Hi All,
Thought this was interesting. No one has figured out the human body. This is why I don't take huge doses of the current miracle vitamin or mineral.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/vitamin- ... 20157.html
Love, Cristi
Vit D
Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Cristi,
Thanks for posting that. This is a very interesting viewpoint, so I looked up the original article, and carefully read it. It's here:
http://autoimmunityresearch.org/transcr ... t-VitD.pdf
Apparently, the cornerstone of this model, lies in the possibility that autoimmune diseases may be due to an undiscovered strain, (or strains), of bacteria, (a theory that many people subscribe to, including Polly and myself). One of the aspects of that theory is the fact that while the corticosteroids bring temporary relief of symptoms, discontinuance of the drug treatment, results in frequent relapses, (the authors claim that the use of corticosteroids results in dramatically increased rates of relapses, but I was unable to locate any credible evidence to document that claim, in a quick search of the literature on the internet). Furthermore, (since the exact mechanism by which vitamin D is able to suppress inflammation is unknown), they cite as evidence of the risk of using vitamin D as a "treatment", prior claims of benefits of certain treatments which turned out to have unexpected adverse effects, in the long run, (such as HRT, the fen-phen issue, etc.), and they use these examples to categorically condemn the use of corticosteroids, and, by association, the secosteroid 25-D, associated with vitamin D.
They back up their claims, by evidence produced by computer models of disease. That type of analysis is pretty much useless, IMO, since the computer is no smarter than the person who programs it. If computer models in general are such great tools, then why are our weather forecasts no more reliable than they were before the advent of computer models?
The reality of the situation is, if we look at all of the medications that we use, (whether OTC, or prescription-only), the exact mechanism by which they work to bring relief of symptoms, is understood for precious few of them. In fact, offhand, I can't think of any examples which are truly understood, though surely some must exist. IOW, their claim in this case, is a moot point, since it applies to virtually every medication that we use to control disease, or it's symptoms. So why even bring it up?
They correctly point out that autoimmune diseases treated by corticosteroids continue to develop, only the symptoms are suppressed by the meds. True, but so what? Suppression of symptoms beats doing nothing, since we don't have any known cures available, anyway. Why suffer, needlessly. The point is, not using corticosteroids certainly has not been known to be of any benefit, either, as far as the progression of the disease is concerned.
The authors' "alternative model", simply assumes that low levels of 25-D in patients with autoimmune disease, are a result of the disease, rather than a cause. And, the reduction of inflammation, and clinical disease markers, in patients taking supplemental vitamin D, are a result of the temporary suppression of the immune system response. Well duh! That sounds to me as though the response is exactly what we are attempting to achieve. Of course, their point is that it's not nice to mess with Mother Nature, and suppress the Vitamin D Receptor, (VDR).
The bottom line, unfortunately, is that I see nothing of any remarkable substance, in their hypothesis. While what they speculate, may indeed turn out to be true, they certainly do not make a convincing case for it. It sounds more as though they are taking a contrary position to a popular trend, just in case they should turn out to be correct, as we learn more about autoimmune diseases, in the future. Nothing they say in the article, suggests any way to improve our treatment of autoimmune issues. Basically, they are pointing out that we know very little about autoimmune diseases, and how to treat them. Unfortunately, we already knew that, so what's their point?
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but the bottom line, after reading the original article, and rereading it a couple of times, is that their hypothesis, and their article, does nothing to enhance the database of information available to us, to deal with autoimmune diseases and their treatments. It appears to me as if the authors desperately wanted to publish a scholarly article, but didn't have any "new" science to present, so they gave us what college students refer to as "a snow job", (or at least they used to refer to pointless presentations that way, back in ancient times, when I was in school).
That said, I think that they are correct, in saying that immune diseases will some day be shown to be caused by some currently unknown bacteria, but they didn't "invent" that theory - it's been around for several years, at least. After reading their article, I remain unconvinced that the use of corticosteroids, (and especially vitamin D3), adversely affects the long-term prognosis of autoimmune disease. True, the side effects of corticosteroids can result in adverse long-term effects, but they didn't even mention that in the article.
I agree that the possibility exists that their hypothesis may turn out to be true, that supplemental vitamin D may not result in long-term benefits, in the treatment of autoimmune disease, but they certainly offered no proof of that theory, nor did they offer any substantive evidence that long-term use of vitamin D might have negative consequences.
