Throw away your Vitamin D3!

wasn't talking to you

Sure, Huckleberry.

I was wondering were I read most of these abstracts and opinions before. As you already know, Trevor Marshall is the scientist who designed the Marshal Protocol. Many of his papers Marshal wrote (I read them) he did in partnership with Amy Proal and Paul J. Albert. The first video I watched regarding the foundation for the MP was the one were JDP posted a link of Amy Proal discussing the Metagenomic symbiosis between bacterial and viral pathogens in autoimmune disease, I think it was a symposium or a congress of autoimmunity in Slovenia. Although her lecture was very insightful, I felt that she was promoting her hypothesis or theory, and of course, she should be. After reading some of these research papers she has penned, she seems to be a brilliant researcher who works for the Autoimmunity Research Foundation but she does have a bias; understanding where she does her research allows me to see what side of the vitamin D debate she is on.

I try to remain objective when reading research papers, but not always, sometimes I just get to wrapped up in the logic of the discussion.

You have to explain what Newport is all about.

jdp701 wrote:Run this script and undeniable.

jdp I don't know what I'm looking at there. Can you please explain what that readout is about?

One more thing, we've been seeing alot of info on how Vit D3 is beneficial to supplement and have felt great using it as well. Now, with that and similar pro-Vit D stuff drilled into our heads and probably yours as well (before you saw something to change your mind), you'd think that you'd have had something concrete to back you up.

Was talking about Rife previously in thread.

Regarding Vitamin D3 supplement, 100% positive that D3 supplement is harmful long-term. These D3 supplements are one of the most harmful supplements for long-term health out there.

In short, D3 is not the same as sun exposure. D3 is 100% unconverted. Sunlight has unconverted (UVB) but at same time also converts (UVA) making safe.

Regarding D3 studies, they aren't telling the whole picture. Kinda reminds me of the tocopherols issue. I explained in previous posts a bit.

hope this helps

JDP in the beginning of this thread you mentioned that you have developed shortness of breath in your case? What are you doing to regulate this? I also have developed shortness of breath and have dropped D3 for the past 4-5 days but I really didn't want to confuse posters as I am not sure if this is the reason. I tried sending you a PM but it doesn't allow me to.

jdp,

you say D3 is detrimental in the long-term.
Does this mean that, as far as you understand, seasonal supplementation of D3 is ok?

by taking vit D3 you're killing yourself (i choose my words), it's your choice but it's one of the most dangerous things one can do and i feel it as a moral obligation to say it, even if it's upopular

do your own resarch, use your brain, do not rely on any single forum

1,25 x 25 is one of the most subtle and important balances, you kill your thyroid (T3), ......

stop this madness!!!

http://mpkb.org/home/pathogenesis/vitamind/metabolism
http://mpkb.org/home/pathogenesis/vitamind

Freaky stuff Prague.

Those links are from Trevor Marshall who is in my opinion is on the lunatic fringe. I've kept a close watch on his work for some years. I'll also studied carefully the work of Amy Proal. they are missing something.

Not only have I seen and heard poor response from some of his patients, no one in the scientific community takes him seriously, none of the studies are peer reviewed.

My observation is that patients have gotten much better with D3 supplementation, as soon on follow up visits. And this is not ony my experience, it's the experience of many others.

In some individuals, say Jdp710 there could be an issue with Vitamin D. So among some patient there is warranted caution, but I suspect in the minority of cases.

My point is that we are all different, and at the same time, I'm very doubtful that caution over D3 applies to everyone.

In short, listen to your body. The patient response has been terrific, and I'd say my favorite benefit is the extra testosterone.

That's true CS; the testo boost is a nice bonus. But so far I'm yet to be convinced that D3 is in any way harmful. The only thing that made me give it a second thought is how it is that the sickly have lower Vit D than when healthy. Maybe if that got a bit more discussion/debate we can get somewhere with this.

Lest one be confused by what has been presented as "evidence" here thus far:

"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.

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 (77.5 to 95 nmol/L) 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."

Not sure what you're argument is The Natural? Have you read my posts?

The Natural wrote:Lest one be confused by what has been presented as "evidence" here thus far:

"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

this is not 100% correct, they're slightly different - which means different. Nature doesn't know similarity (it's a an anthropological construct). Just the fact that one is made in the skin and one swallowed in a pill make them different, one doesn't need a study for that). Saying A is identic to B means A is identic to B within the criteria known to me and interpreted as important. (there was a time we thought Sun & Solarium are the same and i could go on forever). Do we pretend to know all the criteria? One is usually punished pretending being smarter then Nature, it likes to hit back on those who pretend so


CS

let's say Marshall is on the lunatic fringe. It doesn't mean those who advocate vit D3 supp are not (we can disagree on this, it's ok). But let's say you're absolutely right about him. One doesn't need Marshalls essays (or studies, i do not care) to see that supplementing a secosteroid (in a slightly yet completelyl different form) is not as Natural as we're trying to pretend. Studies can tell anything (and their contraries if set differenty) studies interprete (with a certain intention being put a priori - i know, it's not science but science is made by a man).


