.html

[goku]

I gotta comment.

Me and my girlfriend will take high dose (like 8-10 thousand iu) at first sign of a cold or anything like that -- kills it, knocks it out completely, and if it stays, a little more D and it's gone.

Vit D consistently and enormously helps my immunity. And seems in a whole other echelon to vit c and echinacea.

For me, it 100% definitely seems to improve my immunity drastically.

No idea why, found it out accidentally when taking high doses bc of purported health benefits in other areas

[Shannon Vyff]

This has been a fascinating thread--with for the most part, both sides of the D debate being respectful of each other. Lets remember that all participating are trying to solve just one aspect of health and aging's complex puzzle--and graciously they are doing it to the best of their knowledge. When someone has countering knowledge, please present it in a way that shows your love of getting things right does not mean you think the other person is flawed for their views--our ultimate goal is to get a more clear picture about an issue that affects us all.

My comment on D, is that I found my levels where low while I was breastfeeding (for 8 /12 years, starting at age 21), and that caused me to be diagnosed with osteopenia in my twenties. (here is one study, from a quick search--there are many, but I'm not wishing to jump into the science of D--just give my experience http://www.sciencedi...95a0997f58090ba ) I supplemented, and started getting 20 minutes of sun each day when I could, and my bones have gotten better (I also exercise, but on bone scan they did 'fill in' some of this can be due to hormonal changes after the cessation of breastfeeding--which cause a re-growth in bone too). I've kept up my calcium, D supplementation and sun exposure routines and saw my rates of sickness plummet, not getting colds or flus--sailing through each winter season with nary a runny nose. Yes, this is only anecdotal--I've not the time to jump into the myriad of ways D affects the body--I do appreciate all those who have in this thread though.

[tham]

Vitamin D, calcitriol and Parkinson's.


http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

[catgirl]

I was told to get off the board and never return because of my warnings about vitamin d supplementation and the possible connection to special interest groups.

I just thought that everyone would enjoy this article.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...s/20080213.html


catgirl

[pro-d]

Don't take to heart what people say, if you have a minority view you're expected to fight harder.

I see what the guy in the article is saying, but in the end he concedes that despite commercial interests it doesn't mean that the research shown is wrong.

If you don't want to take pills and fund companies you could always spend your Spring & Summer in a place with lots of UVB, soak it up, and return in the Winter where your D status will just about pull you through.
At the same time, if I were to start a health company, I would much rather start a pharmaceutical than a supplement company due to being able to create a patent and charge higher prices, and market more effectively.

Having a commercial interest doesn't make you seedy.

[resveratrol]

I was told to get off the board and never return because of my warnings about vitamin d supplementation and the possible connection to special interest groups.

I just thought that everyone would enjoy this article.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...s/20080213.html


catgirl

Actually, I didn't enjoy the article in the slightest. All it does is try to cast doubt on one particular study and unnecessarily casting aspersions on the motives of scientists involved in vitamin D research. The article seems purely political and doesn't address the hard science or the many other studies indicating an enormous number of beneficial effects of vitamin D supplementation.

[dannov]

why would a single article make you question a WEALTH of positive evidence? vitamin D is perhaps the most well studies vitamin, and the only one that modern science pretty much agrees SHOULD be supplemented for its health benefits.

All it takes is a single candle to penetrate the darkness.

Not saying that this guy is right by any means, hell, I pop 8 Cod Liver caps a day and get a lot of Vitamin D from it and I'm glad for it as well--not a whole lot of sun in upstate NY round this season. However, it took 2% of the American population to start the Revolution, and often things start at a very low level against what is commonly acknowledged, and then as the knowledge disseminates, more people test it and find out the truth for themselves. Just wanted to make a point is all, heh.

[hullcrush]

Many sarcoidosis patients have to take prednisone indefinitely. This is poor form by current medicine. His protocol offers an alternative. I'm not saying it's viable. It seems you all are healthy individuals, so D supplementation may be in your best interests.

Took fish oil and vitamin D during mononucleosis four years ago because I had read about its cognitive improvement. I never recovered from the illness. I took Benicar for the first time last Friday to see if I could tolerate it. The drug must modulate the immune system somehow because I was able to increase my workout capacity by 50%. I doubt that is due to its hypotensive effects, but who knows.

I know anecdotal is BS. If they get overwhelmingly positive anecdotal reports, maybe someone will figure out the true action of Benicar. I think Marshall is standoffish (trust me I've asked things :( ) because he just developed the treatment for himself. It seems as if he is trying to reverse engineer a clinical explanation for a hypothesis that worked for him personally.

I'm sick of science. I've spent four years listening to physicians. I'm ready to accept dogma. Even if Marshall himself refers to the protocol as the "Marshall Protocol." I do find that droll.

One should give props to Amy for stepping in the lion's den. She gains no benefit for doing so.

