Exploring chronic disease
3 Oct 2010
My Fellow Superorganisms,
Those of you already familiar with the site may have noticed I’ve taken down quite a few pieces. Many of these were written about three years ago. I still stand by their general content, but want to make sure they are completely up to date before I put them back up. A second factor in their temporary removal is that, in retrospect, the tone of these pieces is stronger than the tone I would use today.
When I started this blog, I was writing as an advocate and, over time, I’ve evolved to think and write more like a scientist. I want to make sure that nothing that should be described as a hypothesis comes off in my previous writing as sounding like an established fact.
Just so readers know, the vast majority of the information and studies discussed on this site have now been repurposed as part of content for Autoimmunity Research Foundation’s Marshall Protocol Knowledge Base, which I would encourage you to have a look at.
1 Jun 2010
A couple weeks ago, I gave a presentation at the International Congress on Autoimmunity in Ljubljana, Slovenia. The talk was about successive infection and how viruses and bacteria can work together to cause an autoimmune disease state.
Here is a transcript.
19 Oct 2009
A couple weeks ago, I had the pleasure of giving a presentation to a tri-chapter meeting of the Medical Library Association. The topic was why some patients with chronic disease are disaffected and how online social networks have met some of their needs. I try to offer a balanced perspective – both the good and bad of online social networks.
The live presentation was filmed but the room was a bit on the dark side. So, despite a laudable job filming by my colleague, Judy, I decided to put up a slideshow with voiceovers.
1 Oct 2009
Not every culture reveres the sun as Americans do. In our recent trip to Chengdu, China with a stopover in Hong Kong, we saw hundreds of people, women especially, blocking light on a daily basis.
We’re not sure if these people are supplementing with vitamin D (there is certainly no vitamin D added to the food chain!) but they’re certainly not getting a lot of sun.
The Vitamin D Council insists that people must expose themselves to sunlight and eat vitamin D-fortified products, yet these people are going about their daily lives without any apparent ill effect.
10 Aug 2009
Men who have excessive faith in their theories or ideas are not only ill prepared for making discoveries; they also make very poor observations. Of necessity, they observe with a preconceived idea, and when they devise an experiment, they can see, in its results, only a confirmation of their theory. In this way they distort observation and often neglect very important facts because they do not further their aim….
Claude Bernard, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine
This article discusses our experience at the one-day Institute of Medicine workshop on vitamin D and calcium. Both of us had an opportunity to make comments before the committee. Here are Paul’s comments and slides and here are Amy’s comments and slides. Note that our 2009 paper in Autoimmunity Reviews discusses some of the science we allude to in further detail.
On the cab ride to the IOM committee meeting on whether to change the dietary reference intake (DRI) of vitamin D, Amy practiced her speech.
The cabbie had been silent for the whole ride, but broke character by talking to us. “So, let me ask you a question,” he said. “Do you take vitamin D?”
“Actually, no, we don’t,” Amy said. Amy explained briefly how our data suggests that the form derived from supplementation is immunosuppressive, meaning that while it may temporarily improve signs and symptoms of disease, we have found it may do so at the cost of long-term health.
We asked him if he took vitamin D. He said yes and explained that a few years back, he had a partially blocked artery. It scared him, so he searched the internet and found that high doses of vitamin D were being recommended for cardiovascular disease. He wasn’t clear about the evidence, but in his words, “I had to do something.”
Which brings us to this point in time. At least in the United States, rates of chronic disease are rising. One recent study predicted that if current trends continue, all Americans will be obese by 2040. Other studies have shown chronic disease is rising at rates faster than could otherwise be explained by an aging population and/or a general increase in population. One recent estimate says that by 2030, 171 million Americans will have a chronic disease. We have to do something, right?
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) is a non-profit organization that was first chartered in 1970. In 2008, IOM appointed a committee of experts whose charge is to reevaluate the DRI of calcium and vitamin D in light of recent research. The committee is expected to produce a report including these recommendations scheduled to be publicly released in May 2010.
