D3

This one on atopic dermatitis (skin inflammation)

J Dermatolog Treat. 2010 Jul 24.

Randomized controlled trial using vitamins E and D supplementation in atopic dermatitis.
Javanbakht MH, Keshavarz SA, Djalali M, Siassi F, Eshraghian MR, Firooz A, Seirafi H, Ehsani AH, Chamari M, Mirshafiey A.

Department of Nutrition and Biochemistry, Faculty of Public Health.

Abstract Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronically relapsing, highly pruritic and inflammatory skin disease. This study was done to assess the effects of vitamins D and E supplementation on the clinical manifestation of atopic dermatitis. Methods: Forty-five atopic dermatitis patients were included in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. They were randomly divided into four groups and treated for 60 days: group P (n = 11), vitamins D and E placebos; group D (n = 12), 1600 IU vitamin D(3) plus vitamin E placebo; group E (n = 11), 600 IU synthetic all-rac-alpha-tocopherol plus vitamin D placebo; and group DE (n = 11), 1600 IU vitamin D(3) plus 600 IU synthetic all-rac-alpha-tocopherol. Serum 25(OH) vitamin D and plasma alpha-tocopherol were determined before and after the trial. The clinical improvement was evaluated with SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD). Data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: SCORAD was reduced after 60 days in groups D, E and DE by 34.8%, 35.7% and 64.3%, respectively (p = 0.004). Objective SCORAD also showed significant improvement. There was a positive correlation between SCORAD and intensity, objective, subjective and extent (p < 0.001). We found a significant negative association between plasma alpha-tocopherol and SCORAD, intensity, objective and extent (p = 0.02). Conclusion: This study supports the contributing and beneficial effects of vitamins D and E in the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

More on the immune system:

Transpl Int. 2010 Jul 22.

Vitamin D supplementation improves response to antiviral treatment for recurrent hepatitis C.

Bitetto D, Fabris C, Fornasiere E, Pipan C, Fumolo E, Cussigh A, Bignulin S, Cmet S, Fontanini E, Falleti E, Martinella R, Pirisi M, Toniutto P.

Medical Liver Transplantation Unit, Internal Medicine, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.

Summary In immune-competent patients, higher vitamin D levels predicted sustained viral response (SVR) following interferon (INF) and ribavirin therapy for chronic hepatitis C. This study aimed to verify the influence of vitamin D serum levels and/or vitamin D supplementation in predicting SVR rates for recurrent hepatitis C (RHC). Forty-two consecutive patients were treated for RHC with combination therapy with INF-alpha and ribavirin for 48 weeks. Vitamin D serum levels were measured in all patients before antiviral therapy. In 15 patients oral vitamin D3 supplementation was administered to avoid further bone loss. SVR was observed in 13 patients; it was achieved in 1/10 severely vitamin D deficient (10 and 20 ng/ml) 25-OH vitamin D serum levels (P < 0.05). Cholecalciferol supplementation, in the presence of a normal or near normal baseline vitamin D concentration, (improvement of chi-square P < 0.05, odds ratio 2.22) and possessing a genotype other than 1 (improvement of chi-square P < 0.05, odds ratio 3.383) were the only variables independently associated to SVR. In conclusion, vitamin D deficiency predicts an unfavourable response to antiviral treatment of RHC. Vitamin D supplementation improves the probability of achieving a SVR following antiviral treatment.

Hi CS,

Don't mean to get on anyone's nerves. Figuring that this is one of the most important topics I have ever come across felt others should be warned.

To counter the above studies =

9:07 - 9:23

10:16 - 10:23

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO2YXh0ajnk&feature=player_embedded#!



In short, Hulda Clark was correct that a lack of immune response does not give a clean bill of health.

jdp701 wrote:



In short, Hulda Clark was correct that a lack of immune response does not give a clean bill of health.

On the contrary, this scares the living hell out of me...

jdp701 wrote:UVB light, chanca piedra and iodine (or Iodide I forget which form) would be a good route.

Another option would be rife which is what I do which is said to be superior than above option.

I understand in CS's practice that tens of thousands of patients have been on D3 for past 7 years with no problems but it's the immunosuppresive effects that occured from D3 supplement that's the issue at hand. That's where the problem lies. It's not like any other supplement out there that once you start to develop problem you can quit D3 supplement and everything goes back to normal.

People are under the mistaken belief that D3 "supplement" kills the flu/cold without one getting sick. It's the other way around IMO. D3 supplement supresses immune function that the bug gets by the immune system without it attacking. Do this long enough and your body will be in poor health due to all the pathogens your body has accumulated. Reversing this is what's extremely hard.

Hey JDP - would one way 'around' these immunosuppressive effects be to cycle D3? For example instead of taking 5000 IU every day, take 10,000 IU for 7 days then take 7 days off?

Doesn't the body store unused D3 anyway (ie making daily supplementation unecessary)?