[stephen_b]

Comment by John Cannell, MD of the vitamin D council in response to the Marshall protocol:

I have been inundated with letters asking about Professor Marshall's recent "discovery." Some have written that to say they have stopped their vitamin D and are going to avoid the sun in order to begin the "Marshall protocol." The immediate cause of this angst is two publications, a press article in Science Daily about Professor Marshall's "study" (which is no study but simply an opinion) in BioEssays. Dr. Trevor Marshall has two degrees, both in electrical engineering. Before I begin, I want to again remind you that I am a psychiatrist who works at a state mental hospital. In my duty to full disclosure, I must say that I have known a lot of psychiatrists in my life and a few electrical engineers. If I knew nothing else of a disagreement between two people but their professions, I would believe the electrical engineer, not the psychiatrist.

In reading his two articles, Dr. Marshall's main hypotheses are simple. (1) Vitamin D from sunlight is different than vitamin D from supplements. (2) Vitamin D is immunosuppressive and the low blood levels of vitamin D found in many chronic diseases are the result of the disease and not the cause. (3) Taking vitamin D will harm you, that is, vitamin D will make many diseases worse, not better. If you read his blog, you discover that the essence of the Marshall protocol is: "An angiotensin II receptor blocker medication, Benicar, is taken, and sunlight, bright lights and foods and supplements with vitamin D are diligently avoided. This enables the body's immune system, with the help of small doses of antibiotics, to destroy the intracellular bacteria. It can take approximately one to three years to destroy all the bacteria." That is, Dr. Marshall has his "patients" become very vitamin D deficient.

Again, Dr. Marshall conducted no experiment and published no study. He wrote an essay. He presented no evidence for his first hypothesis (sunlight's vitamin D is different than supplements). From all that we know, cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol, regardless if it is made in the skin or put in the mouth. His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Take patients with severe dementia bedridden in a nursing home. At least some of their low 25(OH)D levels are likely the result of confinement and lack of outdoor activity. However, did dementia cause the low vitamin D levels or did low 25 (OH)D contribute to the dementia? One way to look at that question is to look at early dementia, before the patient is placed in a nursing home. On the first day an older patient walks into a neurology clinic, before being confined to a nursing home, what is the relationship between vitamin D levels and dementia? The answer is clear, the lower your 25(OH)D levels the worse your cognition.

Wilkins CH, Sheline YI, Roe CM, Birge SJ, Morris JC. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with low mood and worse cognitive performance in older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;14(12):1032-40.

Przybelski RJ, Binkley NC. Is vitamin D important for preserving cognition? A positive correlation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with cognitive function. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Apr 15;460(2):202-5. Epub 2007 Jan 8.

These studies suggest that the low 25(OH)D levels are contributing to the dementia but do not prove it. Only a randomized controlled trial will definitively answer the question, a trial that has not been done. So you will have to decide if vitamin D is good for your brain or not. Dr. Marshall seems to be saying demented patients should lower their 25(OH)D levels. Keep in mind, an entire chapter in Feldman's textbook is devoted to the ill effects low vitamin D levels have on brain function.

Brachet P, et al. Vitamin D, a neuroactive hormone: from brain development to pathological disorders. In Feldman D., Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D. San Diego : Elsevier, 2005.

It is true that in some diseases, high doses of vitamin D may be harmful. For example, in the early part of last century, the AMA specifically excluded pulmonary TB from the list of TB infections that ultraviolet light helps. They did so because many of the early pioneers of solariums reported that acutely high doses of sunlight caused some patients with severe pulmonary TB to bleed to death. Thus, these pioneers developed very conservative sun exposure regimes for pulmonary TB patients in which small areas of the skin were progressively exposed to longer and longer periods of sunlight. Using this method, sunlight helped pulmonary TB, often to the point of a cure. Furthermore, it is well known that sunlight can cause high blood calcium in patients with sarcoidosis. In fact, sarcoidosis is one of several granulomatous diseases with vitamin D hypersensitivity where the body loses its ability to regulate activated vitamin D production, causing hypercalcemia.

Cronin CC, et al. Precipitation of hypercalcaemia in sarcoidosis by foreign sun holidays: report of four cases. Postgrad Med J. 1990 Apr;66(774):307-9.

Furthermore, although medical science is not yet convinced, some common autoimmune diseases may have an infectious etiology. I recently spoke at length with a rheumatologist who suffers from swollen and painful joints whenever he sunbathes or takes high doses of vitamin D. As long as he limits his vitamin D input his joints are better. To the extent vitamin D upregulates naturally occurring antibiotics of innate immunity, sunlight or vitamin D supplements may cause the battlefield (the joints) to become hot spots. I know of no evidence this is the case but it is certainly possible.