The biggest problem that I see with their viewpoint, is that they imply that it's best to leave the immune system alone, to allow it to do it's own thing. Unfortunately, history has proven that, (in most cases, at least), autoimmune diseases do not go away on their own, suggesting that the immune system is incapable of correcting these issues, on it's own. We either have to try to control the symptoms as best we can, or, in many cases, we end up with so much permanent damage to our bodies, that we become unable to function, either as an individual, or as a member of society.
In all fairness to the authors, I will concede that the current trend of jumping from zero, or minimal doses of vitamin D, to megadoses, is not a trivial matter, and possibly not without risk. I have to agree that since the long-term effects of vitamin D supplementation are unknown, anyone who decides to follow such a program, does so at her or his own risk. Of course, that's true for many of the things that we ingest, and many of the lifestyle habits that we adopt. If mankind had chosen to follow the "safe" path, though, and never adopt any new ideas, I would have found it necessary to scrawl this message on the wall of a cave, rather than to send it electronically, around the world, in the twinkling of an eye.
Love,
Tex
Thanks for posting that. This is a very interesting viewpoint, so I looked up the original article, and carefully read it. It's here:
http://autoimmunityresearch.org/transcr ... t-VitD.pdf
Apparently, the cornerstone of this model, lies in the possibility that autoimmune diseases may be due to an undiscovered strain, (or strains), of bacteria, (a theory that many people subscribe to, including Polly and myself). One of the aspects of that theory is the fact that while the corticosteroids bring temporary relief of symptoms, discontinuance of the drug treatment, results in frequent relapses, (the authors claim that the use of corticosteroids results in dramatically increased rates of relapses, but I was unable to locate any credible evidence to document that claim, in a quick search of the literature on the internet). Furthermore, (since the exact mechanism by which vitamin D is able to suppress inflammation is unknown), they cite as evidence of the risk of using vitamin D as a "treatment", prior claims of benefits of certain treatments which turned out to have unexpected adverse effects, in the long run, (such as HRT, the fen-phen issue, etc.), and they use these examples to categorically condemn the use of corticosteroids, and, by association, the secosteroid 25-D, associated with vitamin D.
They back up their claims, by evidence produced by computer models of disease. That type of analysis is pretty much useless, IMO, since the computer is no smarter than the person who programs it. If computer models in general are such great tools, then why are our weather forecasts no more reliable than they were before the advent of computer models?
The reality of the situation is, if we look at all of the medications that we use, (whether OTC, or prescription-only), the exact mechanism by which they work to bring relief of symptoms, is understood for precious few of them. In fact, offhand, I can't think of any examples which are truly understood, though surely some must exist. IOW, their claim in this case, is a moot point, since it applies to virtually every medication that we use to control disease, or it's symptoms. So why even bring it up?
They correctly point out that autoimmune diseases treated by corticosteroids continue to develop, only the symptoms are suppressed by the meds. True, but so what? Suppression of symptoms beats doing nothing, since we don't have any known cures available, anyway. Why suffer, needlessly. The point is, not using corticosteroids certainly has not been known to be of any benefit, either, as far as the progression of the disease is concerned.
The authors' "alternative model", simply assumes that low levels of 25-D in patients with autoimmune disease, are a result of the disease, rather than a cause. And, the reduction of inflammation, and clinical disease markers, in patients taking supplemental vitamin D, are a result of the temporary suppression of the immune system response. Well duh! That sounds to me as though the response is exactly what we are attempting to achieve. Of course, their point is that it's not nice to mess with Mother Nature, and suppress the Vitamin D Receptor, (VDR).
The bottom line, unfortunately, is that I see nothing of any remarkable substance, in their hypothesis. While what they speculate, may indeed turn out to be true, they certainly do not make a convincing case for it. It sounds more as though they are taking a contrary position to a popular trend, just in case they should turn out to be correct, as we learn more about autoimmune diseases, in the future. Nothing they say in the article, suggests any way to improve our treatment of autoimmune issues. Basically, they are pointing out that we know very little about autoimmune diseases, and how to treat them. Unfortunately, we already knew that, so what's their point?
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but the bottom line, after reading the original article, and rereading it a couple of times, is that their hypothesis, and their article, does nothing to enhance the database of information available to us, to deal with autoimmune diseases and their treatments. It appears to me as if the authors desperately wanted to publish a scholarly article, but didn't have any "new" science to present, so they gave us what college students refer to as "a snow job", (or at least they used to refer to pointless presentations that way, back in ancient times, when I was in school).