What are your thoughts?

jdp701 wrote:Hi CS,

Don't mean to get on anyone's nerves. Figuring that this is one of the most important topics I have ever come across felt others should be warned.

To counter the above studies =

9:07 - 9:23

10:16 - 10:23

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO2YXh0ajnk&feature=player_embedded#!



In short, Hulda Clark was correct that a lack of immune response does not give a clean bill of health.

I thought you didnt approve of the marshall protocol but youre using their studies to back you claims

their studies on the vdr is based off a computer simulation...if you look at their stage 2 forum 80% people have gotten worse, NO one has been fully cured and off benicar/vit-d avoidance. Anything that comes out of amy proal's mouth is very biased especially cause she's on the treatment herself.

A theory v. clinical study after study supporting vitamin D3 supplementation. You are getting awful desperate JDP, as abc123 rightly points out.

jdp701 wrote:Hi CS,

Don't mean to get on anyone's nerves. Figuring that this is one of the most important topics I have ever come across felt others should be warned.

To counter the above studies =

9:07 - 9:23

10:16 - 10:23

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO2YXh0ajnk&feature=player_embedded#!

In short, Hulda Clark was correct that a lack of immune response does not give a clean bill of health.

jdp701 - No problem, I think it is valuable to get different view points always, and I'm sure you agree also. I appreciate the link.

I've seen quite a lot of material from Amy Proal. Of course your opinion does differ somewhat from Amy Proal as she is pro-anti D even from the sun. But I understand about the unconverted vitamin D.

I've listened to a few dozen medical practioner viewpoints on Amy's/Trevor's work and as you might expect, they think it's nonsense. But I and they can be wrong.

When I wrote to Amy proal, I told her, "Bacteria are our friends." Based on a new paradigm, particularly German New Medicine and other similar viewpoints, it is our environment more so than the "bugs" themselves. I can't help think that she maybe missing something--but I could be wrong.

I see these "autoimmune diseases" as a foreign material in the body or a focal infection. There are also mycotoxins and heavy metal toxicity. So often there is multiplicity of insults that can overwhelm the immune system.

Taken altogether, I see Amy's approach as extreme and not as effective as other treatments (removal of toxins or targeting specific infection).

Here's what Dr. Mercola had to say about the MP Protocol.

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

On Hulda Clark: She's always been very interesting, and I heard an interview of her last year. I think without a doubt she was the most "far out" person I've ever listened too. It made my head spin.

Anyway, I think eventually we'll figure out more about vitamin D and some of its potential drawbacks other than what is known presently.

Jdp you may be mixing two different issues into one .. The first being people with autoimmune disorders using vit D to "suppress" the immune system .. the second being healthy people using vit D to avoid deficiency during winter. For that reason the studies that CS posted has not been countered by the video you link to.

scottyc33 wrote:

Hey JDP - would one way 'around' these immunosuppressive effects be to cycle D3? For example instead of taking 5000 IU every day, take 10,000 IU for 7 days then take 7 days off?

Doesn't the body store unused D3 anyway (ie making daily supplementation unecessary)?

Hi scottyc33,

Unfortunately, cycling D3 supplement would not.

You body does store uncoverted D3 in a manner of speaking. Daily supplementation is almost a joke as it it would be similiar to saying d-alpha tocopherol is all that's needed for Vitamin E supplementation.

cpio wrote:Jdp you may be mixing two different issues into one .. The first being people with autoimmune disorders using vit D to "suppress" the immune system .. the second being healthy people using vit D to avoid deficiency during winter. For that reason the studies that CS posted has not been countered by the video you link to.

cpio,

The two quotes from the video above showed that there are many disease states including autoimmune and diabetes that are affected by inflammation. 2nd quote was D3 supplementation reduces inflammation and thus will have benefits for a great many ailments.

People are not Vitamin D deficient in the winter as people are led to believe. It's more complicated than that.

jdp, some people do get deficient during long winters. I know, because I met and talked with some, and there is no doubt supplementation helps them.

Yes, D3 supplementation does help almost everyone short-term.

But again, D3 supplementation is not the same D3 from the sun and worse is just a tiny fraction of sun exposure.

And to make matters even worse, wouldn't want to be taking an immunosuppresive even 3 months out of the year.

I think I will use up my D3 supplement and then not buy another until further research is released.

Will take many many years if not decades for truth to come out regarding D3 supplement.

However, there will probably be a couple here and there regarding cancer until then but will be drowned out by the many many positive short-term studies.

Multiple sclerosis (abbreviated MS, also known as disseminated sclerosis or encephalomyelitis disseminata) is an inflammatory disease. MS affects the ability of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord to communicate with each other.


Multiple Sclerosis Resource Center:

"The vitamin [D3] is credited with a host of benefits but because the body's stores of it are mainly formed by exposure to sunlight many Britons do not have enough of it.

In England, half of the population is low in the 'sunshine vitamin' when winter ends ・in Scotland, it is two-thirds.

