And here comes the bomb on Vitamin D3 - Must read...

The Truth About Vitamin D: Fourteen Reasons Why Misunderstanding Endures
Author: Amy Proal

Dangers of Vitamin D3

Interesting read. Thanks for the link. Do you know if anyone has written up a proper counter to this article?

I was thinking of contacting this fellow (the doc from this video):

highlight=vitamin+d3Forum Link on D3

I was thinking of contacting this fellow (the doc from this video):

Forum Link on D3

lund wrote:The Truth About Vitamin D: Fourteen Reasons Why Misunderstanding Endures
Author: Amy Proal

Dangers of Vitamin D3

I don't have to read it... Seeing the MP pusher Amy Proal's name there tells me all I need to know about the article.

http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19878

gregslater wrote:
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19878

Good thread. Thanks for posting.

One question: What do you mean by MP?

jksl wrote:

gregslater wrote:
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19878

Good thread. Thanks for posting.

One question: What do you mean by MP?

Marshall Protocol... If you actually read all the thread I referenced it will become clear.

gregslater wrote:

jksl wrote:

gregslater wrote:
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19878

Good thread. Thanks for posting.

One question: What do you mean by MP?

Marshall Protocol... If you actually read all the thread I referenced it will become clear.

Thanks

I have sent the email to the doc in the video - I will report if he responds.

If there is some evidence to the popular belief, we should atleast review and understand and I think that's what make things interesting.

So are we saying that this extreme position on Vitamin D is incorrect and the Moleculat modeling is bogus? Is there research published to support that statement - it would be an interesting read...

Dr. Mercola had mentioned about this not all that long ago, but I don't know where the link is. Basically he said what Marshall thinks is incorrect.

As far as I know, there are only a few rare conditions that benefit from low vitamin D, one of those is Sarcoidosis, which is curable in most cases (not according to most doctors of course).

Further I should say that our immune systems need to be smart and vitamin D makes them smarter. This is why autoimmune conditions normally suffer with a vitamin D deficiency. Bacteria diseases (including hair loss) do not benefit from low vitamin D. If our body can properly recognize the difference between good and bad bacteria, it will not force a blunt attack on friendly bacteria quite as often.

IH - when you read from Mercola, does he base his claims any peer reviewed national or international research?

I know he has a large following, and I have not read enough of his work - the little I read, there was no reference to the current or old research in claims he made.

Do you remember the "not washing" thread on vitamin "D" where he claimed that any vitamin "D" skin makes is washed if you take a bath? Perhaps I missed where he links the research confirming the position...

For all I know MP can be a quack as well....

lund - Mercola's comment was pretty recent but if I find it I will see if I can find any references. The Marshall information is dated from what I understand and given the huge body of research on vitamin D the last few years it seems difficult to give much weight towards Marshall's argument.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/14/Clearing-Up-Confusion-on-Vitamin-D--Why-I-Dont-Recommend-the-Marshall-Protocol.aspx

IH, I agree the tide is with the supporters of Vitamin "D", and I am with the gang. I hope we are not mistaken here. It is always priden to atleast hear/read the dissenting opinion specially if it is based on technical reasons.

Thanks for the link Mad Dog!

lund - I agree with you, it can be a bit dangerous to get sucked into group think and become lost and lose something potentially useful. In this case, Vitamin D has been more or less suppressed for over a 100 years in terms of importance. The amount of emerging evidence has reach such a peak that even mainstream is paying attention. It is said that it takes about a 100 years for the public to finally get something, and vitamin D is probably a shining example.

I remember clearly back in 1998 I had a discussion with someone who worked at Super Nutrition and they shared with me some research at that time on vitamin D. They told me at that time that it would take some 6-months taking 50,000 IU of vitamin D before any toxic effect would be felt. They had said then that 10,000 is quite safe on a daily basis. What he and I didn't know then was how pitifully low the 400 IU the RDA was recommending and all the research that show the best benefit get into much higher levels.

Personally I'm more than convinced on Vitamin D, because I have witnessed clear evidence in its positive effects in arthritis, heart disease, osteoporosis and diabetes. There's a lot of people who stay sequestered into their homes avoiding the sun as if it were some sort of poison, not realizing that their bones are so fragile because there's too little vitamin D in the system. Many suffer from muscle atrophy because there's too little vitamin D. Dementia has an inverse correlation with vitamin D levels also.

A 100 years ago doctors used to prescribe getting more sun.

lund wrote:It is always priden to atleast hear/read the dissenting opinion specially if it is based on technical reasons.

The problem here, at least with my post blowing it off, is that some of us here have read it ad nauseam. Anything you supplement with, regardless of if IH recommends it, or Dr. Mercola, etc. should be be researched first before you start using it. And the Marshall Protocol has been a round for some time.

