Posted on 01/26/2008 10:56:49 PM PST by blam
Vitamin D Deficiency Study Raises New Questions About Disease And Supplements
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008) — Low blood levels of vitamin D have long been associated with disease, and the assumption has been that vitamin D supplements may protect against disease. However, this new research demonstrates that ingested vitamin D is immunosuppressive and that low blood levels of vitamin D may be actually a result of the disease process. Supplementation may make the disease worse.
In a new report Trevor Marshall, Ph.D., professor at Australia’s Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology, explains how increased vitamin D intake affects much more than just nutrition or bone health. The paper explains how the Vitamin D Nuclear Receptor (VDR) acts in the repression or transcription of hundreds of genes, including genes associated with diseases ranging from cancers to multiple sclerosis.
"The VDR is at the heart of innate immunity, being responsible for expression of most of the antimicrobial peptides, which are the body’s ultimate response to infection," Marshall said.
"Molecular biology is now forcing us to re-think the idea that a low measured value of vitamin D means we simply must add more to our diet. Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse."
"Our disease model has shown us why low levels of vitamin D are observed in association with major and chronic illness," Marshall added. "Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone, and the body regulates the production of all it needs. In fact, the use of supplements can be harmful, because they suppress the immune system so that the body cannot fight disease and infection effectively."
Marshall's research has demonstrated how ingested vitamin D can actually block VDR activation, the opposite effect to that of Sunshine. Instead of a positive effect on gene expression, Marshall reported that his own work, as well as the work of others, shows that quite nominal doses of ingested vitamin D can suppress the proper operation of the immune system. It is a different metabolite, a secosteroid hormone called 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, which activates the VDR to regulate the expression of the genes. Under conditions that exist in infection or inflammation, the body automatically regulates its production of all the vitamin D metabolites, including 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the metabolite which is usually measured to indicate vitamin D status.
Vitamin D deficiency, long interpreted as a cause of disease, is more likely the result of the disease process, and increasing intake of vitamin D often makes the disease worse. "Dysregulation of vitamin D has been observed in many chronic diseases, including many thought to be autoimmune," said J.C. Waterhouse, Ph.D., lead author of a book chapter on vitamin D and chronic disease.
"We have found that vitamin D supplementation, even at levels many consider desirable, interferes with recovery in these patients."
"We need to discard the notion that vitamin D affects a disease state in a simple way," Marshall said. "Vitamin D affects the expression of over 1,000 genes, so we should not expect a simplistic cause and effect between vitamin D supplementation and disease. The comprehensive studies are just not showing that supplementary vitamin D makes people healthier."
Journal reference: Marshall TG. Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision making. Bioessays. 2008 Jan 15;30(2):173-182 [Epub ahead of print] Online ISSN: 1521-1878 Print ISSN: 0265-9247 PMID: 18200565
Adapted from materials provided by Autoimmunity Research Foundation, via AlphaGalileo.
Obesity is not a disease. Heart disease is but it is not getting worse.
At this point I quit taking anything in this article seriously.
clearly you will never get a research grant
we cant fund common sense
He is considering a wide range of chronic illnesses, some of which, like obesity, are not normally considered diseases at all. He's finding evidence, with detailed molecular genomic models, that many chronic illnesses are due to a breakdown in the body's conversion of Vitamin D. Cell Wall Deficient (CWD - missing cell wall) bacteria seem able to turn our immune system on its head, using it to attack our own tissues and protect themselves, The mechanisms used by the CWD bacteria including producing the bioactive 1,25 form of Vitamin D at excessively high rates.
See further for example Recovering from Chronic Disease - Sarcoidosis, Autoimmunity, AIDS and Cancers", Transcript of 18 June 2006 presentation by Dr. Joyce Waterhouse.
Diseases which this mechanism might explain, as mentioned on the above presentation, include inflammatory bowel disease (IBS), Chrohn's Disease, Ulcerative colitis, Arthritis, Lupus, Fibromyalgia, Chonic Fatigue Syndrom, Lyme Disease and Multiple Sclerosis.
Or, if you prefer video, see the YouTube video of a talk by Marshall, at Prof Trevor Marshall's AAEM 2006 Presentation.
He's not claiming that Vitamin D should not be supplemented by most people. He is claiming it should not be supplemented by those with such chronic diseases, because for them, Vitamin D (and Folic Acid and sunlight) make the problem worse rather than better.
And since he's further lobbying the FDA to not expand Vitamin D supplementation, because of the considerable risks it poses to those with such chronic diseases. Due to the current difficulties in diagnosing such diseases, the portion of the population afflicted with them, or at borderline risk for them, is no doubt wider than we know.
Disagree. Marshall says that the body REGULATES the various species of Vitamin D and products derived from it that the body requires. It's difficult to regulate something if there isn't any (or not enough) there in the first place.