However, If Dr. Marshall's principal hypothesis is correct, that low vitamin D levels are the result of disease, then he is saying that cancer causes low vitamin D levels, not the other way around. The problem is that Professor Joanne Lappe directly disproved that theory in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk. Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period. Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient, as the Marshall protocol clearly does, will cause some patients to die from cancer.

Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

I will not write again about Dr. Marshall's theories. No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously. Personally, I admire anyone willing to swim against the tide and raise alternative theories. I have done the same with influenza and autism. However, I agree with the New York Times, An Oldie Vies for Nutrient of the Decade and Jane Brody's conclusion, "In the end, you will have to decide for yourself how much of this vital nutrient to consume each and every day and how to obtain it." I agree. You will have to decide for yourself.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

[hullcrush]

Thanks, Stephen B. That was a good read. I don't think Marshall believes Vitamin D dysregulation is caused by cancer though, just pathogens. Good thing my IgE levels are infinite.

Edited by hullcrush, 14 April 2008 - 06:19 PM.

[Matt]

I was just having a glance over some posts here
http://www.marshallp...ol.com/forum11/

I couldn't quite believe the amount of BS on that site lol

[pro-d]

There's also a great deal of contradiction between members and quoting of articles that only seem to glorify their cause (often the articles they quote often support D when read in detail). None of them have tried their antibiotics without D reduction, which means they haven't a clue at all that the antibiotics alone could be helping them, and indeed D repletion alongside could help them more.

In a perverse way, I'm glad the MP exists because it's frictions with the benefits of vitamin D will only publicise the cause more and help us learn more about it.

One current thread 'rickets is not cured by vitamin D' is one of the biggest assumptions ever made. I personally know someone with rickets who recovered with D, alongside an operation to fix damage that needed intervention.

[tham]

http://www.jfponline...es.asp?AID=5445

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

[tham]

I was just having a glance over some posts here
http://www.marshallp...ol.com/forum11/

Take the recent $18 million dollar study on vitamin D and
calcium conducted by the Women's Health Initiative. The
study of more than 36,000 middle-aged and older women
– the largest ever to test the health benefits of vitamin D
– found that calcium and vitamin D had essentially no
benefit on the bone density of the women involved.

http://www.marshallp...rum11/8443.html

http://bacteriality..../15/vitamind/#9


I believe this was because the study was flawed in the
essence that :

1. They used too little vitamin D, as they themselves had
hypothesized. A more realistic and preventative dosage
would have been not less than 800 iu.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum


2. They did not take into account that some of the participants,
many of whom are aging, may have problems metabolizing the
vitamin, and the first (alfacalcidol) and second (calcitriol)
metabolites would have been superior in such cases.

It appears likely that treatment with plain vitamin D is effective
only in populations with vitamin D deficiency.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum


3. They overlooked magnesium, which is the actual hardener
of bones, and without which calcium would be calcifying in
poor and brittle form all over the place.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum


One such proponent of magnesium is Michael Lam. I remember,
when I wrote to him some years ago, he suggested no less than
1,000 mg of magnesium to just 300 mg of calcium in my father's
case, who has congestive heart failure.

http://www.lammd.com...steoporosis.cfm

Edited by tham, 12 June 2008 - 05:38 PM.

[wiserd]

Amy said - Unfortunately, Marshall's work revealed that the type of vitamin D derived from supplements and sun remains, for the most part, in it's precursor form 25-D.

When patients take extra vitamin D, it remains as 25-D, the corticosteroid that temporarily lowers the patient's inflammation.

Healthy people should aim to keep thier level of 25-D under about 20 ng/ml which is the point at which it will begin to block the VDR.


One thing that those associated with the Marshall Protocol don't ever seem to address is why Vit D levels are assumed to be uniform through the body. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that I have 25D at 40ng/ml throughout most of my body. If a portion of my body becomes injured or inflamed, what will happen? I'll locally make more TLRs which will upregultate CYP27b1 locally, causing 25D levels to drop <i>locally</i> and 1,25D3 levels to rise <i>locally</i>

The result will be a local production of cathelidicin and a switch to the adaptive immune system.


If you can’t accept molecular data, then get on the Marshall Protocol study site and read the progress of the thousands of patients who are recovering only after removing vitamin D from their diets.

Arguing that chronic diseases are improved by longterm administration of antibiotics and olmersartan is very different from arguing that Vitamin D supplementation is harmful to healthy individuals.

I can see the wisdom in some of what T. Marshall says; more Vit D doesn't increase bone mineralization compared to calcium alone, but instead increases blood calcium levels. Low 25D and high 1,25D are probably markers of inflammation rather than actual 'deficiency.' In specific cases, production of capenine or similar chemicals block and dysregulate the Vit D. receptor and low D + olmersartan can help the body fight infection.
Pathogens causing chronic infection have an 'incentive' to dysregulate Vitamin D metabolism.

