posted
why do vitamin D levels decrease w/ chronic lyme infection?
Posts: 55 | From North Carolina | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
sutherngrl
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 16270
posted
UP!!! I am interested in the answer to this. And does everyone with LD have low vitamin D. Or is it just that most everyone, even healthy people have low D these days?
Posts: 4035 | From Mississippi | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno but I do have low vit D and low folic acid. Seems like its common trend with infections
Posts: 856 | From MA | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
seekhelp
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 15067
posted
Because we're too sick to go outside..easy answer. Posts: 7545 | From The 5th Dimension - The Twilight Zone | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The science behind the Marshal Protocol offers an explanation. It is not without controversy.
Posts: 805 | From Utopia | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Cass A
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 11134
posted
You might find that the active form of Vit. D, 1,25 D, actually INCREASES to harmful levels, while what is commonly measured, 25-D, sinks.
That is what happened with me.
Best,
Cass A
Posts: 1245 | From Thousand Oaks, CA | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Lymeorsomething
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 16359
posted
Seek is probably right. Sick people don't get enough sunlight. Plus I'd suspect it gets used up fast in chronic infection just as iron and magnesium do...
The 1,25 doesn't always spike. It didn't for me. It's a good bet to run 1000-2000 IUs D3 per day...
-------------------- "Whatever can go wrong will go wrong." Posts: 2062 | From CT | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
Pinelady
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 18524
posted
I suspect it is both lack of sun and the invasion in the marrow of the ketes.
-------------------- Suspected Lyme 07 Test neg One band migrating in IgG region unable to identify.Igenex Jan.09IFA titer 1:40 IND IgM neg pos 31 +++ 34 IND 39 IND 41 IND 83-93 + DX:Neuroborreliosis Posts: 5850 | From Kentucky | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because due to the infection 25D is being consumed extra-renally for conversion into 1,25D... that in turn inhibits your immune function, and thus is a method the infection exploits for survival. Consequently, supplementing vitamin D will help Bb evade being killed by your immune system.
Posts: 727 | From USA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently tested low for Vitamin D = I think my number was a 23.
My LLMD told me to take no more than 400IU a day and to get 20 minutes of sun exposure on nice days.
I will be retested in a few months.
Posts: 581 | From CT | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Pinelady
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 18524
posted
dguy I'm with you.
-------------------- Suspected Lyme 07 Test neg One band migrating in IgG region unable to identify.Igenex Jan.09IFA titer 1:40 IND IgM neg pos 31 +++ 34 IND 39 IND 41 IND 83-93 + DX:Neuroborreliosis Posts: 5850 | From Kentucky | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dguy: Because due to the infection 25D is being consumed extra-renally for conversion into 1,25D... that in turn inhibits your immune function, and thus is a method the infection exploits for survival. Consequently, supplementing vitamin D will help Bb evade being killed by your immune system.
Do you have any evidence to support this? (And I don't mean opinion pieces by Marshall and company.)
Posts: 845 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by nomoremuscles: Do you have any evidence to support this? (And I don't mean opinion pieces by Marshall and company.)
yes, it's been true for me
Posts: 727 | From USA | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
seekhelp
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 15067
posted
Opus, my LLMD has me taking 20,000 IU of D3 daily and I'm at 52 right now. I was at 23 a while back..then 38. 4 months at about 8,000 IU got me from 38 to 52. Therefore, 400 IU is a joke dose IMO. You'll get nowhere unless you're sunbathing a lot. Posts: 7545 | From The 5th Dimension - The Twilight Zone | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been off my picc for 3 weeks and have been spending much time out in the sun.
What i have found to change profoundly is the bruising on my legs: on any given day, my legs are full of bruises, up and down.
since i started going out in the sun, i only have had a few....
Vitamin D is good for the immune system.
I know there are some protocols that say to stay away from it because bb utilizing it, etc etc. but our immune system needs it too....
...i dunno I think it's good stuff
also remember that you need vitamin D for Calcium absorbtion... osteoporosis isn't something us lymees should have to worry about on top of this stupid disease... yargh
anyway, enough of my babble
~Green~ xoxo
-------------------- ...trying to be the coffee bean, not the egg. Posts: 420 | From East Coast | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162
posted
NoMoreMuscles, You ask for an opinion to support a quote (posted by dguy) other than an opinion from Trevor Marshall. Here's a quote by an Australian biochemist, Lloyd Finch, published on-line in an Australian newspaper. (I broke it up into smaller bits for easier reading.)
