Take or avoid vitamin D supplements?, Trevor Marshall Options

[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/en/revues/medecine/bdc/...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.nih.gov/sites/entrez?D...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.

This post has been edited by pro-d: Feb 3 2008, 08:32 PM

[Frans]

25D itself is no lame duck too when it comes to cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?D...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.

This post has been edited by pro-d: Feb 5 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.org/forum/testing-for-t...als-t20103.html

This post has been edited by oregon: Feb 6 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.org/forum/testing-for-t...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.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...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.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....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/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/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/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/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.

This post has been edited by hullcrush: Apr 14 2008, 06:19 PM

[Matt]

I was just having a glance over some posts here
http://www.marshallprotocol.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.com/Pages.asp?AID=5445

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd....l=pubmed_docsum

[Googlebot]

Go ad free, join ImmInst as a Full Member.