The Truth About Vitamin D: Fourteen Reasons Why Misunderstanding Endures

[Guest guest]

I followed the link you posted. It appears to be nothing but bunk.

See snippet and URL below.

 

Alobar

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

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. "

 

In reading his two articles, Dr. Marshall's main hypotheses are simple:

 

* Vitamin D from sunlight is different than vitamin D from supplements.

* 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.

* 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-april.shtml

 

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Ma Ananda Anugraha

<reikimamma wrote:

>

> http://bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/

>

>