But that still doesn't speak to optimum levels of 25D in otherwise healthy human beings. Some people (those who are depressed, for instance ) have low 25D and low 1,25D. Perhaps this is correlation rather than causation. Sunlight does a lot more to a person than just produce Vit. D.

By what mechanism does high 1,25D become outright immunosuppressive in VDR competent humans?

[logobog]

Reply to Marshall's article about supplemental vitamin D and its effect on the immune system by John Cannell, MD, of The Vitamin D Council.

I have been inundated with letters asking about Professor Marshall's recent "discovery." Some have written that to say they have stopped their vitamin D and are going to avoid the sun in order to begin the "Marshall protocol." The immediate cause of this angst is two publications, a press article in Science Daily about Professor Marshall's "study" (which is no study but simply an opinion) in BioEssays. Dr. Trevor Marshall has two degrees, both in electrical engineering. Before I begin, I want to again remind you that I am a psychiatrist who works at a state mental hospital. In my duty to full disclosure, I must say that I have known a lot of psychiatrists in my life and a few electrical engineers. If I knew nothing else of a disagreement between two people but their professions, I would believe the electrical engineer, not the psychiatrist.

In reading his two articles, Dr. Marshall's main hypotheses are simple. (1) Vitamin D from sunlight is different than vitamin D from supplements. (2) Vitamin D is immunosuppressive and the low blood levels of vitamin D found in many chronic diseases are the result of the disease and not the cause. (3) Taking vitamin D will harm you, that is, vitamin D will make many diseases worse, not better. If you read his blog, you discover that the essence of the Marshall protocol is: "An angiotensin II receptor blocker medication, Benicar, is taken, and sunlight, bright lights and foods and supplements with vitamin D are diligently avoided. This enables the body's immune system, with the help of small doses of antibiotics, to destroy the intracellular bacteria. It can take approximately one to three years to destroy all the bacteria." That is, Dr. Marshall has his "patients" become very vitamin D deficient.

Again, Dr. Marshall conducted no experiment and published no study. He wrote an essay. He presented no evidence for his first hypothesis (sunlight's vitamin D is different than supplements). From all that we know, cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol, regardless if it is made in the skin or put in the mouth. His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Take patients with severe dementia bedridden in a nursing home. At least some of their low 25(OH)D levels are likely the result of confinement and lack of outdoor activity. However, did dementia cause the low vitamin D levels or did low 25 (OH)D contribute to the dementia? One way to look at that question is to look at early dementia, before the patient is placed in a nursing home. On the first day an older patient walks into a neurology clinic, before being confined to a nursing home, what is the relationship between vitamin D levels and dementia? The answer is clear, the lower your 25(OH)D levels the worse your cognition.

Wilkins CH, Sheline YI, Roe CM, Birge SJ, Morris JC. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with low mood and worse cognitive performance in older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;14(12):1032-40.

Przybelski RJ, Binkley NC. Is vitamin D important for preserving cognition? A positive correlation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with cognitive function. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Apr 15;460(2):202-5. Epub 2007 Jan 8.

These studies suggest that the low 25(OH)D levels are contributing to the dementia but do not prove it. Only a randomized controlled trial will definitively answer the question, a trial that has not been done. So you will have to decide if vitamin D is good for your brain or not. Dr. Marshall seems to be saying demented patients should lower their 25(OH)D levels. Keep in mind, an entire chapter in Feldman's textbook is devoted to the ill effects low vitamin D levels have on brain function.

Brachet P, et al. Vitamin D, a neuroactive hormone: from brain development to pathological disorders. In Feldman D., Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D. San Diego : Elsevier, 2005.

It is true that in some diseases, high doses of vitamin D may be harmful. For example, in the early part of last century, the AMA specifically excluded pulmonary TB from the list of TB infections that ultraviolet light helps. They did so because many of the early pioneers of solariums reported that acutely high doses of sunlight caused some patients with severe pulmonary TB to bleed to death. Thus, these pioneers developed very conservative sun exposure regimes for pulmonary TB patients in which small areas of the skin were progressively exposed to longer and longer periods of sunlight. Using this method, sunlight helped pulmonary TB, often to the point of a cure. Furthermore, it is well known that sunlight can cause high blood calcium in patients with sarcoidosis. In fact, sarcoidosis is one of several granulomatous diseases with vitamin D hypersensitivity where the body loses its ability to regulate activated vitamin D production, causing hypercalcemia.

Cronin CC, et al. Precipitation of hypercalcaemia in sarcoidosis by foreign sun holidays: report of four cases. Postgrad Med J. 1990 Apr;66(774):307-9.

Furthermore, although medical science is not yet convinced, some common autoimmune diseases may have an infectious etiology. I recently spoke at length with a rheumatologist who suffers from swollen and painful joints whenever he sunbathes or takes high doses of vitamin D. As long as he limits his vitamin D input his joints are better. To the extent vitamin D upregulates naturally occurring antibiotics of innate immunity, sunlight or vitamin D supplements may cause the battlefield (the joints) to become hot spots. I know of no evidence this is the case but it is certainly possible.