"I am a retired biochemist who spent years in teaching and research on the regulation of biochemical pathways for interconversions of molecules in cells. A generalisation from the observations in this field is that a high concentration of the functional end product of a pathway will provide negative feedback to lower the concentration of an earlier intermediate (precursor) in the pathway.
"For vitaminD, the functional end product is 1,25-dihydroxy vitaminD. This is rarely measured, because its amount in the body and its stability is low and its assay is difficult and expensive. The major product circulating in blood and routinely measured as an indicator of vitamin D status is 25-monohydroxy vitaminD. This is a precursor of 1,25-dihydroxy vitaminD.
"The established logic of regulation for biochemical pathways says high levels of 1,25-dihydroxy vitaminD will lead to lowered levels of 25-monohydroxy vitaminD. There is data on the actual mechanisms by which this can occur. There also data that 1,25-dihydroxy vitaminD can increase in response to infection.
"Common sense and honesty requires consideration of the strong hypothesis that people who have low levels of measured vitaminD (25-monohydroxy vitaminD) have high levels of 1,25-dihydroxy vitaminD because they are sick with some form of infection.
"To suggest that the people are sick because they are vitaminD deficient without having data to rule out the above possibility (likelihood) is sloppy science."
Posted by: Lloyd Finch 07:38pm Thursday 23rd July
PS - I'm editing now to add that the comment posted immediately below the comment by Lloyd Finch (which I quoted above) is interesting also. Look for the next comment by George in MO, USA at the same link above.
George describes his experience of reversing his osteoporosis after cutting out vit D because his D-metabolite levels had been too high after 17 years of heavy supplementation with vit D. George states that he has the lab work and bone scans to prove it, too, although it took him several years to accomplish his goal of rebuilding his bone density by eliminating vit D and staying out of the sun.
I have met George personally, and I find him to be an honest and credible person. That's also how I happen to know a little more about George's story than what he wrote about in his commentary which he posted at the Australian newpaper website.
Posts: 4563 | From TX | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
400IU is low and I'm not sure why my doc recommended that. I am in the sun a lot this time of year. And this doc is one of the top docs in NY so I don't know.
Posts: 581 | From CT | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
sutherngrl
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 16270
posted
Here's one for you. My D level started at 19 in the beginning of my illness 3+ years ago. Long story......took large doses of D given by endo. D shot up too high, toxic levels. Stopped D altogether. It fell back to 30 a year ago.
I had it checked a week or so ago and it is now at 63. I have only been taking 1000IU's a day for the past month, before that for the past year, I hardly ever took it; and have not been in the sun lately due to taking Doxy. Does this mean that my immune system is starting to kick in?
I might add that I have been juicing raw veggies for the past month. Don't know if the change in diet would have made the D go up or not.
Opus, I think some LLMDs don't think D is a big deal. When I went to mine and my D was 30, he said don't worry about your D. This is one reason why I was not very faithful about taking it, until the last month, when I decided on my own that it might be a good idea.
Posts: 4035 | From Mississippi | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
Both of these are good, interesting even, but neither are evidence as to what's happening. What you have here are two people who agree with TM. But nothing to prove their points. They suggest something other than the accepted roles and mechanisms of vit D may be occurring, and who knows they may be right, but they provide no evidence to back it up. Not a lick more than TM does.
Mr. Finch's quote is simply asking people to consider another hypothesis:
"Common sense and honesty requires consideration of the strong hypothesis that people who have low levels of measured vitaminD (25-monohydroxy vitaminD) have high levels of 1,25-dihydroxy vitaminD because they are sick with some form of infection.
"To suggest that the people are sick because they are vitaminD deficient without having data to rule out the above possibility (likelihood) is sloppy science."
I don't see any evidence in that statement.
My problem with dguy's original statement was not the ideas in it, but the assertion of them being fact when they are not. (Something common with a certain tyrannical Aussie.)
Who knows, maybe the 25-D is low in sick people because it is needed to make 1,25-D in order to make antimicrobial peptides to get at the intracellular bugs. And then, afterwards, to produce anti-inflammatory cytokines to help mop up the mess.
In that scenario the low D also would not be causing illness, but be a result of it -- as many researchers imply -- though the implications would be very different. But I would not state the above as fact. I would not do that simply because no one knows. Not you, not me, not TM, not Lloyd Finch.
Posts: 845 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Cass A
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 11134
posted
Dear nomoremuscles and all,
The problem with demanding evidence in the Vitamin D debate is that currently the research is being done and reported to "prove" the Vitamin D (or seco-steroid D 25) is needed or helps in every possible illness or condition.
