aaron_c
Senior Member
- Messages
- 693
I had one or two interactions with Joseph Cohen that were mixed. Here they are:
Me:
Joseph Cohen:
I didn't know enough at the time I wrote this--the list of pathogens that inhibits VDRs is from the Marshal Protocol, and it is entirely theoretical, backed up only by a computer simulation of a common protein that they synthesize.
In spite of our exchange, he didn't remove what I found to be a poorly written and seemingly false paper as his source.
...
Me:
Joseph Cohen:
Since this interaction he has modified his original post to reflect that the concern comes from Dr. Marshal and that other studies disagree with it. Not that I got any credit! (Joking...partly.) So I give him points for being willing to update what he wrote with better information.
In summary, I like his enthusiasm, and he certainly seems able to pull together a whole lot of research--but I do not get the feeling that he reads many of the papers he cites, which makes it difficult to trust any of his conclusions. I like his willingness to try new things and his mind's ability to pull somewhat disparate bits of research together, but as I said, I think he needs to take more time to double-check his work.
Me:
Hi Joseph,
First of all, thank you for the list of pathogens that inhibit VDRs (with citations!). Very helpful.
I do have two comments regarding the item that reads: “Ubiquitin (R) – autophagy stops this.”
First of all, ubiquitin isn’t a pathogen, it is “a small protein that is found in almost all cellular tissues in humans and other eukaryotic organisms, which helps to regulate the processes of other proteins in the body.” (news-medical.net)
Secondly, the article that you linked to appears to disagree with the second source it cites. The article you linked to claims: “At the receptor level, calcitriol induces ubiquitination of the VDR leading to its degradation by the ubiquitin-proteasomal pathway (38,39).” The first source details how calcitriol binding is necessary for SUG1 to degrade VDRs. So far so good, but I mention this mostly because it is important to note that it does not look at the net effect of calcitriol on VDR levels.
The second article that was cited appears to have been misunderstood. Far from claiming that calcitriol induces ubiquitination of VDRs (which then leads to VDR degredation and fewer VDRs) the study is titled “1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 INCREASES nuclear vitamin D3 receptors by BLOCKING ubiquitin/proteasome-mediated degradation in human skin.” [emphasis added] We should also note that this second, misrepresented study looks at the net effect of calcitriol on VDR levels–and found that calcitriol increases VDR levels both by increasing VDR transcription and by decreasing VDR degradation.
Joseph Cohen:
Ubiquitin was put in the wrong section
I didn't know enough at the time I wrote this--the list of pathogens that inhibits VDRs is from the Marshal Protocol, and it is entirely theoretical, backed up only by a computer simulation of a common protein that they synthesize.
In spite of our exchange, he didn't remove what I found to be a poorly written and seemingly false paper as his source.
...
Me:
Hi Joseph,
You mentioned that “Vitamin D3 Can Compete With the Active Form.” I am having a hard time finding a source for this. I gather it came from the Marshall Protocol folks, but I can’t seem to find where they said this. Furthermore, I can find at least one old study that clearly says that cholecalciferol does not compete with calcitriol, at least in the guts of chicks.
Thanks!
Joseph Cohen:
Theoretical concern…
Since this interaction he has modified his original post to reflect that the concern comes from Dr. Marshal and that other studies disagree with it. Not that I got any credit! (Joking...partly.) So I give him points for being willing to update what he wrote with better information.
In summary, I like his enthusiasm, and he certainly seems able to pull together a whole lot of research--but I do not get the feeling that he reads many of the papers he cites, which makes it difficult to trust any of his conclusions. I like his willingness to try new things and his mind's ability to pull somewhat disparate bits of research together, but as I said, I think he needs to take more time to double-check his work.