However, If Dr. Marshall's principal hypothesis is correct, that low vitamin D levels are the result of disease, then he is saying that cancer causes low vitamin D levels, not the other way around. The problem is that Professor Joanne Lappe directly disproved that theory in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk. Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period. Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient, as the Marshall protocol clearly does, will cause some patients to die from cancer.

Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

I will not write again about Dr. Marshall's theories. No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously. Personally, I admire anyone willing to swim against the tide and raise alternative theories. I have done the same with influenza and autism. However, I agree with the New York Times, An Oldie Vies for Nutrient of the Decade and Jane Brody's conclusion, "In the end, you will have to decide for yourself how much of this vital nutrient to consume each and every day and how to obtain it." I agree. You will have to decide for yourself.

John Cannell, MD
http://vitamindcouncil.org/

[pro-d]

Just to put this in a tidy post:

Amy said - Unfortunately, Marshall's work revealed that the type of vitamin D derived from supplements and sun remains, for the most part, in it's precursor form 25-D.
Cannell: Again, Dr. Marshall conducted no experiment and published no study. He wrote an essay. He presented no evidence for his first hypothesis (sunlight's vitamin D is different than supplements). From all that we know, cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol, regardless if it is made in the skin or put in the mouth.

When patients take extra vitamin D, it remains as 25-D, the corticosteroid that temporarily lowers the patient's inflammation.
If 25-D didn't hydroxylate, it wouldn't do anything.

Healthy people should aim to keep thier level of 25-D under about 20 ng/ml which is the point at which it will begin to block the VDR.
Under 20ng/ml, PTH speeds up renal production of 1,25D as a back up system. It also leeches calcium from the bones for the blood unless you take calcium. When 25D is roughly zero, then soon after 1,25D will be zero as there's no more substrate. This is invoking osteomalacia unless you're taking calcium. However, D-less calcium has no direction and can settle in your arteries.

I also think that calcium is perhaps not so essential once you've normalised blood calcium and 25D. Humans are only really meant to consume milk for a very short initial period of their life. D is meant to preserve what you took in for much of your life. It would be much easier to get a good amount of UVB (in places where it's possible) than take calcium every day.

My preferred antibiotic is also cathelicidin!...

Low 25D can either be a sign of inflammation or deficiency, but what's clear is that optimal D prevents many illness and treats many illnesses. Their talk of immunosuppression is also misused, a suppressed immune system would make you more sick, not better.

Edited by pro-d, 15 July 2008 - 01:44 PM.

[krillin]

Healthy people should aim to keep thier level of 25-D under about 20 ng/ml which is the point at which it will begin to block the VDR.
Under 20ng/ml, PTH speeds up renal production of 1,25D as a back up system. It also leeches calcium from the bones for the blood unless you take calcium. When 25D is roughly zero, then soon after 1,25D will be zero as there's no more substrate. This is invoking osteomalacia unless you're taking calcium. However, D-less calcium has no direction and can settle in your arteries.

I also think that calcium is perhaps not so essential once you've normalised blood calcium and 25D. Humans are only really meant to consume milk for a very short initial period of their life. D is meant to preserve what you took in for much of your life. It would be much easier to get a good amount of UVB (in places where it's possible) than take calcium every day.

More like K2-less calcium has no direction. D's calcium function is to raise blood calcium, either through increased intestinal absorption or bone resorption. D and cholesterol overdoses are used to give rats atherosclerosis.

D doesn't have a sparing effect on calcium. Calcium is going to be excreted no matter what in proportion to the salt and acid content of your diet.

[pro-d]

Cheers for that. I can count on you for putting me right.

[Frans]

Hi all,

This is my reply to dr Cannell's reply to prof. Marshall's article about supplemental vitamin D and its effect on the immune system


I suggest you read this very, very, véry carefully, since it will give you an insight into the so-called vitamin D council cultus that will disgust you like it does me. Trust me on this. Print it out if you want to, but make sure you read it.

Ok, where to begin, there is so much nonsense in there it hurts the eye...

First off, Cannell states that Marshall is saying that "Vitamin D from sunlight is different than vitamin D from supplements", which is the first indication that he didn't read Marshall's paper very wel, if at all...

I will quote what Marshall actually says in his paper: "The popular press is talking about vitamin D as The Sunshine Vitamin, promoting it as capable of reducing risk of cancers and autoimmune disease. Yet vitamin D is actually a secosteroid transcriptional activator, at the heart of innate immunity." In other words: calling it a vitamin is shortsighted and does not even begin to explain it's actions, that range far beyond that of a vitamin.