An IOM committee with the same purpose last met in 1997 and set the current standard of 400 IU of vitamin D per day for adults. But none of the members of the previous committee are on the current committee despite, collectively, hundreds of MEDLINE citations to their names. Perhaps this suggests that the IOM was trying to exclude scientists who most vocally tout vitamin D’s benefits from the committee.
A great deal has happened since 1997. We learned that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can cause disease (which led to thousands of premature deaths) even while early observational studies seemed to quite erroneously suggest the opposite. Also, evidence-based medicine has come of age.
For those who are not from this planet or from a Western country anyway, it’s hard to really express how enthusiastic the support for vitamin D supplementation is – at least in the popular media. A quick search of Google News for “vitamin D” has led us to conclude that the few articles that allude to vitamin D’s risks are vastly outnumbered by stories repeating the same unchallenged claims about vitamin D’s perceived benefits.
As part of their deliberation process, the IOM committee commissioned a report by the Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center. For this report, the Tufts group used a pre-existing set of criteria to identify only those studies meeting a certain standard of validity. Those studies that made the cut were independently analyzed.
According to the report’s abstract: “The majority of the findings concerning vitamin D, calcium, or a combination of both nutrients on the different health outcomes were inconsistent.” For a variety of diseases, the report repeatedly finds few or no controlled studies showing an association between vitamin D intake and disease.
Interestingly, Dr. Boullion, the sole speaker at the meeting from Europe (Belgium) conceded that he was confident that the European Union would not raise its recommendations regarding vitamin D intake based on vitamin D research to date.
The complete list of presentations including
audio and slides is available on the IOM website.
Arguably the most illuminating speech of the day came before lunch. Dr. Barry Kramer, MD, MPH, works in the Office of Disease Prevention, a division of the NIH. His speech was somewhat dryly titled, “Weighing Scientific Evidence” (PDF of slides) but might just as well have been titled, “Hey, wait a second.”
Invoking the work of Leon Gordis, PhD, Dr. Kramer discussed the “Levels of Decision Making,” and how the requisite amount of evidence for a non-conservative (our word) medical decision increases as the number of people it would affect increases. In other words, a person must make decisions for one’s family or even groups of patients with a different standard of evidence than he or she would when making decisions on behalf of the entire nation and possibly the world.
Dr. Kramer argued that some levels of evidence are not sufficient – at least not to make decisions on behalf of millions. The evidence must meet a minimum standard of validity:randomized controlled studies (RCTs), if not double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs. According to Dr. Kramer, the history of research has shown in the cases of high-dose paclitaxel, encainide/flecainide, torcetrapib, and HRT, of course, that confounding variables have a way of compromising researchers’ most certain conclusions.
A good example of a confounding variable is smoking in alcohol’s relationship with lung cancer. Alcohol consumption is strongly correlated with lung cancer, but only because people who drink are also more likely to smoke. Another commonly cited example: Volvos may be involved in fewer accidents, but that’s probably because people who choose to drive them are generally older and more safety-conscious.
Dr. Kramer said in the case of observational studies with a relative risk of less than two, he could “spit them [confounding variables] out at the rate of one a second.” His slide lists a few obvious confounders for vitamin D studies: health consciousness, health insurance, and access to care.
Dr. Kramer also made what should be an obvious point: surrogate outcomes do not substitute for reductions in mortality or disease. A surrogate outcome is a variable that is a substitute for a “true outcome”, used because it is easier, quicker or cheaper to measure – and the most common one used in vitamin D studies is serum 25-D although bone mineral density, polyps, and PTH levels are also used. But Dr. Kramer said that none of these surrogate outcomes, in his words, “measure up.”
