Marshall Protocol
…part 2 of Slowburn Treatment for Chronic Disease
UPDATE: Science-Based Medicine (no relation) has a nice balanced post on the Marshall Protocol in which it is pointed out that it has all the tell-tale trademarks of a sCAM (spurious Complementary and Alternative Medicine):
The Marshall Protocol has all the characteristics of modern alternative therapy: a single discoverer, a hitherto undiscovered biology, an unproven therapeutic intervention and one of the most aggravating issues in sCAM’s: Taking a scientific truth the size of a molehill and transmogrifying it into a Cascade Range of exaggerated disease etiology and treatment. Unlike most SCAM’s, however, as best as I can tell Dr Marshall does not seem to be in the business of making a business from his discovery, although he does have patent applications for his protocol.
The Marshall Protocol was originally designed to treat sarcoidosis, an inflammatory condition, and utilised the drug Benicar, subsequent claims that it could also treat non-inflammatory conditions such as CFS and fibromyalgia, smack of the kind of reaching out for a panacea that is common in efforts to find cures for what conventional medicine considers incurable. Indeed, the list of diseases supposedly caused by L-form bacteria continues to grow and includes the spurious condition, mania.
One of the underlying principles of the Marshall Protocol is that patients must avoid vitamin D. Apparently, the patient’s immune system cannot kill L-form bacteria effectively until vitamin D is eliminated from their diet so they must also avoid sunlight as much as possible.
What we refer to as vitamin D is actually a steroid. Marshall argues that his molecular models show that the precursor form of vitamin D will actually inhibit the vitamin D Receptor and consequently the innate immune system. It is possible that any “feel good” effects are simply a result of L-form bacteria surviving and so no spewing out their toxins when they die. But, none of this has been tested or proven in vitro and certainly not in vivo.
A deficiency of vitamin D has been implicated recently as a causative agent in certain forms of cancer, then a treatment that perhaps reduces vitamin D levels below safe thresholds for long periods may indeed effect a resolution of chronic symptoms of one disease or another, but could concomitantly increase one’s cancer risk. That could be a red herring, however, it is thought that vitamin D will temporarily decrease a patient’s level of inflammation but only in the short-term. In the meantime those L-form bacteria could have a field day, if they actually exist.
There is certainly the feeling that long-term, low-level use of antibiotics among individuals with various non-specific disorders could be storing up real problems for the immune system by allowing low levels of real pathogenic bacteria to evolve resistance. And, that’s not to even mention probiotics, which millions of people imbibe on a daily basis in the belief that they will boost levels of so-called good bacteria.
A paper in the Lancet in February 2007, suggested that prescribing antibiotics in healthy volunteers is a very risky strategy. Macrolide [antibiotic] use is the single most important driver of the emergence of macrolide resistance, the researchers conclude, physicians prescribing antibiotics should take into account the striking ecological side-effects of such antibiotics.
Proponents of the Marshall Protocol point out that it uses carefully selected, extremely low-dose antibiotics. Particularly minocycline, which is used long-term for acne treatment and has not evolved resistance yet. Indeed, minocycline is actually one of the few antibiotics active against MRSA (multiple-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) that has not triggered resistance, although it is only weakly active.
Claims that go against the grain of conventional medicine often take years to filter through, especially if those claims suggest a simple answer to a wide range of illnesses. But, more often than not those claims turn out to be nothing more than a sCAM (spurious complementary alternative medicine). Humans have always sought panaceas, an elixir of life, a cure all for our ills. They don’t, unfortunately, exist. I suspect the Marshall Protocol, with its bizarre claims about naked bacteria and vitamin D will fall at the first hurdle when properly tested.
I too am curious as to why Marshall allegedly holds a patent on his eponymous Protocol.
Back to the introduction.
89 Responses to “Marshall Protocol”
Want more articles like this? Subscribe to our free newsfeed
"Deceived Wisdom: Why What You Thought Was Right Is Wrong" from David Bradley. Available now on 
I haven’t seen anything new on research into the Marshall Protocol, have there been any significant advances or trials, do leave a comment to let readers know.
db
I have heard cases of participants who have decided to terminate the MP before the suggested time and were told by staff that their disease would only get worse unless they were treated with the MP.