As someone who has actively investigated fraudulent medical study reports, fraudulent "studies," and the BigPharma $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ used to corrupt medicine, medical journals, and research, I would be skeptical at this point about ANY reported studies that I had not personally investigated the actual hard data for myself.
For example, reading the actual data on a long-term report that was being used in California to "prove" that drug rehab treatment was working actually showed that 50% or more of those who got drug treatment were excluded from the study up front, and that 75% of the included population who got treatment either reverted or sought and received another round of treatment within 5 years, because it didn't really fix the problems! So much for being effective.....
In the Vitamin D controversy, unfortunately, that leaves any individual with very little to go on that could be considered "scientific."
The only certainties, in my opinion, are that D 1,25 can be too high, and correlates with serious physical problems, such as hypothyroid, loss of bone density, and others.
My PERSONAL viewpoint is that ANY therapy or treatment which is receiving overwhelming acclaim in the main stream media is very, very suspect.
I know where the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ is coming from.
In terms of evidence, as you request, you would need to look at the actual original research so you could see what patients had dropped out due to bad reactions (often omitted in research reports that get published), what kinds of follow-ups were done, how long the studies were, what percentage of people actively sought other treatments after the study, etc., just as a few examples of the questions you'd need to ask.
I recommend you take a look at the Association for Human Research Protection (AHRP), which has been in the forefront of successfully investigating these issues for many years.
Best,
Cass A
Posts: 1245 | From Thousand Oaks, CA | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that care should be taken when looking at mainstream claims. I also agree that there is much corruption, fraud, incompetence, etc., and that it compromises the data. But problems with the mainstream doesn't mean the opposing arguments are automatically right, either.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my earlier post. But ...
I have no problem with ANY theory or hypothesis being thrown out there for discussion (they may be right; I don't know)-- I just have trouble when those theories gets stated as fact. And this is exactly what has happened with many of these alternate vitamin D theories. Simply because one faction has repeated them so many times, so forcefully and without allowing dissent, the arguments have taken on a certain authority, and consequently many patients take them to be fact. Which they are NOT. It does not help that the anti-D group doesn't differentiate between subsets of patients, when clearly -- CLEARLY -- their recommendations are harmful to many adherents.
Since there is no proof: Where does their certainty come from? Why is it that after all these years no one working in a lab has yet discovered, even by accident, that 25-D is a VDR antagonist?
Sure, most of the mainstream research on D does suggest higher levels are beneficial, and many researchers do suggest higher intake -- but in the conclusions of the actual studies I have read, more often than not, they have stated that additional study is needed before dosage recommendations can be made. That is a much more reasoned approach, in my opinion.
Now, on the other hand, how is it that someone with NO studies, with no corroborating evidence, with nothing but some wildly strung-together ideas, is able to say -- without a shadow of a doubt -- that any vitamin D at all is damaging? That it turns off the immune system? That none should be taken? EVER?!! That no one who takes vitamin D will ever get better (clearly not true)? That levels are supposed to be under 12? That a zero-level is good? That humans don't need any vitamin D at all? That the rise of inflammatory illness coincides with the rise in vitamin D levels (if anything, the opposite is true; as populations have been increasingly indoors)? That this is universally true for all?
And patients parrot it back as gospel.
At this point, after some 6-7 years, it's obvious that patient experience doesn't even support these claims. And while, yes, this program has been great for a small group of patients, miraculous even, for most it patients it has not, and for some it's been disastrous -- surely not the widespread answer as is still advertised.
Does this make sense?
Posts: 845 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
TX Lyme Mom
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3162
posted
Hi again, NoMoreMuscles, I shouldn't have jumped into this topic without enough time to do it justice. I had just recently seen that quote by Lloyd Finch and I was intrigued by it simply because of his claim to having worked in the field all of his professional life and because of his unquestioning acceptance of this idea as valid and supposedly even well known already for a long time.
Yes, I realize that Finch didn't offer any references to prove his point because of the informal nature of the forum in which he expressed his sentiments. It would have been nice if he had done so, especially for his statement about infections affecting 1,25-D levels.
I wish I had more time to devote to this topic myself because it's something I'd like to know more about also. However, we had house guests all weekend, and I'm leaving town tomorro for most of next week, so I'm not going to have the luxury of any spare time for delving into it anytime soon.