Be carefull, that's my only message here.

Prague wrote:One is usually punished pretending being smarter then Nature, it likes to hit back on those who pretend so

And hit back hard especially without co-factors and sun exposure (UVA).

To those who are anti-vitamin D: What are your thoughts in ingesting vitamin D from natural, unfortified sources like fish? Ie, 3 oz of salmon has 800IU of vitamin D.

As long as you get your co-factors and UVA to convert the D from food it shouldn't be a big deal as it's not a huge amount of D. If you're not getting enough UVA to convert and not enough co-factors can be problem.

FWIW, I know of another who took Cod Liver Oil and has mentioned issues... maybe not enough sunlight and co-factors. Maybe mega doses of Cod Liver Oil... dunno. Weston Price has mentioned of issue with taking Cod Liver Oil without K2. Mentioned a synergy with Cod Liver Oil and K2 as well. K2 is a co-factor for D.

So again, the amount of D found in food depends on co-factors and UVA exposure. Would also depend if you have lyme or similiar l-form issue.

Mentioned a couple times before but if you want to raise D levels just take co-factors if looking for supplement. fruitexb/Osteoboron had a study showing Vitamin A and boron (both co-factors) raised D levels (I assume 25 D) 19%. So again, Vitamin A and boron raised D levels 19% "without" taking a Vitamin D3 supplement.


Here's another study

"Collectively, these data are in line with earlier descriptions of suppressive activities of this steroid-like hormone (vit d3) with respect to the stimulation of cell-mediated immunity."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11517017

jdp701 wrote:Not sure what you're argument is The Natural? Have you read my posts?

Not sure that was I "talkin to you," jdp.

Anyways, you'll excuse me if I take the word of trained professionals in this field over someone, like you, who did a three-month Internet study of vitamin D, providing nothing more than a guess, similar to those proffered by Marshall & and his band of hypothesizers.

That you have adamantly based your posts on The Marshall Protocol, unproven by any study whatsoever, mind you, is irresponsible.

Post one peer review study to support your claim that vitamin D is detrimental to long term health. As IH stated, the peer reviews studies that do exist so far are quite overwhelmingly in Vitamin D's favor. But I like to keep an open mind, and would gladly acknowledge evidence to the contrary, if you had any.

You don't.

Prague, how are the two types of cholecalciferol (sunlight, supplements) processed differently by humans. And where is your evidence (e.g. study) of this?

Again, all you have provided, thus far, are musings (incoherent ones, at times) that may very well be entertaining to some people, but do not prove a damn thing.

You realize your prior post/article has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I even talked briefly about it to avoid confusion. Looks like you're not even reading my posts?!

Like debating one thing but the other wants to bring up another subject to win?!

The Natural wrote:Prague, how are the two types of cholecalciferol (sunlight, supplements) processed differently by humans. And where is your evidence (e.g. study) of this?

Regarding this question, I think you're the first to suggest they are 100% same.

If you want to know more, see prior posts. mercola also has info.

Here is a quote from mercola

"I have always found it peculiar that the only vitamin that is not in breast milk is vitamin D. To me that is a giant clue that we were NOT designed to swallow vitamin D. Newborn infants, just like you, were designed to get this from exposing their skin to natural sunlight."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/2/12/why-vitamin-d-supplements-are-not-the-same-as-sunlight.aspx

I am not "suggesting" anything. I asked for specific evidence that the two are processed differently. But what do I get instead? More thoughts and musings, this time from Mercola.

Well, thanks.

And I mean that in the most sarcastic way you can imagine.

jdp701 wrote:

The Natural wrote:Prague, how are the two types of cholecalciferol (sunlight, supplements) processed differently by humans. And where is your evidence (e.g. study) of this?

Regarding this question, I think you're the first to suggest they are 100% same.

If you want to know more, see prior posts. mercola also has info.

Here is a quote from mercola

"I have always found it peculiar that the only vitamin that is not in breast milk is vitamin D. To me that is a giant clue that we were NOT designed to swallow vitamin D. Newborn infants, just like you, were designed to get this from exposing their skin to natural sunlight."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/2/12/why-vitamin-d-supplements-are-not-the-same-as-sunlight.aspx

Sure but as humans have evolved we now spend much less time outdoors, so we generally become deficient in Vit d.