Since there hasn’t been any clinical trials done yet in a more conventional setting, is it appropriate to make such a statement to these participants, who, for whatever reasons, are deciding not to continue the MP? In addition to the fact that these type of comments are posted publicly for other participants who are trying to stick with the protocol.
I can understand the zealousness/excitement of those proponents of the MP. But what happens if 5 to 10 years or more down the line it is proven that some or all of the theories were flawed. Is it appropriate to be promising that the MP is the only cure for there malady?
Thanks for the follow-up Amy, my “anecdotal” comment wasn’t meant to suggest that effects are not being observed, just that in the strict sense of a clinical trial, there would have to be observable and reproducible evidence of the type you mention, in fact ;-)
db
Hi David and anonymous,
I should point out that not all the evidence showing people on the MP are improving is anecdotal. In many cases blood work improves or tests show that the patient is no longer sick anymore. For example, there are patients who had sarcoidosis who before the MP have X-rays showing granulomas in their lungs, then after the MP their lungs are clear. Despite what some doctors will tell you, sarcoidosis does NOT go into spontaneous remission. Then their lung volumes are better, their oxygen levels improve. There are people with other diseases reporting EKG tests that no longer show signs of the heart conditions they once had. Most people blood pressure which is often high or low before the treatment stabilizes in the normal range after a few years of therapy. People’s liver enzymes have returned to normal. Tryglycerides have come back into range when they were extremely elevated before the MP. Several people have had cholesterol come back into range after it being extremely high pre-MP. People with Lyme disease often don’t test positive for Borrelia anymore after completing the MP, titers to certain bacterial species go down or are absent, viruses such as Epstein Barr and HHV6 no longer show up on blood tests. All of this is difficult to explain by a placebo effect.
Yes, people can talk to each other, but the MP site is NOT a support board or a place where people can talk about anything other than the treatment and how to follow the guidelines. Compliance is facilitated by the fact that patients report symptoms in weekly progress reports which are closely monitored by board staff. They must report their level of meds, sun exposure, activity level etc.
Yes, people are encouraged to eat a healthy diet but if a healthy diet were able to cure diseases such as sarcoidosis, Lyme, MS, lupus, arthritis and all the other diseases the MP aims to treat I think that would be known by now. What you may fail to realize is how desperately sick most people are when they start this treatment. Then, when they claim to feel normal again several years later it is nearly impossible to say that lifestyle changes could have made such a difference.
It is true that other types of clinical studies should be done on the MP. But if you were to fall ill with a devastating disease, or someone you loved all of a sudden because bedridden and unable to do anything, you might stop worrying about clinical trials at the moment. Especially when you go to the doctor and they tell you the only thing you can do is “manage” your condition with palliative drugs and immunosuppressive steroids, dooming you to a life of relapses and permanent illness. When a curative option like the MP is showing so much promise it is a shame to condemn it based on a lack of a double blind study. Instead energy would better be focused on finding funding for such a study while still embracing and investigating the new ideas Dr. Marshall has put forth.
Best,
Amy
Of course, we would love it if the government and/or private foundations/individuals would be more forthcoming with funding for more in depth research, randomized controlled trials etc… to provide much more data. The ARF and Dr. Marshall has been seeking this funding for several years. There is some signs of increasing interest, but sufficient money is not yet there. It is sad that the mainstream research community is not more open to new approaches and did not jump on this opportunity back in 2002 or 2003. So, until now, the ARF’s volunteers, like Dr. Marshall, Amy, Meg, Belinda, myself etc… soldier on, doing our best.
If you know anyone who would like to donate money that could help revolutionize the treatment of chronic disease, send them to http://AutoimmunityResearch.org
Thanks are due to you, David, in helping make the public more aware of this wonderful opportunity for restoring health by writing about the Marshall Protocol.
Those of us who have tried numerous alternative and mainstream approaches for many years with little benefit and have had our lives turned around now, understandably feel pretty confident about what the MP is able to do. But in light of so many claims being made all the time about one treatment or another, it is also understandable for others to take a skeptical look. Most of us viewed it skeptically initially.
Joyce Waterhouse, PhD