In fact, vitamin D does not even fulfill the basic criteria for a vitamin which are: a vitamin is something the body cannot make itself; now, we know the body can actually make vit. D from sunlight, so it isn't a vitamin, period. You can look this up using google, I guess. Now, despite looking simple, Marshall' s paper is actually quite complicated and complex, and clearly over Cannell's head, if he cannot understand such a simple sentence.


Cannell also says: "From all that we know, cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol, regardless if it is made in the skin or put in the mouth." Now, of course, with this he is trying to manipulate you into thinking Marshall is stupid, but in actual fact, he simply didn't understand what Marshall actually meant.

There is also another problem I have with this sentence and that is the following: He is talking about cholecalciferol, which is rather interesting, since all the studies he and his vit. D cult colleagues are doing are actually measuring calcidiol, not cholecalciferol. They are measuring 25OHD, which is called calcidiol, and yet here he is talking about cholecalciferol, which is vitamin D3, NOT 25OHD. Strange, isn't it ? But there are many more strange things, which I will discuss.

Cannell says: "Before I begin, I want to again remind you that I am a psychiatrist who works at a state mental hospital. In my duty to full disclosure, I must say that I have known a lot of psychiatrists in my life and a few electrical engineers. If I knew nothing else of a disagreement between two people but their professions, I would believe the electrical engineer, not the psychiatrist."

Well, this actually sounds like a four year old trying to impress his friend by saying that his father has a better job than his, a bit manipulative in my opinion, but then again, he IS a psychiatrist, someone who knows how manipulation works...

Next problem: Cannell says, and this is actually the only time he SEEMS to make sense: His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. I have put this in bold letters, so you can look back easier when I refer to this sentence later on.

Please note this snippet: they don't know what is causing what...

So, he seems to agree with Marshall's hypothesis, but then goes on with: Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Take patients with severe dementia bedridden in a nursing home. At least some of their low 25(OH)D levels are likely the result of confinement and lack of outdoor activity. However, did dementia cause the low vitamin D levels or did low 25 (OH)D contribute to the dementia?

Now at first sight, this looks innocent, but he is actually giving you an example that is also manipulative, again trying to make Marshall's hypothesis sound silly, since in this case there is indeed a question about how their light deprivement contributes to their present or not

A much more honest example had been if he had said: Well, indeed, if someone has cancer and lower vit.D, is the lower vit. D causative or a result ? Which sounds a lot less silly. The same goes if you put MS, RA, Diabetes, or other diseases in the place of the word cancer. Try it...

Talking about manipulating...

But he goes on, and on, and on,

next sentence: Cannell says: "One way to look at that question is to look at early dementia, before the patient is placed in a nursing home. On the first day an older patient walks into a neurology clinic, before being confined to a nursing home, what is the relationship between vitamin D levels and dementia? The answer is clear, the lower your 25(OH)D levels the worse your cognition."

This sounds better, but somehow he seems to have spontaneously forgotten the bold sentence above:His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Since, by sating: " the lower your 25(OH)D levels the worse your cognition", he clearly wants to make you think, low levels of vit. D are causative,

which ' somehow' seems to contradict:- that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what.

Strange how people forget things, isnt it ?


Of course these people cannot know what is causing what!

I will give you an example I read somewhere. These guys, let's call them epidemiologists, can proof, statistically, that literally every car collision with casualties or wounded is CAUSED by ambulances !! Why? Well, they are at the scene of the crime 100% of the time !! Convincing statistic isn't it?

This sounds stupid, and it is, but it is a rather good example of how people using statistics can NEVER EVER PROVE WHAT CAUSES WHAT...... Sound familiar?

But Cannell goes on:

Cannell says: Keep in mind, an entire chapter in Feldman's textbook is devoted to the ill effects low vitamin D levels have on brain function.

And you guessed it: again he forgets the bold sentence: His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease.

you probably already noted this part: that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what.

Somehow, dr Cannell's warning us all that: he and all those other scientists don´t know what causes what seems to have disappeared ! Strange...... In fact, what he is trying to do here is convince you that Low D levels CAUSE the disease, without warning you that that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what Seems a 'bit' contradictory doesn´t it ?


Next, Cannel says: However, If Dr. Marshall's principal hypothesis is correct, that low vitamin D levels are the result of disease, then he is saying that cancer causes low vitamin D levels Finally he understood 'a part' of what Marshall is saying, even though in his own words, Marshall is " hypothesising" this.

However, next Cannell says: The problem is that Professor Joanne Lappe directly disproved that theory in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk.

Which again makes clear he doesn't understand what Marshall is saying: The disease process is decreasing the D levels, making them predictors of who could progress to cancer in the future.

That is EXACTLY what Marshall is saying.

In other words: The people in the study who had low baseline levels of vit. D were already showing signs of disease ! Again: Exactly what Marshall is saying, Cannell is not the most intelligent reader unfortunately, I hope for his patients that he listens and talks better than he reads.