Here's what I've attempted to do instead though. I did a quick search on Google Scholar just to see what, if anything, might pop up -- although I haven't had (and won't have) sufficient time to spend reading many or probably any of these references. Perhaps someone else might like to look at some of them though, so here's the link to the results of my Google Scholar search:
I must warn you in advance, however, that many of the researchers working in this area are hopeful of getting patents on new medicines for supplementing 1,25-D, so they are not exactly unbiased in their views or in their approach to their research study designs.
In fact, whenever I've read any other similar articles in the past, one thing that always grabbed my attention was the fact that many of their papers were written with countless subjunctive and conditional verb forms -- you know, "might, could" and with the words "perhaps and maybe" being implied, if not stated outright. And they always ended their conclusions with "More study is needed....blah, blah, blah"
So far, there haven't been any 1,25-D supplements brought onto the market place because none of the 1,25-D products have been safe enough to make it that far. This fact alone makes me very suspicious that if/whenever such medications should come onto the market in the future that a prudent person would not want to be the first guinea pig to volunteer to try them out.
Whenever profit motive these researchers have, instead of basic research for the pure sake of science itself, then it's wise to be leary of their claims until after there has been plenty of time for most of the "adverse events" and other "risk factors" to be reported and known.
Thus, if you decide to read any of these papers, be sure to pay close attention to who is funding the study and whether there seems to be a profit motive in developing a new product for supplementing 1,25-D. If so, then be extra vigilant to look for flaws in their study and skeptical about accepting other statements in their report as well.
Like you, I'm still trying to figure out who is a good candidate for the MP and who isn't because I really hate to see it whenever someone gets worse instead of better. The one observation I've made so far, and I've read similar quotes from Dr. Greg Blaney, is that folks who have severe GI symptoms seem to be the ones who have the hardest time with the MP.
That's why I've started looking into the problem of so-called "pseudo-celiac" among Lyme patients. I hadn't even heard this term until this last week when I saw it used here at LymeNet.
Sure enough, when I googled "pseudo-celiac", I found a couple of medical journal articles that made me think that perhaps Lyme disease might serve as a "trigger" (one among many other possible triggers) for persons who are genetically predisposed to celiac (aka: gluten intolerance) to progress into full-blown celiac disease (or leaky gut and gluten intolerance, plus perhaps other major food intolerances, etc.)
Mind you, this is just my "working hypothesis" at the moment -- nothing more and nothing less. Nevertheless, if so, then I would think that such persons would not be good candidates for the MP until and unless their GI problems were brought under good control first. Furthermore, if my hunch is correct, then we might prevent such persons from suffering unnecessary harm by warning them not to attempt the MP.
As you know, my personal bias is favorable towards the MP because our daughter has been one of the lucky ones who has achieved an amazing recovery from Lyme and Bartonella, thanks to the MP, so what else can I say?
Nevertheless, I'm always cautious and reluctant to recommend the MP to other Lyme patients for a variety of reasons. I'm also very careful to screen folks first before even suggesting the MP to them at all because it hurts too much to watch someone suffer the frustration of failure -- or even worse, to watch someone become even more ill than they were before they started the MP.
In conclusion, I wish I understood the science behind the MP better. To be honest, I quit trying because the MP website became such a toxic place to visit that I couldn't force myself to try to keep up with it.
Fortunately though, there is a new website which isn't as "unfriendly" and intimidating as the old MP forum has been, and it's better organized and easier to understand, too -- although this new website is still under development and is only about 70% complete so far.
Here's the link to the newly organized MP Knowledge Base if anyone wants to delve into the science behind the MP in a more neutral and friendlier atmosphere.
Pinelady
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 18524
posted
I was a guinea pig. I did 50thousIU a week for 4
weeks got my D up to moderate after being severe
and in another week I went severely neuro. Warning
if you replace do so slowly. Levels went right back down to severe.
-------------------- Suspected Lyme 07 Test neg One band migrating in IgG region unable to identify.Igenex Jan.09IFA titer 1:40 IND IgM neg pos 31 +++ 34 IND 39 IND 41 IND 83-93 + DX:Neuroborreliosis Posts: 5850 | From Kentucky | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
TO LIFE
Unregistered
posted
Hi Folks,
I am low in vitamin D, so I guess all join the club. My LLMD said NOT to treat.
IP: Logged |
Cass A
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 11134
posted
Dear Nomoremuscles,
Thank you for your very reasoned reply. I actually agree with you about having an open forum for hypotheses.
Trevor Marshall is currently arranging with a hospital in China to do extensive research on the MP with patients there. So, perhaps soon some hard data may become available from that arena.