The link I gave to the thread on Imminst.org was a pretty good one against it, but there are many more on the net.

Is there any evidence/studies that show that people in countries which recieve less sunshine anually have higher proportions of arthritis, heart disease, osteoporosis and diabetes?
I live in Ireland and we don't get the same amount of sun as people in say Italy. Shouldn't studies show that Ireland would have a higher proportion of illnesses associated with less Vitamin D?

I can tell you this much - the entier middle East , asian sub continent and most of the so called 2nd and 3rd world countries get plenty of sunshine all year around - and there is no concept of UV protection (sun screens) there [it would be termed fashion, ppl do not have money to eat, forget stupid creams...].

Ppl there do not bare a lot of skin, but not everyone wears a "burqa" either - so they do get their share of the sunlight -and the mortality rates and health issues are the worst there.

Does this mean anything, perhaps not - can Vitamin D save your behind by itself, probably NO. Is it a good thing, we hope so. The only NEW question we asked was "is it hurting?" and I think if MP is proven bogus, we have no other evidence to support a negative consequence.

What I know for certain about vitamin D, is that the further north in latitude the greater frequency of multiple sclerosis.
Sufficient vitamin D before birth in the mother can prevent type I diabetes up to 80%. Cancer rates are inversely correlated with vitamin D.

Here's a site rich with information http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Im taking 2x1000 IU daily of D3, would that be concidered as safe? And what is most optimal, 2x1000 IU at the same time, or use 1000 IU at morning and 1000 IU at night?

I've seen scores of patients get better after their vitamin D levels were optimized later when tested for lower vitamin D levels prior.

Generally what works best for health is something natural. As we get away from natural thinking, such as staying indoors for inordinate amounts of time, using sun screens (bad idea), avoiding the sun as dermatologists have suggested for decades, cancer rates have only increased.

I'm sold on Vitamin D because the research is overwhelmingly positive. For the last 100 years, the support for vitamin D hasn't been enough.

How about this study showing all-cause mortality reduction when sufficient vitamin D is present. Risk of death increases from all causes the lower the level of vitamin D. Study below. If Vitamin D is bad, why would a reduction increase all cause mortality?

25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and the risk of mortality in the general population.
Melamed ML, Michos ED, Post W, Astor B.

Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Ave, Ullmann 615, Bronx, NY 10461, USA. mmelamed@aecom.yu.edu

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing dialysis, therapy with calcitriol or paricalcitol or other vitamin D agents is associated with reduced mortality. Observational data suggests that low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (25[OH]D) are associated with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and cancers. However, whether low serum 25(OH)D levels are associated with mortality in the general population is unknown. METHODS: We tested the association of low 25(OH)D levels with all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in 13 331 nationally representative adults 20 years or older from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) linked mortality files. Participant vitamin D levels were collected from 1988 through 1994, and individuals were passively followed for mortality through 2000. RESULTS: In cross-sectional multivariate analyses, increasing age, female sex, nonwhite race/ethnicity, diabetes, current smoking, and higher body mass index were all independently associated with higher odds of 25(OH)D deficiency (lowest quartile of 25(OH)D level, <17.8 ng/mL [to convert to nanomoles per liter, multiply by 2.496]), while greater physical activity, vitamin D supplementation, and nonwinter season were inversely associated. During a median 8.7 years of follow-up, there were 1806 deaths, including 777 from CVD. In multivariate models (adjusted for baseline demographics, season, and traditional and novel CVD risk factors), compared with the highest quartile, being in the lowest quartile (25[OH]D levels <17.8 ng/mL) was associated with a 26% increased rate of all-cause mortality (mortality rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.46) and a population attributable risk of 3.1%. The adjusted models of CVD and cancer mortality revealed a higher risk, which was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The lowest quartile of 25(OH)D level (<17.8 ng/mL) is independently associated with all-cause mortality in the general population.

Another question, recently in the Archives of Internal Medicine a study found that 45% of people in our ICU were Vitamin D deficient. So would would acutely ill people be especially low in Vitamin D?

Misirlou - That amount of vitamin D you're taking is very safe. I take about 6,000 IU per day and the safe upper limit is 10,000 IU per day.

Are you saying that Vitamin-D3 and Vitamin-D are the same?
"Very safe" as in "useless" ?


What about this?
http://www.marshallprotocol.com/forum2/2588.html

Misirlou - Trevor Marshall's protocol is based on his own experience with Sarcoidosis, which is really the only disease that becomes a problem with vitamin D. There is one part of his protocol with antibiotics for Rheumatoid arthritis which I think is good, but his vitamin D theory I think is pure quackery.

I thought Dr. Mercola had a good answer for this:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/14/Clearing-Up-Confusion-on-Vitamin-D--Why-I-Dont-Recommend-the-Marshall-Protocol.aspx