Marshall's thinking is as follows:
disease --> higher innate immune activity --> this lead to higher 1,25D and LOWER 25D Simple, isn't it ?

Interestingly anough this is actually backed by hundreds of real scientific papers.

To check this, you can simply work through the references in Marshall's paper, which is not 'just an opinion', but actually a comprehensive review of a lot of the molecular Biology concerning the REAL effects and workings of the vitamin D metabolism. Marshall actually refers to about 70 papers, done by other scientists, who are actually looking at how things work, instead of trying to statistically determine how the vit. D metabolism works, like Lappe, Heaney, Garland, Vieth, etc. Yet, somehow, it is all to difficult to grasp for Cannell and his vit. D cultus cronies, which makes one wonder....

Cannell also says: I will not write again about Dr. Marshall's theories. No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously. Which is rather strange, considering the bold sentence again:His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Especially look at this part again:- that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what

So, they actually agree, yet they don't take him seriously

Contradictory? Mwa....

Cannell also says: Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient, as the Marshall protocol clearly does, will cause some patients to die from cancer.

Hold on ! Is he really saying this ? Somehow sounds manipulative, doesn't it? Especially when considering, that Joan Lappe et al actually 100% confirmed Marshall's hypothesis.

Cannell also says: Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period.

Again he is not thinking clearly: Marshall explains that too high levels of 25OHD suppresses the immune system, which might be a very interesting hypothesis, since it explains exactly why these people were not SHOWING signs of cancer after 4 years.

Think about what prednison does to people with serious disease: they feel better, but they are still sick... it is called immunosuppression.

Another thing you might be interested in is the following statement at the site of the viamin D council:
"Current research indicates vitamin D deficiency plays a role in causing seventeen varieties of cancer as well as heart disease, stroke, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, depression, chronic pain, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, birth defects, and periodontal disease." Now, this is really disturbing, they actually say: plays a role in causing

Even though, according to Cannell, who himself is a member of this vit. D cultus, tells us:- all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know: what is causing what. So again, Cannell's club clearly cannot make up their minds about who is saying what.

There are, by the way, more considerations regarding Lappe's paper which I will point out so you can make up your own mind.

First of all, for those who actually read the paper, they state in their conclusion in the abstract on pubmed:Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. Now, I don't know about you, but I am not a postmenopausal woman.

I am also not having problems with my calcium nutritional status. I have several blood test results to prove it.


But let us look at Lappe's paper.

In Lappe's 'research' they had three groups:
I: no calcium and vit. D (placebo, 288 women)
II calcium only (445 women)
III: calcium + vit.D (446 women)

What they decided was that the difference between groups II and II 'must have been due to vitamin D', which in itself sounds like a joke.

So, I will focus on those two groups, since the number of people in those groups is roughly equal, 445 vs 446

Now, if one looks at the numbers regarding Uterus cancer, the calcium only group had 2 incidences over a four year period, whereas the calcium + vit. D group had 1

So, a difference of 1 less cancer incidence over a period of 4 years: 50% reduction ! wow !

The only problem is, and I sincerely hope you agree, that 1 case is not all that much, also called, statistically insignificant


Next, regarding ' Other cancers', huh ?? which or what?? They found that in the calcium only group there were 2 incidences, whereas in the calcium + vit. D group, there were 3 !! incidences. a 50% increase ?

Wow ! That means that calcium + vit. D actually leads to a 50% !! higher risk of getting ' other cancers' ! what went wrong with these people ?

The only problem is, and I am sure you agree, that 1 case is not all that much, also called, statistically insignificant


Now, If one looks at breast cancer, the calcium only group had 5 incidences, whereas the calcium + vit. D group had 6, wow 20% less ! This vit. D really is a super drug !!

The only problem is, AGAIN, that 1 case is not all that much, also called, statistically insignificant These people must be kidding.

Do you really want to bet your life on these numbers ? I do not.


At this point in time this paper by Lappe's is getting all sorts of criticism from fellow scientists, which somehow doesn't surprise me...

I wil leave you with another interesting contradiction to ponder:

Several people have reacted in BioEssays to Marshall's paper.

Their main argument is that there are soooooo many papers pointing out low levels of vit. D in disease

They too are showing that they never really understood what Marshall actually wrote, since he totally agrees with them!!!!

He understands that disease will lower 25OHD levels, believe me.

So, Marshall's answer was rather short: He said: I agree that low vit. D is tied in with disease, but you are trying to make me believe that they cause disease, rather than being a result of it. And since you are only looking at statistics instead of how the body actually works, I don't agree with you and you have clearly not proven it, not even by a long shot.


Now, of course, we know Cannell's position on this:- that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what
In other words, he and the vit. D council do not know if low D is a cause or a result.

Now, to end this, those people who are reacting to Marshall's paper? Stating that low D somehow CAUSES disease?

Well, they are actually members of Cannell's own beloved vit.D council cultus !!