My LLMD was an early adopter of the MP. I originally went to him, as I was very interested in doing the MP under medical supervision, and he was recommended to me in that capacity. When I arrived in 2007, he told me that he had only two or three patients left on the MP, as the rest who he'd put on it had to get off it for one reason or another. However, this LAST visit just two weeks ago, he said that I might be a candidate for the MP as it is now being run, mainly with Benicar and few to no antibiotics.
I personally had some of the most troubling and persistent Lyme symptoms start up while taking large doses of Vitamin D. I'm very, very glad I found the MP data and stopped that!
So, when someone is considering starting Vitamin D supplements, I am recommending caution, due to my own experiences.
The MP has been beat to death on Lymenet over the last several years due to the very issues you raise. However, there are a few here who have had good success with it, as TX Lyme Mom points out. Others have quit Lymenet due to personal attacks over their statements about the MP. This also holds true for Salt-C, and possibly other treatments as well. That is our loss.
In the end, no matter what the explanations, it comes down to RESULTS, don't you agree?
The problem with results are many-fold. First, about 20% of the population will get better and then worse no matter what you do for them because they are being oppressed and they can't hold onto any improvements. Second, there is a very great "placebo effect," where a large percentage of people will improve no matter what you do. Third, human bodies are not all the same--there are at least four blood types, just for starters.
This is in ADDITION to any manipulation of research or research results for reasons not related to optimum wellness of people, which has been discussed on this thread.
For these reasons, I really appreciate Lymenet. Due to the open discussions, the frank statements about helpfulness and harm, persons can do research into the over 500,000 posts here and come to some conclusions for themselves that are likely to lead to beneficial results.
I have found several therapies here which have truly helped me. I am doing much, much better than I was four years ago when I finally got a diagnosis of Lyme.
And, I have avoided things that I was considering doing that, from others' experiences, could easily have harmed me by weighing those advocating that treatment with the experiences of people who had tried it--good and bad.
When someone is promoting something that I have personally found to be harmful, I can speak up. I think that as Lymenet members it is our responsibility to do that, as well as to speak about things that have helped us.
I believe in truly informed consent as has been worked out in law opinions in the U.S. A person being offered a therapy or treatment is supposed to have full disclosure of the diagnosis and how it was formulated (including what physical tests show the presence of the disease state), the possible benefits of the proposed treatment, the possible adverse effects, the likely results of not engaging in treatment, and treatment alternatives.
Since we cannot now rely on MDs to do this in relation to Lyme, we need to search out the information for ourselves.
Lymenet provides the type of open atmosphere where it is possible to get sufficient data to make a judgment, in my opinion.
People often state their opinions or what they have heard as fact, especially if it seems reasonable or works for them.
It is each person's responsibility to look for themselves.
Best,
Cass A
Posts: 1245 | From Thousand Oaks, CA | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
As always, you give me lots to think about. I will look at those articles. I don't understand why anyone would try to make a 1,25-D drug. I don't understand what the purpose of this would be. (Other than making heaps of money, of course -- since there is no money in D3).
As you know, I think you're right about the gut issues. But I also think there is more going on than that. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know the true answers. Not unless someone seriously begins to look into all this -- but for a multitude of reasons I don't see that happening any time soon.
Posts: 845 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
I will quote your reply, and then give my response below that.
Cass said: "The MP has been beat to death on Lymenet over the last several years due to the very issues you raise. However, there are a few here who have had good success with it, as TX Lyme Mom points out. Others have quit Lymenet due to personal attacks over their statements about the MP. This also holds true for Salt-C, and possibly other treatments as well. That is our loss.
In the end, no matter what the explanations, it comes down to RESULTS, don't you agree?"
NMM: I do agree. 100%! 200% even.
Results are all I care about. Whether it comes from traditional or alternate trx makes no difference to me. In fact, what little progress I've had these last few yearsd have come all from alt therapies. I had no intention of running anyone off, and hope that my posts did not come across that way. I've seen exactly what you describe, where things get heated and people leave in a huff (and sometimes return later), and in most cases I agree, the rest of us suffer for the loss.
But I've also seen cases where people were trying to get straight answers to complex questions where very questionable ideas were presented as fact. I think this is equally problematic. As I said, I have no problem with any hypothesizing, in fact I really get a lot out of it, but it must be clear this is all speculation. This it the thing that bugs me about this anti-D group (no one poster in particular) -- they will not concede that this is all speculation based on a series of unconnected theories.
