The Marshall Protocol, STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE

[Delrettico]

Originally Posted by Ted_Hutchinson

This must be understood in the context that naturally 25(OH)D equilibrium in peoples getting optimal sun/uvb exposure is maintained around 125 nmol/l 50 ng/ml and for the vast majority of readers attaining and maintaining the level at which human milk is vitamin D replete offer the most effective immune function.

How are we misunderstanding each other so badly? The Lassen mistake I speak of doesn't depend on 25 OH equilibrium, natural levels of 25(OH)D, or any such thing. They [the Lassen report makers] took papers about ONE population, and blithely ASSUMED that the papers applied to a very different population. Then they did NO actual real-life study to back up their claims. But they were very vocal in broadcasting their warning to the world. Heralding it like absolute truth.

Mistake after mistake after mistake.

[Solstice Goat]

Originally Posted by Delrettico

The quick answer I would give, in a word, is YES.

Vitamin D is "important". But watch out for misunderstandings when you reduce a complex subject like Vitamin D down to a Yes/No question!

What would those misunderstandings be?

[Delrettico]

Originally Posted by Solstice Goat

What would those misunderstandings be?

Sorry to take so long to respond to you, Solstice Goat.

"What would those misunderstandings be?" you ask. You were asking about whether Vitamin D was "important". But you didn't outright finish the sentence. So I am left asking "important to WHAT?"

What do you mean, is Vitamin D important? Presumably you are talking about Vitamin D being important to maintain some aspect of health. But there is a lot that is not said in your question, Solstice. Unless I, your reader, am right "in tune" with what you're saying, I'm likely to have a different idea in mind than you do. And so if I answer "yes", or if I answer "no", I might not be understanding your question the way you meant it. The door can easily be open to misunderstandings.

Prof. Marshall wrote a paper you can find at

https://TrevorMarshall.com/BioEssays-...l-Preprint.pdf
Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision-making

There is a widespread misconception that one of the Marshall Protocol's basic premises is that Vitamin D is bad for everybody. I believe this misunderstanding was reported by some misguided soul, and has been widely repeated without checking into the facts.

Vitamin D "can be" problematic under certain conditions - conditions that the Marshall Protocol is designed to eliminate. But it is incorrect to say that the MP teaches Vitamin D is bad for everyone.

So, Vitamin "D" is "important". But please take a look at that paper and ones like it, to catch a glimpse of just how complex a question yours is.

[Solstice Goat]

I'll summarize;

Natural hormones = Good

Synthetic hormones = Bad

So, what hormone (vitamin D) does the Marshal Protocol recommend?

[Delrettico]

Originally Posted by Solstice Goat

I'll summarize;

Natural hormones = Good

Synthetic hormones = Bad

So, what hormone (vitamin D) does the Marshal Protocol recommend?

Solstice Goat,

Are you "defining" natural hormones as good, as a hard and fast rule, or is your summary more of a "guideline"? Depending on how you feel about it, you may or may not like my answer.

I cannot speak for Prof. Marshall, as I've said before. But from what I understand, the natural endogenous Vitamin D is the preferred hormone for well people who are not infected with what I'll call "Vitamin D resistant microbial pathogens".

When the natural hormone Vitamin D can't do its normal beneficial job because of the presence of such pathogens, then our "nature" needs help. Remember, the pathogens are "natural" too. It's them versus us. When there is that situation, then the synthetic hormone from the Marshall Protocol can be used temporarily, to kill them. Then the patient can again return to natural D3 for its beneficial effects. That's about as simple as I know how to make a statement of my understanding.

[Ted_Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by Delrettico

the natural endogenous Vitamin D is the preferred hormone for well people who are not infected with what I'll call "Vitamin D resistant microbial pathogens"

While the intelligent reader will be able to search the medical literature, for microbial pathogens that are antibiotic resistant I would be interested in links to scientific (apart from Marshall's) evidence supporting the existence of Vitamin d resistant microbial pathogens.

Long time readers will be aware that my experience of resolving antibiotic resistant e coli infection after long term antibiotic use treating repeat UTI's was resolved in initially with Stoss therapy
Further UTI's have been prevented by keeping 25(OH)D around 50ng/ml ~125nmol/L with 5000 ~7000iu/daily Vitamin D3.

There is lots of science supporting the role of Vitamin D up-regulating antimicrobial peptides and even Curcumin induces human cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide gene expression through a vitamin D receptor-independent pathway. so no doubt, given the long history of curcumin culinary use, Marshall will also be able to identify curcumin resistant microbial pathogens?

[Delrettico]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0129151106.htm
Stealthy Leprosy Pathogen Evades Critical Vitamin D-Dependent Immune Response

More research on would be welcomed - agreed.

The general idea, though, that whatever attacks pathogens but does not kill ALL of them, tends to breed resistant strains, is an argument that we see leveled against anti-biotics in general. The Vitamin D Council is calling Vitamin D, the antibiotic vitamin.

[Solstice Goat]

Originally Posted by Delrettico

The Vitamin D Council is calling Vitamin D, the antibiotic vitamin.

Most certainly they are referring to the D our body produces, not the synthetic variant you are recommending?