Which makes one wonder again if he really stands by his remark that- that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what

Since his own colleagues, who are among these scientists, are clearly saying something else.

Contradictions, inconsistencies and downright lies all over.


Best, Frans, no MD, but someone who actually can and does read


PS Please consider that calling low vit. D levels 'deficiency' is WRONG, since 'deficiency' indicates you need more, for which there clearly isn't ANY PROOF.

PPS You might also ponder another thing:

In the pathway to get from D3 to 1,25D (the active form) there are the following factors involved:

- enzymes like cyp27A1 and cyp27B1
- but also several other factors, like Interferon Gamma, the Parathyroid receptor, Protein Kinase A, TGF-beta and p300, to name a few.

Yet these people ONLY MEASURE 25OHD, and want you to supplement D3, without measuring all these other factors that play a role

Somehow sounds silly

Look at it as a refinery: we run on gas (1,25D, the only active form of D) and these people are trying to tell you that pumping more and more CRUDE OIL into the refinery will always lead to more gas, without considering or measuring ! all these other chemicals that are needed to get from D3 to 1,25D. Not very convincing, is it? Not even close to anything I would call 'science'

Edited by Frans, 20 July 2008 - 12:07 AM.

[pro-d]

Most of us, including the Vitamin D Council, are aware that vitamin D is not a true vitamin. The name first came before we learnt that our body could manufacture it from the sun. I've no idea why the name still exists; maybe it's just catchy.

It's possible that Cannell made an assumption that Marshall has not differentiated between D2 and D3 supplementation as the former is the norm. And erogocalciferol is not the same as sunlight formed vitamin D. But cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol.

What's the point in measuring D3 when you know how much you are supplementing with? You want to measure how it affects your 25D.
Even Marshall's paper points out that D3 is the result of sunlight exposure.

The paragraph you've bolded is simply a precursor to what he then wanted to prove (which could even apply to a bullet causing bleeding, it is not an implicit text) - that there are studies that show quite strongly that low 25OHD is indicative of disease development. Insufficient/deficient 25OHD increases the likelihood of the illnesses mentioned and further lowers 25OHD in a fighting response by speeding up renal hydroxylation of what material (25D) there is available.

The analogy that car collisions are caused by ambulances could be flipped: Does a large police presence (25D) prevent car collisions (disease)? Marshall needs to prove that people with consistently optimal 25OHD later develop stated illnesses. If insufficent 25OHD further lowers in response to a disease (a handful of cops getting run over), does an army of cops keep things in control in the first place? That's what many studies suggest.

Not everyone with low 25D will develop cancer as there are co-factor variables that predict what disease you will get if at all within your lifetime.

Also, what is the difference between a comprehensive review and an opinion? Whatever you label it, this is not a piece where 'we studied...and we conclude'. I don't buy the MP study site as observatorally it is nothing but anecdotal until it opens it's doors for inspection. The idea that D is immunosuppressive is sill based a model that could well be wrong.

The 'Current research indicates vitamin D deficiency' sentence is not incorrect as it summarises peer reviewed studies. Not comprehensive reviews or whatever.

The erroneous part of Lappe's study (which I agree a harder hitting study would've been better) is simply that not enough tailored vitamin D was administered (1100IU is below current recommendations with no regard for patient's 25D levels) and calcium alone can equal the other group due to increased renal hydroxylation, via PTH, trying to mimic optimal status.

The point is, it seems apparent insufficent 25D fails to protect from certain illness (like a brittle wall) and lowers further in response to fighting to create 1,25D. Whereas a strong wall (high 25D) prevents disease and provides addequate ammo (substrate) for fighting, which in the case of cancer means using 25D to create intracellular 1,25D.

Until Marshall has a peer reviewed study - that is not a comprehensive review or a message forum full of unexplained hallelujiahs, not many people will take him seriously.

[Brainbox]

I pop 8 Cod Liver caps a day and get a lot of Vitamin D from it and I'm glad for it as well--not a whole lot of sun in upstate NY round this season.

I don't want to sound of as being over protective, but would 8 cod liver oil capsules (depending on the amount per capsule of coarse) induce a risk for vit. A overload?
When yielding 1000 IU of D from cod liver oil, you would get in excess of 10000 IU of vit. A if my quick calculation is correct. Adding that to the possible contents of a multivitamin and normal diet...

In January 2001, the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine set the tolerable upper level (UL) of vitamin A intake for adults at 3,000 mcg (10,000 IU)/day of preformed vitamin A

source

[resveratrol]

PS Please consider that calling low vit. D levels 'deficiency' is WRONG, since 'deficiency' indicates you need more, for which there clearly isn't ANY PROOF.

Frans, I have no idea why you continue to show up and rant here with inaccurate statements such as this one. The science in favor of vitamin D levels significantly beyond those recommended by the FDA is overwhelming at this point.