At the end of the speech Dr. Kramer showed the audience a classic Far Side cartoon, explaining, “Especially when you’re dealing with public health issues and millions of people, it pays you not to shoot first, because once you’ve shot, you can’t ask the questions any more, because your credibility is invested in your message. It pays to ask the questions before you shoot.”
We’re not sure if Dr. Barry Kramer heard our five-minute remarks (we never saw him after lunch), but we were, in essence, presenting a set of explanations for how his note of caution could later prove to be well-justified or even prescient.
Inarguably the most forceful voices for increasing the DRI of vitamin D come from researchers affiliated with the Vitamin D Council, a California-based organization. At the one-day workshop, a total of seven speakers were affiliated with the Vitamin D Council (only Drs. Hollis and Grant are board members; the remainder are listed as “Vitamin D scientists” on the website), and the balance of other speakers could be fairly characterized as strongly sympathetic to their aims.
Many of the most influential papers on vitamin D are published by this group. We searched the online database, Web of Knowledge, for papers published since 2005 that mention “vitamin D” in the title or abstract, and then we sorted that list by number of times cited. The top four papers on that list are by researchers with the Vitamin D Council – as are a number more in the top twenty.
These researchers have a habit of wholeheartedly agreeing with one another; throughout the day, we would hear at least several times something to the effect, “I agree with my colleague.”
What does a bandwagon look like? If you search for the publications in MEDLINE on vitamin D since 2005 in GoPubMed.com and click on the statistics tab, you see how often Vitamin D Council researchers have co-authored each others’ papers. Below is an annotated screenshot (click for full-size PDF) of the professional collaborations in this relatively close-knit and like-minded group. Researchers affiliated with the Vitamin D Council are in red.
Despite a notable lack of data derived from RCTs, those researchers associated with the Vitamin D Council are pushing the IOM committee to raise the DRI of vitamin D by a huge increase – around 5-6 times the current DRI. To achieve this goal, the Vitamin D Council markets the form of vitamin D derived from food and supplements to the public as a nutrient. What harm can high levels of a nutrient cause, right?
Yet although we’re referring to it as vitamin D in this article so that you know what we are talking about, any molecular biologist would confirm that the two main forms of “vitamin” D are actually powerful secosteroids. The active form of vitamin D, 1,25-D, can also function as a hormone. We suspect that people would be less willing to take extremely large amounts of vitamin D if they were actually told, “We’re giving you high doses of a secosteroid that will adjust your hormonal and immune activity in ways not yet fully understood.”
Yet rather than trying to help the public understand these true properties of “vitamin” D, a number of prominent vitamin D researchers still seem content to refer to it as nothing more than the “sunshine vitamin,” some with impressive consistency.
Late in his talk, Dr. Robert Heaney, a researcher affiliated with the Vitamin D Council, said, “We all agree and it is well-established that humans evolved in equatorial East Africa wearing no clothes.” This assumption is repeatedly invoked to justify supplementation with vitamin D at levels that would leave the average American with a 25-D level similar to that of a present-day farmer who works near the equator.
We’re not sure anyone noticed, but in the next talk, Dr. Michael Holick would undercut this very argument. Dr. Holick said that according to his research, students of African descent need three to five times the exposure to ultraviolet light as Caucasians to “barely raise their blood levels” of 25-D. In short, their skin is “such a good sunscreen.” If ancient man had darkly pigmented skin, (according to a paper by Jablonski et al., man only evolved lighter skin pigment as he left the tropics) then why would he produce the copious levels of vitamin D referenced by Dr. Heaney?
What about climate change? That ancient man evolved in a consistently sunny and hot environment makes no provision for several extended ice ages, which corresponded to key periods in hominid evolution.
What about skin cancer? Say that early man did not hunt and gather at dusk like so many other animals – that early humans did evolve in an unforested environment with no caves, no clothing, and no thick body hair, whiling away his hours sizzling like a big piece of Paleolithic bacon. Why then would just a few burns before the age of 20 dramatically increase the risk of skin cancer? Did humans evolve to get skin cancer?