Cass said: "My LLMD was an early adopter of the MP. I originally went to him, as I was very interested in doing the MP under medical supervision, and he was recommended to me in that capacity. When I arrived in 2007, he told me that he had only two or three patients left on the MP, as the rest who he'd put on it had to get off it for one reason or another. However, this LAST visit just two weeks ago, he said that I might be a candidate for the MP as it is now being run, mainly with Benicar and few to no antibiotics."
NMM: My doc had a few on it too, and all failed. This, however, does not mean I think it does not work across the board -- as obviously it can work, and in some cases it works spectacularly. But the patients who fail, or get much worse, lead me to believe that the theories are very weak and do not apply to the general population of Lyme patients, let alone every other disease in the world, as the proponents suggest.
From my observations the people who do best seem to be the ones who do well with the benicar from the start (though, it doesn't always work this way; sometimes the opposite, in fact), and improve right away. And these people usually, though, again, not always, seem to be the ones with the very high 1,25-d, like the sarc patients.
If you go this route, I hope you improve on the benicar and go on to complete wellness as some have.
Cass said: "I personally had some of the most troubling and persistent Lyme symptoms start up while taking large doses of Vitamin D. I'm very, very glad I found the MP data and stopped that!
So, when someone is considering starting Vitamin D supplements, I am recommending caution, due to my own experiences."
NMM: I can understand this. I would do the same.
One thing though: I remember reading (though not from where) that when they treated TB patients with UV therapy most improved. But one group got worse, much worse, very quickly, and would die. Later they discovered -- and this is from my memory (always a risk) -- that when they implemented the UV therapy in teensy tiny increments, starting with itsy exposures, and building up very slowly, they improved like the first group. And eventually got well.
Now, this would suggest to me that the reaction the dead group initially suffered, may be explained by a super-intense die off caused by a massive release of antimicrobial peptides from the UV exposure. If this is the case (a great-BIG if), the question would be why didn't this group get the anti-inflammatory effect of the vit D.
This may be what is happening in the patients with elevated 1,25-D, and runaway inflammation. It may be a giant die off causing terrible problems. It may, in fact, have nothing to do with the bugs themselves causing the conversion. It may also be that the benicar is simply quieting down this dangerous, over-zealous, immune response -- and it may have no 'immune-awakening' effect at all, not turning-on immune system as proponents insist the benicar does.
Just food for thought.
I have no idea.
Good luck with your trx.
Posts: 845 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
sutherngrl
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 16270
posted
Nothing scientific here.... but I would never take large doses of vitamin D again because it causes your D to go up to fast and too high; and you get a false sense of wellness.......the steroid affect. In other words you will think you are cured as I did when mine was 129; but when it comes back down, you will crash.
I actually am rethinking my dosage of 1000 IU's a day after reading this thread. My D is up to 63 which is high enough; and I don't want the effect of feeling well, when in fact I am not.
I wonder what would be a good maintenance amount of D? That would be a question for those people that actually think taking D is a good idea.
I'm still not sure what I think, but don't feel that we should allow our bodies to be deficient, but also definetly not toxic with vitamin D.
This is an interesting thread.
Posts: 4035 | From Mississippi | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
Cass A
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 11134
posted
Dear Nomoremuscles,
Thanks for your reply.
I believe that the jury is still out on what the actual relationship is of the 1,25 D and the intracellular bacteria and Benicar. However, having too high a level of 1,25 D does have known adverse consequences.
Don't get me started about sunlight--I've been very, very sensitive (in a bad way) since I was young. If I'd go to the beach, when I got home I'd have to sleep about the same amount of time as I'd been in the sun.
My original 1,25 D test was over 75. It was still above 30 after 6 months of avoiding all foods with Vit D in them and some sun avoidance.
Since measuring 1,25 D is not being done at all, as far as I can see, people are just hoping when they take it, based on one of the most far-reaching Public Relations campaigns I've seen in a long time!!
If I were considering starting Vit D supplements, I would have my 1,25 D measured, too.
Now, people are being recommended to take lots of Vit D to prevent severe (and potentially deadly) reactions from the Swine Flu. Why? Because it SHUTS DOWN IMMUNE SYSTEM RESPONSES. Out-of-control reactions, called a cytokine storm, are what supposedly caused the high death rate in young, healthy people in the 1918 flu epidemic.
This is a factor that Trevor Marshall writes about relating to D, also.
Best,
Cass A
Posts: 1245 | From Thousand Oaks, CA | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
yargh![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic