I have not been on the Marshall Protocol myself, but one of my sisters has been. She flatly and emphatically credits the MP for saving her life. She's talked to me about many symptoms which have gone away since being on the protocol.
Just as she noted, there is a temporary increase in symptoms with each dose of antibiotics, but then as the antibiotics wear off before the next dose, there is a noticeable but gradual improvement.
Please note that low vit-D levels are not a problem for MP patients, because their VDRs are activated by the vit-D analog, Benicar. Thus there is "not" a long-term risk of osteoporosis, rickets, cancer, etc., while on the MP. They do not need ordinary vitamin-D because they have Benicar.
You may say that some people who have gotten off the MP have come down with problems, including cancer, but can you blame the protocol for that? How do you know it's not a result of being "off" the MP, rather than because they were once "on" it? Please note that several cancer patients who continued on the protocol and used it as their only chemotherapy had their cancers disappear, and the cancers did not metastasize.
Please also note that the term "Vitamin-D" has become a context-specific term that can speak of all the metabolites in general, or any one, or any subset, depending on context. The vitamin-D one gets from sunlight is vitamin-D3 (cholecalciferol), but that's "not" the vitamin-D that's tested in the standard vitamin-D test (calcidiol a.k.a. 25-D). Neither is it the biologically "active" form, calcitriol. So it's possible to have high levels of biologically active vitamin-D (calcitriol a.k.a. 1,25-D) despite so-called "deficient" low levels of calcidiol. Thus by the standard meaning of the term vitamin-D "deficiency" one can be deficient (low calcidiol) yet at the same time suffer from too much active vitamin-D (calcitriol). Sound confusing? In my informal unscientific biased survey, I've found that a lot of people are confused.
Vitamin-D council members can be found to say that the vitamins-D (the whole set of metabolites) are seco-steroids. Computer modeling shows that only 1,25-D (calcitriol) - the one that nearly everybody calls the biologically "active" form- can activate the VDR (Vitamin-D nuclear receptor). I haven't seen anyone dispute that with facts. The other forms like 25-D are attracted to the VDR's ligand binding pocket, to some degree, but do "not" activate the VDR. As a result, when these other metabolites compete for the VDR against calcitriol, they thereby keep some VDR molecules inactivated that calcitriol could potentially activate. This is why the other metabolites are said to be immunosuppressive, together with whatever immunosuppressive effects come because of their seco-steroid nature. The MP science adds that 1,25-D can be displaced from activating the VDR by bacterial substances (such as capnine) which have high affinity for the VDR, but deactivate it. It seems likely that such substances, coming from intracellular L-form bacteria, in relatively close proximity to the nucleus, are in relatively high concentrations, and compete effectively both by affinity and by concentration.
The MP science introduces the concept that bacteria can block the VDR, and that it's the VDR-activation, not vitamin-D alone (not even calcitriol alone) which gives us the benefits we usually hear ascribed to vitamin-D. When there is VDR dysfunction, then even calcitriol can't do its normal job. Vitamin-D becomes useless in those infected parts of the body, and even calcitriol becomes immunosuppressive, due to its seco-steroid nature.
The vitamin-D council people (and others) discovered the VDR, elucidated its structure, and are behind most of what we know about it. However, we don't hear much about VDR dysfunction --- but we should. Taking massive doses of vitamin-D can be counter-productive, i.e. immunosuppressant, as well as toxic. Calcitriol (1,25-D) in high doses can interfere with other hormonal systems. I thank the MP people for bringing up a "why" for VDR dysfunction, other than to non-specifically just say (and/or assume) it's because of old age.
The MP and MMS can possibly be contrasted because of the approach they take to a common goal: killing bacteria. The MP tries to wake-up the body's own innate and adaptive immune systems, and let those systems decide what microbes are to be killed. MMS attacks pathogens with dioxychlor, an oxidizer composed of one chlorine with two oxygens. This is supposed to kill all the "bad" pathogens but leave the "good" bacteria (and your body) alone. Both treatments claim to result in herxing, the natural result of dead bacterial fragments appearing after killing takes them out of hiding.
MMS tries to kill the bacteria first, then supposedly the immune system is strengthened. To me, this goes along with the MP science. If bacteria are killed, and their VDR-antagonist substances like capnine are removed, it makes sense that the VDR's would become workable again. Such things as Vitamin-D (calcitriol) would become functional again.
