Nov 14, 2008
Vitamin D Dilemma – To D or Not To D
Radiological health expert Daniel Hayes who works at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene recent published on the subject of low dose radiation and the possibility that a form of vitamin D could be the key to protecting us from background radiation and perhaps save lives following a nuclear incident or terrorist attack involving a so-called dirty bomb.
Hayes explains that calcitriol, the active form of vitamin D, could be the oral agent, that medics have been searching for to provide a quick, simple, and inexpensive way to protect us when the warning sirens sound.
Having spoken to various researchers with markedly different views on vitamin D, its benefits and its potentially detrimental effects on health, I wasn’t too sure about how adding yet another dietary supplement to our daily intake would be beneficial. I asked Hayes to expand.
“One should get vitamin D3 either from solar irradiation of the skin or from dietary supplementation,” he told me, “I personally take 2000 IU daily which is obtained without a physician’s prescription…2000 IU is definitely safe, I can dig up the documentation.”
There are claims from some quarters that getting plenty of sun is a good thing, and they’ve published a guide, which I mentioned in a post on how to sunbathe safely, but the cancer research charities suggest that really there is no safe way to get a sun tan and that a dietary supplement of vitamin D would be a much safer alternative to increasing one’s exposure to the sun.
However, the only prescription vitamin D preparation available in the US and the US is vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol). “Vitamin D2 should not be regarded as a nutrient suitable for supplementation or fortification,” Hayes says, “physicians resorting to the use of vitamin D2 should be aware of its markedly lower potency and shorter duration of action relative to vitamin D3.” As such, he asserts that you should get vitamin D3 either from the sun or through dietary supplementation.
Unfortunately, vitamin D, being several different compounds with different physiological activities, is not a clearcut medical case. There are some who see it as a “clap-hands-hosanna”, but there are others, particularly scientists associated with the Marshall Protocol, and in the California non-profit association Autoimmunity Research Foundation, who see it as something to be avoided.
Biomedical researcher Trevor Marshall, who runs the ARF, has produced what has been described as the first working model of vitamin D metabolism. Proal explains that the model, which demonstrates the complexity of vitamin D metabolism, emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the different forms of vitamin D. According to ARF scientists, the form of vitamin D that Hayes recommends and takes himself – that derived from supplements and excessive sun exposure – is apparently converted into 25-hydroxyvitamin-D or calcidiol. “Unfortunately,” says Proal, “molecular biologists have long realized that 25-hydroxyvitamin-D3 is actually a potent secosteroid. Marshall’s research indicates that, like corticosteroid medications, it actually slows the immune response, and this ultimately allows chronic bacterial infection to exist uninhibited, which could be the ultimate cause of such inflammation. “Under such circumstances,” says Proal, “25-hydroxyvitamin D’s ability to slow the immune response allows for short-term relief, but aggravates the disease over the long-term by allowing chronic pathogens to proliferate with much greater ease.”
The difference
between
cacitriol and
calcidiol boils down
to the
manner in which
they bind the Vitamin
D Receptor VDRThe difference between cacitriol and calcidiol boils down to the manner in which they bind the Vitamin D Receptor VDR – a receptor that largely controls the activity of the innate immune response and the transcription of hundreds, and possibly thousands of genes. While calcitriol activates the VDR, Marshall’s in silico data demonstrates that calcidiol has the opposite effect. So according to ARF researchers, Hayes may be right about about calcitriol’s ability to activate genes that allow for protection against radiation. But, taking vitamin D orally or basking in the sun will produce a form of vitamin D that has the exact opposite effect of the beneficial results that Hayes predicts.
Reporting for CBCnews.ca, Stephen Strauss explains how Marshall researchers looked at more than 1000 people with a host of autoimmune and related diseases. “When combined with a particular drug treatment program, people who consciously tried not to take vitamin D and stayed out of the sun showed an often-dramatic reduction in symptoms. Dramatic means a reduction of 81 per cent in symptoms for people suffering from conditions ranging from Type 2 diabetes, to rheumatoid arthritis, to multiple sclerosis, Lyme disease and Crohn’s disease.”
It seems that some forms of vitamin D have steroidal activity and rather than helping fight disease it modulates the immune system and potentially increases inflammation. Marshall explained the apparent paradox in the journal BioEssays:
“For half a century, medical science has been noting the association between vitamin D serum levels and disease. What developed has been a concept of ‘vitamin D deficiency’ based solely on the notion that ‘low’ vitamin D serum levels somehow cause disease processes. But this ignores the alternative hypothesis — that the disease processes themselves regulate the vitamin D metabolism —that the observed ‘low’ values of vitamin D in disease are a result of the disease process, not the cause.”