That said, I think that they are correct, in saying that immune diseases will some day be shown to be caused by some currently unknown bacteria, but they didn't "invent" that theory - it's been around for several years, at least. After reading their article, I remain unconvinced that the use of corticosteroids, (and especially vitamin D3), adversely affects the long-term prognosis of autoimmune disease. True, the side effects of corticosteroids can result in adverse long-term effects, but they didn't even mention that in the article.
I agree that the possibility exists that their hypothesis may turn out to be true, that supplemental vitamin D may not result in long-term benefits, in the treatment of autoimmune disease, but they certainly offered no proof of that theory, nor did they offer any substantive evidence that long-term use of vitamin D might have negative consequences.
The biggest problem that I see with their viewpoint, is that they imply that it's best to leave the immune system alone, to allow it to do it's own thing. Unfortunately, history has proven that, (in most cases, at least), autoimmune diseases do not go away on their own, suggesting that the immune system is incapable of correcting these issues, on it's own. We either have to try to control the symptoms as best we can, or, in many cases, we end up with so much permanent damage to our bodies, that we become unable to function, either as an individual, or as a member of society.
In all fairness to the authors, I will concede that the current trend of jumping from zero, or minimal doses of vitamin D, to megadoses, is not a trivial matter, and possibly not without risk. I have to agree that since the long-term effects of vitamin D supplementation are unknown, anyone who decides to follow such a program, does so at her or his own risk. Of course, that's true for many of the things that we ingest, and many of the lifestyle habits that we adopt. If mankind had chosen to follow the "safe" path, though, and never adopt any new ideas, I would have found it necessary to scrawl this message on the wall of a cave, rather than to send it electronically, around the world, in the twinkling of an eye.
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Interesting discussion and analysis. Thanks, guys.
I would have to agree with Tex' review of the article. It is basically theoretical. It makes sense but the proof of the pudding is not yet available.
Plus, one of the biggest problems MCers have is an "overactive" immune system, an enhanced inflammatory response. It is not the bacteria or other pathogens that are the major problem for us - it is the way our body reacts to them - the excess chemicals (like cytokines) that are produced during the inflammatory response are what give us difficulty when they travel throught the body. Like the flu epidemic of 1918 - the healthiest people were most likely to die (young men in their early 20s). This was because it wasn't the flu bug that killed you - it was the greatest inflammatory response to that bug.
So, I have to say that I consider it a plus if vitamin D can reduce my inflammatory response.
A good review article was published in the American J. of Clinical Nutrition in 2006. Basically, the authors looked at the certain conditions (bone mineral density, lower extremity function, dental health, risk of falls/fractures, and colorectal cancer) and compared these to serum 25 hydroxy vitamin D levels. In all cases, the serum levels that were optimal for each health condition were in the range of 36-40 ng/ml. These serum levels cannot be obtained with the current vitamin D recommendations - at least 1000mg IUs or more per day is necessary. I think this word is getting out. On my last GI visit she made sure I was taking enough supplemental D - said the evidence is accumulating that it helps to prevent colon cancer - it prevents the formation of those polyps which eventually turn into cancer.
Love,
Polly
I would have to agree with Tex' review of the article. It is basically theoretical. It makes sense but the proof of the pudding is not yet available.
Plus, one of the biggest problems MCers have is an "overactive" immune system, an enhanced inflammatory response. It is not the bacteria or other pathogens that are the major problem for us - it is the way our body reacts to them - the excess chemicals (like cytokines) that are produced during the inflammatory response are what give us difficulty when they travel throught the body. Like the flu epidemic of 1918 - the healthiest people were most likely to die (young men in their early 20s). This was because it wasn't the flu bug that killed you - it was the greatest inflammatory response to that bug.
So, I have to say that I consider it a plus if vitamin D can reduce my inflammatory response.
A good review article was published in the American J. of Clinical Nutrition in 2006. Basically, the authors looked at the certain conditions (bone mineral density, lower extremity function, dental health, risk of falls/fractures, and colorectal cancer) and compared these to serum 25 hydroxy vitamin D levels. In all cases, the serum levels that were optimal for each health condition were in the range of 36-40 ng/ml. These serum levels cannot be obtained with the current vitamin D recommendations - at least 1000mg IUs or more per day is necessary. I think this word is getting out. On my last GI visit she made sure I was taking enough supplemental D - said the evidence is accumulating that it helps to prevent colon cancer - it prevents the formation of those polyps which eventually turn into cancer.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.