The comment made about how dangerous it is to apply experimental medicine to patients before lots of testing is done, needs to be tempered with the realization that not everyone has years to wait before the dust settles on debates, clinical trials, and long-term studies. The MP people felt it was better to let such sick people try the medicines at their own risk, than to make them wait many years for the usual approval process.
Now, thanks to their shoe-string budget internet approach, the clock has already been ticking eight years on long-term MP studies. Are there long-term effects from the MP that we ought to know about? Just as was pointed out in other posts, the body is a complex system that can't yet be modeled fully on computer. So about the only way to see is to try it on volunteers. That's what the MP study cohort does. They are all volunteers. And who is better to help a sick person know what's going on with the MP, than a nurse or doctor who has been on the MP his/her self?
Unfortunately, demand has been so strong to join the MP that the available nurses or health professionals were overwhelmed, and membership in the cohort had to be closed. Care is still offered at the sister site, curemyth1.org, is still free, and is from MP-experienced moderators, though possibly not at the same quality level as with the original study site.
There is nothing in the MP that says a moderator "must" assume that adverse symptoms are "only" the result of herxing. Moderators do the best they can with what resources they have available to them. The patient's own doctor is supposed to help oversee the whole medical process.
I think the MP science has opened up new frontiers of understanding, which invite further in-vitro lab studies (as well as more computer studies). It would be great if some medical researchers would turn their attention to what the MP successes and science are fairly inviting us to see and test.
I think it would be nice to see MMS lab-tests going on, too. In my case I worry about whether the simple molecule dioxychlor really knows the difference between my body, "good" bacteria, and "bad" bacteria. I like MMS' relative simplicity and low-cost, but I prefer the MP's more well-grounded scientific basis. It is through the MP science that I can see what validity I can for MMS.
I believe there is a great need for researchers and the public to understand what the specific term vitamin-D "deficiency" in research trials really means. Read the fine print! It does "not" mean that active vitamin D levels are necessarily low. It does not mean that a person's supply of vitamin-D is actually deficient in the normal sense of the word (meaning a lack). The linguistic confusion factor in vitamin-D seems pretty high at the moment. Vitamin-D science at its best is quite complex, including as it does many different metabolites, as well as both immunostimulating and immunosuppressing effects. Our common understandings need to be bolstered by using more precision in our vit-D language.
Should we throw out the Theory of Relativity, merely because Albert Einstein was "only" a Swiss patent clerk when he wrote it, and not a professional physicist? Sure, he became a physics professor later. But let's examine the MP and computer modeling, on the basis of science, not on the basis of Trevor Marshall's electrical Phd that's in addition to his medical studies.
Molecular modeling started small, but now stands tall. It is what DNA sequencing is for. Thirty years ago, electrical and computer engineer Marshall was one of the few people who appreciated its power and could use it. It is now a mainstream and wellspring from which new advances are coming every day. Sure, it has very real limitations. I wouldn't want to treat other people just on the basis of computer modeling alone. But to say that the MP results "only" from computer models is to ignore the experience of hundreds of people who have tried the MP for several years. To me, and to my sister, the MP has real-life "in-vivo" testing behind it, that is on-going.
Yes, the MP has been opened-up for people with other diseases than sarcoidosis. But there are scientific reasons for doing so. There is also the cohort experience that those other diseases are abated by the protocol. NURSA, a nuclear receptor signaling atlas, supported by NIH, reports that VDR dysfunction is present in a host of diseases --- about the same list that you hear is associated with vitamin-D levels. To me that NURSA assertion is a corroboration of part of Marshall's pathogenesis: that it is VDR dysfunction which these diseases all share in common. Or you might take the view that they are all manifestations of the same disease umbrella, namely VDR dysfunction.
The MP and its science, have something significant to say to the world, and many people can benefit from it. I beleive it is incorrect to say that there have been no warnings from the MP websites about the dangers of severe immunopathology (herxing). Warnings like that are easy to find at the websites, and it is one reason a doctor is required. My sister warns me about it, too, and tells me to stick with the protocol, because so much of the dangers have been worked-out. She ended up in the emergency room, once, too, but she recognized that she had gotten there by seriously stepping outside the protocol. After that, she was a lot more careful, and she has steadily recovered her health.
Best wishes to you all.
MP avoids low vit-D risks
Linear Mode