I asked Amy Proal, a medical researcher and an advocate of the Marshall Protocol, for her thoughts on vitamin D. “Who is getting better as the medical community dishes out more and more vitamin D,” she asked in response. She points to a report in The New York Times that says children as young as five years are developing kidney stones and that infant eczema is rising at an alarming rate, these trends and the trend towards obesity, she says are not what one would se with genetic or autoimmune diseases. “They are trends that indicate chronic infection egged on by the use of immmunosuppressive steroids, and vitamin D fortification, among other trends of modern medicine,” she says. The NYT article alludes to the recent melamine in milk scandal in China, but stakes its claim on common salt (sodium chloride) being to blame for the rise in kidney stone incidence in the US.
So, is vitamin D good or bad? Either way, which forms should we allow ourselves to be exposed to and which forms should we really avoid? And, if there’s a radiation incident…
Daniel P. Hayes (2008). The protection afforded by vitamin D against low radiation damage International Journal of Low Radiation, 5 (4) DOI: 10.1504/IJLR.2008.020980
That was a great report Daved. Thanks. I have since been adding 11000 IU of D3 4 of 5 times a week. The only concern now that I have about D is that it can accumulate in the body over time, but from all that I know if one does not have the symptoms that the Marshall Protocol treats, then it shouldn’t be a problem at these doses.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/vitamin-d-and-h1n1-swine-flu.shtml
I have further comment on vitamin D. Last winter I took 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 and suffered one really nasty cold and had a case of influenza that put me out of commission for nearly two weeks. This winter I upped the dose to 5,000 IU and have had no cold or flu symptoms whatsoever.
I did something else of interest. Last November, to reduce my omega-6 fatty acid intake I stopped eating peanut butter. It was peanut butter sandwiches for lunch almost daily since 1972. A presentation by Dr. Bill Lands entitled “Why Omega-6 Fat Matters For Your Health” alerted me to the problem.
And it was a problem. I’ve been gradually losing mobility over the past decade due to chronic pain in my leg muscles. Now, four months after giving up peanut butter, I can run and jump and get up from a sitting position without effort. Excess omega-6 is likely a problem for many if they are too fond of nuts in general and peanuts in particular. Other sources of omega-6 are mayonnaise, salad dressings, baked goods, and commercially prepared fried foods of all sorts.
http://trusted.md/blog/vreni_gurd/2010/02/28/how_good_are_you_at_choosing_healthier_fats
http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010/02/omega-6-content-of-common-foods.html
I’m a long term sufferer of multiple tick borne pathogen infections living in Southeastern Pennsylvania countryside, and was drawn to sunshine when initially crippled by Lyme, HGE, HME, Babesiosis and Bartonella. The broad spectrum of infectious diseases from tick bite(s?) created a multi-system infection and inflammation that not only paralyzed my body, but included conditions such as encephalomeningitis, stabbing pains, crippling arthritis, fibromyalgia and more. The lack of sunshine in our wintertimes contributed to physical deterioration for me (and my family, also infected), while the springtime and sunnier seasons enabled us to remarkably regain better physical health and return to work, school and play. We’ve all learned that our bodies desire sunshine and are drawn to it now. I strongly believe our bodies know what is best for us, and in analogy of our situation, have determined by nature that the sun’s vitamin D effect is good for us, contrary to what some so-called “scientific” people may state. Too much emphasis has been placed on panel “guidelines” and “scientific or medical suppositions”. Too bad for those who listen to them and not their bodies.
Thanks for the report, David!!
I agree with your assessment that we have to be more investigative, before arbitrarily jumping on the suppliment train.
Let me just say that the D2 form of vitamin D is a natural immune suppressive on the Vitamin D Receptors (VDR). D3 is the active form that the body needs to attack infectious organisms. It is broken down by an enzyme if we have too much. Organisms such as L-Form Bacteria (biofilms) can create immune suppressive substances which displaces D3 off the Vitamin D Receptors (VDR) in the immune system. Therefore, D2, D3 and the Bacteria are all competing for spots on the VDR. D3 is the big looser. It apprears that having too much D3 overwelms the enzyme that breaks it down. D3 has an affinity for attaching to the T-cell receptors blocking the normal action of T-cells.
Basically a negative chain reaction in the immune sytem happens when we have too much D3 in our systems. To protect us from this potential damage and to have a reserve of D3, the body stores this excess D3 in the fat cells and the liver.
Now enter a suppliment of D3 to the mix and eventually the body has no place to put all this D3 and fails to break it down. The excess D3 shuts down our T-Cell immune system and disease (chronic and undefinable) is the result.
You should know that current big pharma medicative theory has a love affair with immune suppressive drugs. There is a drug out for MS. In europe, it is being flagged because it is causing brain infections and killing patients. It is doing this because it is an immune suppressive drug.
Immune suppressants seem to work because patients feel better and the symptoms seem to go away, but the root cause is never addressed. If the patient is lucky (or unlucky) the disease goes into “remission”. Notice that they never say cure, because the disease is still active and will come back with a vegence. There is no more immune system left to block, therefore there is no immune suppressive drug that will work. The end result is bleak for the poor patient.
Further comment: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/vitamin-d-and-h1n1-swine-flu.shtml