My wife had been pushing me to get my Vit. D level checked (her oncologist is requiring her to keep her blood level at around 90 pg/ml), so I had a blood test done. It showed a blood D level of 32 pg/ml. And this was WITH taking 1400 IU per day of Vitamn D3. So I added another 1000 IU.
From
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp
What is vitamin D?
Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin that is found in food and can also be made in your body after exposure to ultraviolet (UV) rays from the sun. Sunshine is a significant source of vitamin D because UV rays from sunlight trigger vitamin D synthesis in the skin [1-2].
Vitamin D exists in several forms, each with a different level of activity. Calciferol is the most active form of vitamin D. Other forms are relatively inactive in the body. The liver and kidney help convert vitamin D to its active hormone form [3]. Once vitamin D is produced in the skin or consumed in food, it requires chemical conversion in the liver and kidney to form 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D, the physiologically active form of vitamin D. Active vitamin D functions as a hormone because it sends a message to the intestines to increase the absorption of calcium and phosphorus [3].
Note especially “Once vitamin D is produced in the skin, it requires chemical conversion in the liver and kidney to form 1,25 dihyrdoxyvitamin D, the physiologically active form of Vitamin D.”
Good.
You hit the nail on the head. I would be suspicious of anyone who makes an outlandish statement such as this, “Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse.”
get outside more folks!
The abstract:
*******************
LOL! I was thinking the same thing.
I’m tired of reading articles about the evils of being outdoors because of skin cancer and aging the skin.
We’re supposed to be afraid of fresh air and sunshine?
We’re supposed to coat ourselves with manmade chemicals (sunscreen) the instant we step foot outside?
That way, even when we do get outside, our skin will not absorb the necessary ingredients for vitamin D production.
None of that advise ever made sense to me.
I don’t burn easily, so I rarely put on sunscreen.
2 of children have fair skin, so I let them go 1/2 hr to 1 hr without sunscreen and then apply it so they don’t burn.
Everything in moderation - that goes for the sun too.
None of that advise ever made sense to me.
I don’t burn easily, so I rarely put on sunscreen. 2 of children have fair skin, so I let them go 1/2 hr to 1 hr without sunscreen and then apply it so they don’t burn.
Everything in moderation - that goes for the sun too.
*****************
Exactly! I'm out in the sun gardening during Spring, Summer and Fall. I don't usually use a sunscreen except when I go south of New England, where I will burn to a crisp within an hour. There may be a correlation between increased use of sunscreen and all of these autoimmune diseases.
“There may be a correlation between increased use of sunscreen and all of these autoimmune diseases.”
yes...there was a recent finding about MS that suggested that very thing.
“It may well be taken as another attack on Vitamins, in the popular press (thanks to Big Pharma money and influence.)”
Here is Dr. Marshall’s agenda, in his own words:
“Tang et. al, suggested that ‘if Vitamin D is to be used as an adjunct supplement to calcium, its dose should be 800 IU or more.’ It would seem that, if supplementation with Vitamin D is to be effective in the reduction of osteoporosis, it should be administered by a physician, and not via the food chain. Both risks, and benefits, should be evaluated thoroughly.”
You got that? He thinks Vitamin D is a drug that should be controlled by the medical monopoly. I guess you’ll also need a prescription from your doctor to be admitted to the beach during the summer, since 20 minutes of intense summer sunlight causes your body to make 10,000 IU of Vitamin D. Maybe soon the nanny state will require a prescription from the doctor just to cross the street.
I’m sorry that Dr. Marshall has an uncommon condition that causes him to react badly to Vitamin D supplementation ( and presumably sunlight also ). Even the most harmless substance known to man, co-enzyme Q10, has a contra-indication, yeast infection. But I don’t think he has made a rational case that Vitamin D supplementation is anything but helpful for a large majority of the population.
Big Pharma wants control of selling suppliments, big $$$ to be made.
Just checked, and the blood test I took "was" for the 1,25D active form, and not the precursor. Kudos to the lab for using the "right" test.
To add to the data, although I "love" milk, I have developed a sensitivity to it, so no longer drink it other than very sparingly (so no intake of D there). I also don't eat cereals (too much carbohydrate in the AM gives me a hypoglycemic condition later)--so no intake there either. Finally, I live in "the Great Northwest"--and you can imagine what opportunities there are for "solar synthesis" of D during the winter months.
So I think I'm pretty safe with the supplementation.
Depends on where you live. Winter sunlight at relatively high latitudes (Boston, Toronto) isn't strong enough to induce vitamin D synthesis---and that is WITHOUT cloud cover. I live in Washington state, so you can gather that the opportunities for winter "sunlight synthesis" of Vitamin D are nil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.