Dr Ann Prentice, chairman of the scientific advisory committee on nutrition, said: 'It is widely recognised within Government circles that we have a problem now that needs to be addressed. Milk is one of the potential vehicles that could be used.'

The vitamin is vital for calcium absorption and bone health and may help to prevent Alzheimer's.

Recent research has shown that vitamin D supplements are as good as some drugs at keeping prostate cancer under control and it is said that taking supplements of the vitamin in pregnancy and childhood could wipe out 80 per cent of cases of multiple sclerosis."

In fact: "Preliminary research suggests that long-term vitamin D supplementation decreases the risk of MS; however, additional research is necessary before a firm conclusion can be reached."

The Natural wrote:

In fact: "Preliminary research suggests that long-term vitamin D supplementation decreases the risk of MS; however, additional research is necessary before a firm conclusion can be reached."

Wasn't a long-term study. They are drawing the conclusion that high 25 D levels decreases MS risk without looking at the big picture of why 25 D levels would be low to begin with and also not realizing role of 1,25 D.

It's like saying lack of Vitamin C is the reason for most ailments.

Correlation does not imply causation

Says who? You? Who are you? Are you a doctor? A scientist? Do you work in the medical field? Alternative medicine?

You performed a mere three-month online study of vitamins, and now, apparently, you know more than trained professionals. I don't think so . In fact, what has become readily apparent is your need to make a point, no matter what is presented to the contrary, and despite your own lack of long term clinical evidence showing the detrimental effects of vitamin D3 supplementation.

Again, says who? You? Who are you?

Proal is anti-D, even from the sun?

That defies common sense and thousands of years of evolution.

Sucks to have credibility attacked now. You realize all the quotes I've made are not my own...

Most everyone knows that when I make a post that is not backed by a study, articles, etc. and/or cannot be validated through articles, studies, etc., I almost always post the acronym of "IMO" or IMO/IME to avoid giving the reader the wrong idea. I do this to seperate my opinions and to avoid giving others the wrong idea of what I can and cannot support through articles, studies, etc..

All the information in this thread and previous D3 thread is supported through prior articles, studies, links, etc. that I have posted.

To answer your question directly the first 3 links came from:

Colorado State University regarding toxicity

Pettifor et al, 1989 regarding 25 D and 1,25 D in regards to thyroid.

and the first link came from:

About the Author

Shane is an award winning organic chemist and author of Over-The-Counter Natural Cures. He teaches people about natural medicine, but is not a shill. He is a perfect candidate for being "medicated to death" - according to psychiatry, but chooses living young instead. He has been quoted by USA Today, Shape, Woman’s World, as well as Women’s Health and has served as guest speaker for large corporations like BP and appeared on Fox and NBC as a natural medicine advocate."

In regards to the first D3 thread that was created the sources of information came from:

US NIH
University of Wisconsin Osteoporosis Clinic
Albert, P.J., Proal, A.D. & Marshall, T.G
Allie, N. Immunology 125, 522-534 (2008).
Turnbaugh, P.J. Nature 449, 804-810 (2007).
Xu, Y. et al. Chin. Med. J 116, 1070-1073 (2003).
Yenamandra, S.P Oncol 31, 92-96 (2009).

as well as a few others.

Again, my opinions are seperated by the acronym "IMO." All other information is verified through prior articles, studies, etc..

If you spend 30 seconds reading a post that takes me 30 minutes you'll miss the meaning and the thread becomes longer than need be.

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/

http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/19878-take-or-avoid-vitamin-d-supplements/ read this thread where the anti-d crew get buried.

scottyc33,

CS is referring to how Amy Proal, Trevor Marshall, etc. are using lack of any form of Vitamin D to treat sarcoidosis and l-form bacteria.

In short, their protocol sucks but they have a lot of good information but the way they came up with how to treat conditions leaves a lot to be desired.

abc123,

The article posted above is chalk full of inaccuracies. I thought everyone would have been aware of how information is discredited considering that's exactly how much of the information that's posted on this site gets discredited by the allophathic community.

I don't have enough time in the day to repeat myself but the information I've posted in past 2 threads on D3 has already gone over this.

Regarding the imminist thread, yes, at the time that thread was also posted on this site. At the time, I also held the same view as that thread believing that the authors and researchers studying D3 supplementation did their due diligence. They have not. It's the same as in the mid - early part of the 20th century doctors recommending their patients smoke as way of better health to treat a wide variety of ailments. Now the pendulum has shifted in the exact opposite direction where smoking is the cause of the patients ailment. No matter how silly it would be.

My point being each successive doctor/researcher believed the prior information before them was accurate. Like sheep.

Anyhow, there is another thread, a more recent thread, at imminist showing an increase in certain cancers with D3 supplementation or increased 25 D levels... I forget which.

JDP,

I am not impressed with "a three-month online self-study." I want to know whether or not you have been professionally trained in the area of either medicine or science; whether you work in the area of, say, alternative medicine.