Vit D Controversy

[Guest guest]

A member recently asked me what I thought of the Marshall view of Vit D. This

article expresses my own current views very well (taken from an MS site and 1st

read by me on the lowdosenaltrexone@yahoogoup site):

Vitamin D Supplementation and Autoimmune Disease -

Opposing View by Ashton Embry

I have received a number of inquiries about a recent press release which was

entitled “Vitamin D Deficiency Study Raises New Questions about Disease and

Supplementsâ€. It was released by the Autoimmune Research Foundation, a

California charity. Given that the main message in the press release was that

new research demonstrates that vitamin D supplementation may make autoimmune

disease worse, I was very curious about such new research and the science behind

it.

As a scientist, I am aware that there is no 100% certainty in any interpretation

of scientific findings. All one can do is collect as much data as possible on a

given problem. Then, through critical, rational thinking, sort out reliable

scientific findings from baseless speculations and come up with the best

interpretation of that data. I have done this when it comes to the question of

the potential role of vitamin D in MS. There is a very large and diverse data

base which indicates that vitamin D deficiency is a major factor in MS onset and

progression and that vitamin D supplementation is potentially of significant

value for preventing MS and for slowing progression. Thus I was somewhat

surprised by a bold claim that new research demonstrates that just the opposite

is true.

The author of the scientific paper on this purported new research is listed in

the press release as “Trevor Marshall, Ph.D., professor at Australia’s

Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology†A Google

search revealed Dr Marshall is actually the director of the Autoimmune Research

Foundation, the source of the press release. Furthermore, he is not an

Australian professor but simply has an adjunct position at that university. The

fact that Dr Marshall passes himself off as an Australian professor rather than

as a California charity director does not inspire confidence in his work.

However, such misrepresentation is not that big a deal. In science, when you

want to evaluate the credibility of new research findings, it all comes down to

the scientific data and interpretations an author presents, not the author’s

credentials. To evaluate the new research, I downloaded the publication which is

entitled “Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision making†a rather strange

title for a scientific study. I soon realized that the paper had absolutely

nothing to do with new research as claimed in the press release but was simply

an opinion piece by Dr Marshall on his highly speculative and unorthodox

hypothesis that autoimmune disease is caused by bacterial infection and vitamin

D supplementation.

I had looked at this hypothesis in 2006 and found there is absolutely no

credible science which supports it. In fact, I found there was a lot of reliable

science which rendered such a hypothesis as extremely unlikely and similar to

the hypothesis that all cancers are caused by parasites. Every chronic disease,

including MS has its collection of speculative hypotheses which have little to

no scientific support and each hypothesis has a related therapy. In Dr

Marshall’s case he promotes his “Marshall Protocol†for autoimmune

disease. This therapy consists of antibiotics, a vitamin D receptor stimulator

and a very low vitamin D intake (no supplements, avoid the sun as much as

possible) and is prescribed for a long list of diseases.

I went through Dr Marshall’s opinion piece and found it contained a number of

outright factual errors as well as a number of highly questionable claims. As an

example of a factual error, Dr Marshall states that vitamin D supplementation of

food has spread throughout the world. This is simply not true and even

continental Europe does not supplement food with vitamin D. A more serious error

is the claim that an increasing concentration of 1,25-D, the active vitamin D

hormone, depresses generation of 25(OH)D, the circulating from of vitamin D.

Solid and diverse research data demonstrate that 25(OH)D concentration is a

function of vitamin D intake and has no relationship to 1,25-D levels which are

tightly regulated by various feedback processes.

Another claim is “the chronic addition of immunomodulary vitamin D to the diet

is partly responsible for the current obesity epidemic†and again no credible

scientific data are presented or referenced to support such a speculation. Dr

Marshall also briefly addresses MS and vitamin D and completely ignores all the

studies which demonstrate the role of vitamin D deficiency in MS. He quotes one

researcher who cautioned against vitamin D supplementation until more data are

available. Coincidently, when that paper was published a few years ago, I had

asked the senior author why such a statement was in their paper and it turned

out the very conservative journal editor, not the authors, wanted its inclusion.

The authors, Harvard research scientists, strongly support vitamin D

supplementation for MS.

The bottom line is that the “new research†referred to in the press release

is nothing more than a conglomeration of unsupported opinions which are part of

Dr Marshall’s continued attempt to promote his unconventional concepts and the

use of the “Marshall protocol†as an acceptable treatment for many chronic

diseases. I would note that I believe that Dr Marshall is completely sincere in

his beliefs and that he is not trying to make money from promoting his

hypotheses and treatments. However, he would have more success in convincing

others of his concepts if he could provide some reliable science to support his

opinions. He provides no data from epidemiology, animal experiments,

immunological studies or valid clinical trials.

Furthermore, it is also essential for him to counter the voluminous and diverse

data which support the concept that diseases like MS and rheumatoid arthritis

are autoimmune diseases rather than bacterial infections. For example Dr

Marshall claims that vitamin D supplementation suppresses the immune system and

thus helps to drive autoimmune diseases by allowing the bacteria to flourish. He

neglects to mention that immune suppressant drugs reduce disease symptoms rather

than exacerbate them as his hypothesis would demand.

It also concerns me that the press release contains a number of statements on

topics which are not addressed in Dr Marshall’s opinion piece and most can be

dismissed as having no scientific support. The statement “Marshall's research

has demonstrated how ingested vitamin D can actually block VDR activation, the

opposite effect to that of Sunshine†has no basis in fact and the claimed

research is not discussed or referenced in the article. It appears the press

release is simply another vehicle for Dr Marshall to promote his speculative

hypotheses regarding vitamin D and disease. Unfortunately such information is

often perceived by the public to be reliable science, especially in a case like

this when the author passes himself off as a university professor and makes

misleading statements such as “our research has demonstratedâ€. He is a

charity director and there is no acceptable research which demonstrates any of

his claims - only speculations

based on speculations.

In summary, we currently have two opposing views on vitamin D and MS. The view

held by most MS researchers and by me and supported by a large and diverse

database interprets that vitamin D deficiency is a significant factor in MS and

that supplementation may well be of value. Dr Marshall’s view is that vitamin

D intake promotes disease progress and that any supplementation may be harmful.

This view is not supported by any credible science. In closing, I would again

emphasize there is no certainty in science and the best we can do is make the

best interpretation with the available data and take the appropriate actions. I

suggest each person look over the two opposing interpretations and choose the

one which seems most reasonable and well supported.

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY! DR. JM