Most of the people who live the longest also have high cholesterol. So it makes me wonder why any normal person would want to lower the levels to begin with.
Dan
My guess would be because they're misinformed I know people who take statins merely because "their doctor told them to..."
Punch in "statins profitable" in your search engine... Here's a bit from the first result I got...
"Cholesterol-lowering drugs have been the most successful medicines in history. Last year, they racked up $33 billion in sales around the world. Just one drug, Pfizer�s (PFE) Lipitor, earned $13.6 billion. But there are serious questions about whether these drugs are being overused and whether they are as safe as most people�and doctors�believe. And now Congress is starting to ask those questions, too."
I have been taking Vitamin D and have found that it makes me extremely physically fatigued and also very tense/stressed/nervous. I am also taking hydrocortisone. I was thinking that with time that this would pass but hope I am not doing harm or making it worse. I am new to this forum so sorry if I posted this in the wrong place. I don't even really know what my actual issue is, just thought that this might give some hint. Thanks
I have been taking Vitamin D and have found that it makes me extremely physically fatigued and also very tense/stressed/nervous. I am also taking hydrocortisone. I was thinking that with time that this would pass but hope I am not doing harm or making it worse. I am new to this forum so sorry if I posted this in the wrong place. I don't even really know what my actual issue is, just thought that this might give some hint. Thanks
Hydrocortisone is often used to treat adrenal fatigue.
If you look at the symptoms for Adrenal Fatigue you may find some of them familiar.
Raising Vitamin D improves muscle function and therefore you should, as your vitamin D status corrects find it easier to get around and be more energetic.
One of the other things that happens as vitamin D status rises is your body is better able to absorb calcium.
Calcium is used in the brain by astrocytes to communicate with neurones.
The calcium excites the neurones.
In order to counterbalance the excitatory effect of calcium the brain uses magnesium to calm the neurone.
Unfortunately the diets of most US adults (and same in the UK) is insufficient in magnesium.
Most of us require 5~10mg per kg of IDEAL body weight. So 75kg weight requires 375~75-mg ,magnesium daily.
If you are a typical US adult your intake will be around 300mg/daily.
So increasing magnesium intake will help reduce the tense/stressed nervous feelings. Krispin for magnesium information Albion Mineral patent magnesium as krispin recommends Code WAB666 saves $5 at IHERB. I use IHERB as their shipping to UK is cheaper you may find others cheaper in US. Magnesium Chloride for information on Transdermal magnesium intake and other information.
Swanson's magnesium oil Magnesium chloride if you just want to chuck it in your bathwater is available in 25kg sacks from agricultural merchants.
If you are going for a relaxing bath in dead sea salts remember this is RELAXING so before bedtime, not early in the day or you'll be nodding off.
Thanks I already take plenty of magnesium malate a day, enough for stomach upset actually. I have been told I have an overactive immune system before. I am just hoping if I tough this out it will fix me.
I am taking the HC for adrenal fatigue. Even thou my adrenal output didn't seem that bad via bloods, I have all the symptoms. So we are tying it.
I believe that the list of awful risks linked here on this webpage, that "is believed" (by "whom???") to apply to Marshall Protocol patients, has a pretty shakey basis. The author of the list claims to have based it on studies of NIH studies. But please note that these NIH studies were not made on Marshall Protocol patients. They were made on different subsets of the general population, not any MP group. The author basically found all the risks claimed for vitamin-D "deficient" general-populace people, and compiled them together. But please note that, even if those risks are "associated" with people who have low levels of proper vitamin-D function, and even if the MP people cut vitamin-D out of their lives, the Marshall Protocol group take a vitamin-D analog, Benicar, to give them the benefits of vitamin-D nuclear receptor (VDR) activation. Vitamin-D does almost nothing good by itself outside of activating the VDR. Vitamin-D's beneficial role in our bodies is mostly via activation of the VDR. It is that activation which provides the wonderful immunostimulation and metabolic functions usually sought when people take vitamin-D. So there is a very positive and direct reason to believe that MP people would not be "at risk" for all those vit-D related diseases. How will we know for sure? Well, has anyone done a double-blind randomized control trial on the MP group? I think the answer at the time of writing is no. The first such trial is now underway at one of the world's largest clinical hospitals, and isn't scheduled to finish for about four more years. So the best "in-vivo" test indicator of MP health risks comes from the MP study group itself. They say they're doing fine, despite low levels of vitamin-D. That awful list of diseases is what they are avoiding and/or recovering from. Thank you.
