I agree with you that something will come of this.
I find the antipathy of many in the chronically ill communities towards Marshall very interesting. He is the only person promoting a biomedical hypothesis that gets the sort of hatred normally reserved for the UK psych's. I think this is wrong. Regardless of whether the approach is medically right or wrong it is a serious attempt on the biomedical side - which classifies him as an ally as far as I'm concerned.
What is interesting is that normally considered and rational posters gives way to an almost religious, bigoted view when discussing MP. Much of this centres around a holy view of Vitamin D. I don't know how many times I've seen posts like "but chronically ill patients are low on Vitamin D so Marshall must be the devil". Then to complete the heresy trial "he is not a doctor. And I think I've seen his horms and pitchfork". Unwarranted all out attacks like the post by Jodie Bassett (
http://cfs-facts.blogspot.com/2010/09/vitamin-d-and-marshall-protocol-warning.html) are out of character and miss what is not even a question about science, just about basic logic.
You only need to spend 3 minutes reading the Marshall stuff with an open mind to know that the whole premise of his approach is that "chronically ill patients are low on Vitamin D, something is going on". The many, many studies showing low Vitamin D in chronically ill are consistent with both the Marshall view and the alternate medicine view of "quick, take supplements". There are plenty of reasons you may object to MP. But "many illnesses show low Vitamin D" is not one of them.
Four years ago I took a day and a half to read all the scientific papers referred to in his material. It was heavy going. All I can say is the ideas are plausible, even if viewed as unlikely by many.
My son tried the treatment, which did not work as well as expected for him. But I have to say this. When I first started researching my son's illness I ended up in long email conversations with many people - as most of us do. Most of these are still around and still sick. Two that "disappeared" long ago from my circle of contacts did so because of MP. They got, not just better but back to life and work. And within about 6 months. It seems to work for some, although both these had overt arthritis like inflammation.
So, I am not convinced but have an open mind. The other factors make me treat the work with a bit more cautious respect than the average new idea are:-
- the molecular simulation work on the Vitamin D receptor. Good work. Too many drugs are out there with a lot of clinical trial and not much fundamental science like this. Taken in isolation, the Benicar effect on VDR can't be argued with. What the significance is, can of course be debated to one's heart content.
- He is a researcher not a doctor - big plus
From my reading of the literature those years ago I have taken away a cautious respect for Vit D. Immune cells in granulomas and some cancers do indeed *make* Vitamin D. No one (in mainstream science) is sure whether that is part of the body's strategy or the pathogen's strategy. So, it doesn't prove anything. Except that Vitamin D is not just a raw material for the body like Vitamin C or B. Also interesting is the studies showing disappointing results supplementing Vit D - despite the clear correlation of low D with many illnesses. Even paradoxical effects - like high dose Vitamin D *increasing* fractures in elderly women. A fact which some mainstream medical adminstrators have picked up on when they warn that there is not enough evidence to supplement heavily with D.(
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20660091).
Clearly Vit D is a very complex body hormone. Something good will come of all this interest in it. I'm waiting to see.
Peter Wachtel
Melbourne Australia