Serious Side Effects Risks of Marshall Protocol
the point is that if you are conducting a study of the effect of reducing vitamin D status you have to acknowledge the side effects that may occur following that action.
If you simply refuse to accept that people following this protocol have adverse side effects then your research is not worthy of consideration.
Perhaps the reason people are not particularly keen on participating in trials of low Vitamin D status is that those with low vitamin D status die soonest, suffer the most pain, have lower cognitive function and suffer more infections. Given the choice I'd prefer to be in the high 25(OH)D arm of any study. I'm sure there are people who enjoy being a martyr to ill health but this isn't an option a forum devoted to promoting good health can reasonably support. Naturally a 25(OH)D around 60ng/ml 150nmol/l is achieved by those living near naked outdoor lives, this is around the level human DNA evolved to work best with. At this level we have a stored reserve of D3 and the ability to supply vitamin D replete breast milk to the next generation. If Trevor Marshall gave the appearance of being an optimally healthy individual he may appear a tad more believable.
Perhaps if he shed 60lbs or so he'd be more credible.
"... the point is that if you are conducting a study of the effect of reducing vitamin D status you have to acknowledge the side effects that may occur following that action. If you simply refuse to accept that people following this protocol have adverse side effects then your research is not worthy of consideration."
I need to apologize first off, because of a mistake I made in referring to an article as being "here on this web-page". I must have navigated incorrectly, because the post I referred to does not seem to be here on this very web-page. It was on one of the natmedtalk pages, but not this one. My mistake --- and that mistake may very well become a confusion factor. The page I referred to was https://www.natmedtalk.com/alternativ...-away-one.html
The portion I referred to quotes:
"Major risk of Addison Syndrome (5%-25% of CFS that complete the protocol)
Increased risk (100 300%) of Heart Attack
Increased risk (100+%) of Cancer (Breast, Colon and Prostate are well documented)
Increased risk (67+%) of Multiple Sclerosis
Increased risk (400+%) of Diabetes
Increased risk of Depression
Increased risk (500+%) of Osteoarthritis and Osteoporosis
Increased risk of nephrotic syndrome, schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder.
Increased risk of Hyperparathyroidism
Increased risk of Crohn Disease and Sjogren's syndrome
Increased risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis
Increased risk of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
May cause fetal and neonatal morbidity and death
Risk of Angioedema"
The above is the list I was speaking about.
Now that I've explained my goof, I'd like to address your post, because I believe you are right in saying "... you have to acknowledge the side effects..." So I have no quarrel with you on that.
Neither can I quarrel with those who have posted their negative and positive experiences with the Marshall Protocol. That is, the details of all these experiences are beyond my poor level of understanding, and I don't know the facts in the cases. I would rather give the first person accounts the benefit of the doubt, and accept what they say has happened to them as testimony that's presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
My parents always taught me to hear both sides of a story. I think it's good practice to sift through what's common and shared between both sides, and then to carefully review what's different.
In the case of the Vitamins-D versus diseases, the MP proponents and detractors both seem to have a very similar list of diseases. What struck me about the above list of "risks" that detractors ascribed as dangers of the MP, is that it's about the same list of things that the MP proponents are trying to avoid.
I was curious as to where this list of risks came from. Last week at natmedtalk.com the link
https://lassesen.com/cfids/MarshallProtocolRisks.htm appeared to my
view for the first time. The author of that page says "This list is based on literature found on the National Institute of Health web site compared to an individual doing the FWIW protocol for mal-absorption illnesses such as those listed above."
It seemed to me that the author of the lassesen.com article had concocted this list by a study of the NIH studies on the general populace. What I see as an implicit "assumption", is the idea that such studies automatically apply to the set of people who are trying the MP. If one assumes that the MP will fail and is useless or unfounded, then it makes sense that they would be subject to such a list of risks. But that conclusion all depends on whether the MP is incorrect or not, doesn't it? The problem I see with the list therefore, is in the hidden assumption. That is, the list is not based on fact-based trials, but on someone's educated interpretation (and assumption) of NIH studies on populations that are (at least potentially) different from the MP population.
I just want people to know that there's a big assumption behind that list: a presupposition that the MP will fail.
On the other hand, I think it's valid for people who think they have tried the MP and that it didn't work for them, to talk about it. As far as I know, Dr. Marshall expressly does not promise any guarantee that the MP will cure anyone's disease. There wouldn't be much need for a study cohort if everything pro-and-con was all known before hand. To me the MP science provides significant insights about Vitamin-D, VDR dysfunction, and the possibility that microbial pathogens have ways to compromise the body's immune system by blocking the VDR. I am grateful to the MP people for those insights. I am thankful for the help it has given to my sister, who credits the MP with saving her life.
Thank you for the links to Dr. Mercola's comments, and those of Dr. Davis. Your thoughtfulness in providing the links is appreciated, though I have seen their comments already. I think it's important to hear arguments both ways, find commonalities, examine differences, and judge the best as we can.
Best wishes to all.
Last edited by Delrettico; 10-04-2010 at 05:33 AM.
Reason: Clarify my thanks
First I would like to point out I am not a health professional. I do not have any right to the title Dr. I have no training or qualifications regarding any health issue, that is why I always post links to the sources of information I'm relying on and try to post links to the full text versions of the text where available. I also have access to a medical library database so sometimes I point to abstracts of some papers where the full text isn't available, if you would like more details of these papers I'm happy to share my limited understanding of what they are trying to communicate.
My experience and learning come from having had polio as a child and some 30yrs later developed a set of symptoms that I thought initially were MS but later discovered were probably the result of the late effects of polio.
This article INFLAMMATION and PPS
By Marcia Falconer, PhD started me looking at natural anti inflammatory agents and hence my interest in Omega 3, Vitamin D3 and Magnesium and subsequently to the way obesity and omega 6 industrially made seed oils promote inflammation.
As someone who was in constant pain and more or less wheelchair bound who has now not used a wheelchair for several years and have not used any pain killers either over that time I am confident that keeping 25(OH)D levels above 60ng/ml is fundamental to may improved quality of life. I'm certain that omega 3<>omega 6 ratio and magnesium status are equally important as is maintaining optimum weight.
I accept that my personal experience from keeping 25(OH)D levels high and stable may not apply to others.
I'm fully aware of Marshall's views of the immunosuppressive nature of calitriol.
But Vitamin D is a pleiotropic substance that works in MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.
Sure it will control excessive inflammation and it's understanding this Immunomodulatory effect of Vitamin D that has enabled me to live a better quality of life without pain and with improved mobility.
I think we have to apply common sense to our understanding of any science research and bearing in mind humans evolved over a huge number of years living mainly outdoor lives, under less polluted skies, wearing fewer clothes than currently the case it's simply common sense to assume the level human bodies naturally attain and maintain living near naked outdoors is probably the level our DNA evolved to work best with. We also evolved without the benefit of farmed grains and certainly the changes in wheat over the last 50yrs (higher gluten lower magnesium levels) have coincided with the increase in obesity, diabetes, celiac and a myriad of other conditions that thrive in an inflammatory environment. It's no coincidence that over the same period average 25(OH)D levels have been reducing as ozone pollution levels rise.
Well, I was wrong about your background, and I've been wrong many times before. It probably won't be the last time, either. Thank you for explaining that you are not a health professional nor a "doctor". Perhaps this is a good time for me to state plainly, likewise, that I also am neither a health professional nor a doctor.
I do respect you (also) for your practice of posting links to sources of information on the internet, and to full-text versions where available. I hope to emulate that ideal. Nevertheless, I apologize in advance for sometimes not knowing what needs citing, and what is already common-ground. Sometimes it takes a lot of time to properly note sources. If therefore what I write needs citation, please feel free to bring the need up in feedback.
I am a little younger than Dr. Falconer by about a decade, judging from her biographical information at the end of her paper. I was fortunate enough to be of the first generation vaccinated against polio. I have no first-hand experience of polio, and little overall experience with it, outside of observing my dad. My father came down with polio when I was an infant, and he spent weeks in an iron lung just to survive. The disease evidently left him with some of the muscle-weakness she talks about, for he has walked with a limp ever since.
Dr. Falconer certainly has more biological learning and credentials behind her than I have. I am not an expert in her field. It was interesting to read her paper. I am intrigued by similarities in what she says about chronic inflammation, to other reports I have read about it. Dr. Falconer, speaking of Post-Polio-Syndrome (PPS) says: "What might cause the presence of these proinflammatory cytokines in people with PPS? One hypothesis is the presence of very low levels of polio virus RNA hiding in nerve cells. This polio virus RNA is not capable of infecting you or other people, but is capable of triggering the production of proinflammatory cytokines and with that, an underlying state of chronic immune system activation."
This statement in particular caught my eye, of course, because I find it similar (but different) than the Marshall Pathogenesis. I am referring to the idea expressed by Dr. Marshall that infectious intracellular bacteria live for long periods of time within our own cells, mostly hidden from view of the immune system. When for one reason or another some of the bacterial remnants or products "get out" into view, then the immune system mounts an inflammatory response. As slow-growing infection spreads in size over time, the probability of a "spill" increases, so that inflammation becomes chronic, or near-continuous.
The similarity I see is where Dr. Falconer speaks of viral RNA remaining in our cells, "hiding" she says, and capable of triggering an immune response. Some of the differences I see with the Marshall hypothesis include: bacterial versus viral; alive versus passive. From what I know, viruses are generally considered dormant (not really "alive") until their DNA infects living cells, when they are able to hijack the cell's machinery to grow, multiply, and spread.
It seems that most people are familiar with the virus life-cycle: that �viruses� are dormant until they invade living cells, that they live and reproduce there, and that they launch forth to infect other cells. What surprises many people is that �bacteria� are capable of living and growing �within� our cells in a similar manner, and launching forth their offspring to infect neighboring tissue. Yet that is a claim which is being made strongly for several bacterial species, notably Listeria. Reference for instance the Scientific American articles at:
This intracellular behavior is by no means limited to Listeria, as reference "Listeria and Salmonella bacterial vectors of tumor-associated antigens for cancer immunotherapy" at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20299242
So it seems a generalization is possible by saying some "microbial� pathogens are capable of living intracellularly in humans. Under such a generalization I see some convergence between what Dr. Falconer's paper says, and what Dr. Marshall says. Reference for instance "Autoimmune disease explained in 10 minutes" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcAVeKobsxU. So, �microbial pathogens� that linger for years and slowly "leak out" evidence of their presence may trigger chronic inflammation, more or less as described by Dr. Falconer, and by Dr. Marshall.
In either case, the �leaks� of microbial evidence in some cases �may� be large enough for our immune system to �see�, yet too small for us to detect by legacy methods, so that it may appear that the immune system is attacking nothing but our own bodies, giving rise to the idea of �auto-immune� disease. There may also be true auto-immune disease, of course, as far as we know. The hypothesis of false auto-immune disease does not by itself preclude the possibility of true auto-immune disease.
Dr. Falconer was speaking of PPS from her disease, polio. Dr. Marshall says his disease, sarcoidosis, was particularly well-suited to study of the part played by vitamin-D. Part of Dr. Marshall's reasoning involved observing that macrophages typically move vigorously to the site of an infection (as Dr. Falconer described), and attack invaders. Active vitamin-D (calcitriol a.k.a. 1,25-D) is generally a precursor to the production of cytokines. Yet in Dr. Marshall's disease, macrophages move vigorously into an area as if there was infection there, form granulomas (little granule-like bodies) surrounding tissue, then stop. It is well known that the macrophage mitochondria churn out large amounts of calcitriol, which �should� stimulate them to action, yet they seemed relatively listless. Something didn't "add up". Normally calcitriol activates the Vitamin-D nuclear receptor (VDR), but in this disease, the VDR was evidently not being activated, despite a surplus of the active form of vitamin-D. Dr. Marshall hypothesized that an infection was present, but something from the infected area was inactivating the VDR. This idea is at least consistent with the observation of the listless macrophages.
We hear comparatively little about the VDR, but it seems to me we should hear more. An organization called NURSA, the Nuclear Receptor Signaling Atlas, associated with NIH, has posted a list of diseases that involve VDR �dysfunction�. This list is striking in its similarity to lists of chronic diseases associated with vitamin-D:
/*** https://www.nursa.org/molecule.cfm?molType=receptor&molId=1I1
�VDR dysfunction is associated with bone disorders (osteoporosis, vitamin D-resistant rickets, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, loss of bone density, osteopenia, spinal ossification), cancer (bone cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, leukemia, melanoma, prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma), cardiovascular pathologies (atherosclerosis, hypertension, myocardial infarct), immune, metabolic and inflammation diseases (Type II diabetes, Addison's disease, autoimmune hepatitis, Crohn's Disease, Lupus, cirrhosis, arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, mulitple sclerosis, psoriasis), susceptibility to infection (AIDS, Q fever, leprosy, tuberculosis), renal conditions (kidney stone disease), neurological disorders (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease) and growth disorders (low birth weight, low body mass).�
***/
This proclamation seems to raise the possibility, consistent with the Marshall Pathogenesis, that in many of the vitamin-D-associated diseases, the problem may be due to VDR dysfunction, rather than because of a true lack of active vitamin-D. After all, to have VDR benefits, you must have a working VDR, �and� you must have something like calcitriol to activate it, �and� you must have the right environment (temperature, ph, building-block chemicals, etc.).
Given the right environment within our cells, to have VDR activation you can�t have just vitamin-D, or just the VDR. You must have �both�. This is a fact often skipped-over by mass-media reviews of vitamin-D and disease. Yet it is vital to the understanding of the above diseases, much like air+fuel+heat is important to understanding fires. You can�t have fire if you take away any one of its factors. Similarly, you can�t have VDR benefits if you take away any one of its factors. People can get all the vit-D they want, but they won�t get most vit-D benefits unless they have a functional VDR to utilize that vit-D. Vitamin-D doesn�t work its wonders alone.
From what I've read, I believe you are correct in saying that "Vitamin D is a pleiotropic substance that works in MANY DIFFERENT WAYS." It has many effects, but the most significant are mediated through activating the VDR. A McGill University study (https://mend.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/11/2685 Large-Scale in Silico and Microarray-Based Identification of Direct 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 Target Genes) showed active vit-D is important to the transcription or repression of over 900 genes. VDR activation is the pathway through which most of Vitamin-D's beneficial effects come about. In healthy people, normally calcitriol is an immune-system stimulator, through activating the VDR.
The VDR are expressed in many tissues throughout the body, and there is a large quantity of VDR molecules, not just one. Both calcidiol and calcitriol are attracted to the VDR�s ligand-binding pocket, though to different degrees. Calcitriol in the binding pocket acts like a key turning a lock. It has the right spatial combination of electrostatic forces to move the VDR�s twelve folded protein strands into their �activated� position. In that position the VDR can do its beneficial work.
Calcidiol, on the other hand, is very similar to calcitriol but lacks calcitriol�s hydroxyl group on carbon number 1. Calcidiol has some of the attractions into the VDR binding pocket, but once there cannot activate the VDR. Calcidiol is therefore a VDR inactivator. A portion of the VDR are always blocked by calcidiol (25-D), the inactive precursor to calcitriol (1,25-D), by virtue of calcidiol's nature as an inactivator, and also by calcidiol's much larger concentration (about three orders of magnitude, judging from the �normal� serum concentrations of calcidiol and calcitriol). So the pleiotropism of �vitamin D� is extended even more by binding and activation differences from the different vit-D metabolites. There�s a nice picture of calcitriol docked in the VDR at Dr. Anthony Norman�s biographical website, https://biochemistry.ucr.edu/faculty/norman.html in an illustration captioned Vitamin D Nuclear Receptor.
Under the Marshall hypothesis, infectious bacteria (and perhaps other microbes) attack the VDR with additional inactivators (such as Capnine) that have high affinity for the VDR, and relatively high local concentration (due to their close proximity). These inactivators fit in the lock with high affinity, but don�t turn the key. They are able to best calcitriol in thermal mass-action competition for docking. By inactivating the VDR, the pathogens suppress the immune system, making it easier for them to survive.
Because there are many VDR in many tissues of the body, and because the VDR are not all blocked at once, the overall effect on the body of these hypothesized blockers is a matter of degree, rather than an all-or-nothing condition. As chronic disease advances, more of the VDR molecules are blocked, leading to a gradual decline in VDR-activation benefits.
As a generalization, all members of the vitamin-D metabolite family are seco-steroids, and are reported to have steroidal-like immunosuppressent effects. This suppression is normally overpowered by calcitriol�s immunostimulation via functional VDR�s. But in chronic VDR-dysfunctional disease, the stimulation effect is reduced to the degree that the VDRs are compromised. So getting lots of vitamin-D can help wake up a healthy person's immune system, but can be immuno-suppressive to a diseased person.
To me, this is a fine example of pleiotrophism, consistent with your point. Vitamin-D is a naturally occurring substance with generally beneficial effects on people with functional VDRs. In my experience with critiques, this part of Marshall�s hypothesis is often overlooked or misunderstood. Marshall believes calcitriol activates a functional VDR. He recognizes that in diseased persons (i.e. where there is VDR dysfunction), that all forms of vitamin-D tend to become immunosuppressive, as the disease advances. Hence vit-D actually helps the disease to advance. In the short-run the immunosuppression reduces inflammation, making the patient feel better, but the growing disease eventually overpowers the palliation. The danger he sees in blanket enforced supplementation of the population with vitamin-D, is not that healthy people will get sick, but that disease which has already taken root will be subtly promoted.
Note that because of the pleiotrophism, a healthy person can feel better from taking vitamin-D (via VDR activation), and a sick person can also feel better (via palliation). Thus, pleotrophism in vitamin-D complicates the interpretation of research studies. It makes it difficult to draw correct conclusions from latitude studies (i.e. more sunlight at lower latitudes). It�s not that conclusions can�t be drawn --- it�s just that great care is required because of the pleotrophism.
Whatever processes human-kind has gone through to arrive at our state of operation with Vitamin-D, we can probably assume that bacterial pathogens have been around during much the same time and have gone through their process of adaptation in their fight with us. Whatever arguments we may advance about how well vitamin-D works in our bodies, it seems we are still subject to many microbially-induced disease conditions. Not everyone thinks that evolution is a well-documented and proven thing. Yet even those who do think along evolutionary lines may want to ask themselves why they should think evolution has already reached a pinnacle? Why should we think the process is at an end, and not still on its way? Why should we pre-suppose that the vitamin-D system in our bodies works �perfectly� already? Why should we think no more improvement is possible --- or needed?
To me, there are several important new points advanced by the work of Marshall, et al. One is the identification of bacterially-produced substances which have high affinity for the VDR and therefore can displace calcitriol (active vit-D), effectively making the VDR dysfunctional. Another is the identification of a relatively benign vitamin-D analog, Benicar, which can displace the bacterial substances and activate the VDR. He has his in-silico demonstrations (which can be viewed on-line), and he has substantial in-vivo evidence in his high success rate (purported to be as much as 80%) of recovery from disease conditions through the use of Benicar and pulsed-low-dose antibiotics. He has also pointed out Benicar�s potential use as an anti-metastatic drug for cancer. I am grateful for these scientific observations and for the hypotheses.
I would like to see more honest investigation of the science, and less confusion. Yet, in my experience, even many professional scientific critics are often confused by the pleotropic problems, as well as by incorrect traditions which seem to have taken hold in the mainstream vitamin-D world.
One such tradition is the notion that vitamin-D �activity� can be correctly assessed by measuring an �inactive� form of vitamin-D (calcidiol) alone. This notion may once have been a nice pragmatic tentative assumption until shown otherwise, but the time has come where we have examples that prove otherwise. I apologize for cutting this topic short at this point, without giving references, but this is another whole topic worthy of another long paper. It is a paradigm which is not Dr. Marshall�s fault and should not be laid at his feet. I cite it here to illustrate the point that part of the uproar about the Marshall Protocol is due to widespread misinformation in the vitamin-D world itself, separate and apart from Dr. Marshall�s work.
I would like to see misconceptions like those cleared-up. I would like to see more serious study given to the important new points advanced by Dr. Marshall. To me, his study-cohort�s impressive recovery rates invite us to see that there is something there worth investigating; worth proving in the lab; worth further enlargement. And if there is honest scholarly review and rigorous treatment of his topics, fine. So much the better! Let them at least be unhindered from misconceptions and disinformation.
I have people I know and love who probably could benefit from the MP science and/or treatment, but who are deterred from getting help for their chronic disease conditions because they cannot find a local doctor who understands the Marshall Protocol enough to prescribe it, or to apply it well. My aim in writing about the MP is not to say that it�s the be-all and end-all to medical help for chronic �Th1� illnesses, but I write to help persuade people to understand reasons behind some of the common misconceptions, and to investigate the MP science more.
This response will not be perfect. There will be problems with it. I can name some already. It�s not short and concise. There are no illustrations in it. I haven�t had time to record all the references it �should� have. I may have misinterpreted some things in the papers I�ve read. Not everything I think Dr. Marshall thinks may be quite what he thinks; and so on, and so forth. I read and try to understand, and I hope those who read this will think things through for themselves. Despite imperfections, I am grateful for the opportunity to present this slightly different perspective on the Marshall Pathogenesis, and how (to me) it dovetails with many of the things you have presented, while contrasting with others. The objective is not to attack anyone, but to help build bridges of common understanding, as best we can. I welcome constructive criticism that make for a better discussion, and I welcome opposing points of view.
Thank you for such a comprehensive and insightful posting on the VDR and the Marshall Protocol (MP.)
Your last post articulates much of what I want to describe in my upcoming Microbiology undergraduate Research Paper on Intracellular Pathogens, Dysregulation of the VDR, and Immunopathology: How the MP seeks to Restore Immunocompetency.
I have been reading many research articles from which Marshall, Amy Proal, et al. have cited. I'm intrigued that cell wall deficient (CWD) organisms are being found ubiquitously living intracellularly even in "healthy" blood.
I have a question for you about your statement:
Under the Marshall hypothesis, infectious bacteria (and perhaps other microbes) attack the VDR with additional inactivators (such as Capnine) that have high affinity for the VDR, and relatively high local concentration (due to their close proximity). These inactivators fit in the lock with high affinity, but don�t turn the key. They are able to best calcitriol in thermal mass-action competition for docking.
What is meant by the term "thermal mass-action competition for docking"?
i'm new here and also looking for answers about Vit D3, MP etc. I'm currently at antibiotic protocol for Scleroderma (diffuse form but mild, I had it over 30 years ut I'm actually doing fine). My Vit D was very low when I started AP - 6 ng/ml (typical for "autoimmune" disease that scelroderma is) I started taking vit D3 supplements and upped my level to 12 ng/ml over 2 months with a daily dosage of 50,000 IU/day. I continued with that and after another 2 months my levels shot up to an extremely high level 1864 ng/ml! I now stopped supplementation until it's below 100 ng/ml but, I fell fine, never been ill in these 7 months despite people even in close circles getting colds and flus. My SD did not get worse. AP seem to work (combined with systemic enzymes) as my body and face are softening. I am now looking at MMS to replace AP with it as i like the idea that MMS only kill pathogenic microorganisms, leaving the beneficial bacteria intact which is so important. My difficulty is that here in Dubai where I live finding sodium chlorate is a challenge as is flying it in by ordering on internet due to being a hazardous material which courier companies will not touch. Any help here? ready-made MMS is also not a solution as liquids are also not allowed in courier!
I can understand that much of what Trevor Marshall's research is based on a working knowledge of biomedical engineering that most scientist are simply ignorant about...and it is understandable that well meaning people who are not even scientists would question the protocol.
Vitamin D metabolism is very complicated, and stimulating the immune system with Benicar while inhibiting NF~kB is complicated. But throw in a million or so different genomes of bacteria that clearly change the way the immune system works, and you go on to imponderable.
I continue to make sound progress on the MP like my doctor and many other friends on the treatment....it may not be a panacea, everybody may not completely heal....the bacteria load of some people may be to great or their body's are to weak to endure the immunopathology during the protocol. But I am astounded at my recovery from neuropathy,bipolar disorder, food sensitivities, chronic fatigue, psoriasis, and heart arrythmias.....all of which were caused not by low vitamin D...but by infection and dysregulation of the innate immune system caused by intraphagocytic microbiota.
I am not totally against the use of antibiotics, however, long term use concerns me because they have a dark side that will affect your health in a negative way, years or decades from now. The body is a perfect breeding ground for fungi. It is dark, moist, and the right temperature.
I would consider using natural antibiotics such as colloidal silver, grapefruit seed extract, or even MMS before I used an antibiotic that is made from mold, which is a fungus, because in the end, if the fungal growth isn't stopped, they will eventually kill the host, which is you.
__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)
as pinballdoctor says these following diseases that the MP is suppose to help can all be cured with colloidal silver or MMS if administered appropriately.
"Dr. Marshall's papers describe how numerous Th1 diseases such as sarcoidosis, Lyme disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis (among others) are caused by Cell Wall Deficient (CWD) bacteria of various species......"
__________________
"first they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win".... Mahatma Ghanda
I know people who take statins merely because "their doctor told them to..." 
Very shallow basis for list of supposed risks
Linear Mode