To clear up the confusion surrounding this issue, we recently contacted Dr. Peter Bogucki, an archaeologist at Princeton University, who is a leading expert on prehistoric man. We asked him to estimate how much sun prehistoric man actually got.
Dr. Bogucki responded, and I trust he won’t mind us quoting him, “You raise a very good question, but I don’t know that there’s a good answer. All we have is skeletal remains. There’s no elemental isotope to track sun exposure.” In the absence of such a marker, our understanding of how much vitamin D early man actually synthesized is complicated by several factors including climate variability, migration, and changes in skin pigment.
The study of human evolution has long sought to explain major adaptations and trends that led to the origin of Homo sapiens. Environmental scenarios have played a pivotal role in this endeavor. They represent statements or, more commonly, assumptions concerning the adaptive context in which key hominin traits emerged. In many cases, however, these scenarios are based on very little if any data about the past settings in which early hominins lived.
Dr. Richard Potts, Director of The Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution
At this point, it’s probably safe to say that we simply do not know how much sun early man got.
With this in mind, isn’t it a bit less plausible that, when it comes to the ability of the human body to naturally adjust its vitamin D levels for optimal health, current humans are a complete evolutionary bust and must be given truckloads of pills in order to remain healthy?
Dr. Michael Holick is a professor at Boston University, a medical doctor, and may be the world’s leading authority on vitamin D. Since 2005, he has authored or co-authored 59 publications appearing in PubMed on vitamin D (26 more than Dr. William Grant, who is second in that category and a frequent co-author) and he has the distinction of being quoted on vitamin D in nearly every magazine, newspaper, television show and website ever. In his 10-minute statement, Dr. Holick was critical of dermatologists, a group which he singled out for advising the public to avoid creating vitamin D by direct sun exposure. As it happens, Dr. Holick receives large amounts of funding from the UV Foundation, which is in turn sponsored by the Indoor Tanning Association.
Entitled The D-Lightful Vitamin for Health, Dr. Holick remarks sprinkled his speech with a number of pop culture references including mentions of Charlie Brown and Don King. And then there was the clip of Darth Vader telling Luke to come to the Dark Side. It has been a while since we have seen the Star Wars trilogy, but we don’t seem to recall Darth Vader’s evil stemming from his unnecessary prudence.
Dr. Holick went on to claim that sunscreen use blocks 99% of vitamin D production in the skin. This claim is a featured part of his argument, because there has to be a reason why what he views as vitamin D deficiency is so widespread. If there’s evidence to back up this statistic, then our search of the literature cannot find it.
What we did find were three small studies, one of which Dr. Holick authored himself.
One of these studies measured the vitamin D3 (a precursor of 25-D) levels of only eight subjects while another performed no intervention but simply measured the 25-D levels of 20 sunscreen users. The third put only 27 subjects into tanning beds rather than into the sun, which could easily introduce bias. All three are by the same lead author, Dr. Lois Y. Matsuoka.
As it happens, several reviews have refuted the idea that real-world use of sunscreen entirely halts cutaneous production of vitamin D. By real world, we mean people putting sunscreen on themselves for extended periods of time while exposed to the actual sun.
One research team, studying patients with xeroderma pigmentosum, a genetic disorder in which patients are unable to repair damage caused by ultraviolet light, found that vitamin D levels are maintained even when patients practice at least six years of rigorous photoprotection and not supplementing with vitamin D beyond their normal dietary intake. Most importantly, the researchers also concluded that the clinical manifestations of vitamin D “deficiency” were absent.
In a 2007 review, Dr. Melanie Palm concludes real-world people tend not to consistently or repeatedly apply sunscreen. She writes: “Most people’s real-life experience with sunscreen is that despite its application, they still sunburn or tan after casual sun exposure.” Dr. Palm goes on to explain, “SPF [sun protection factor] is a strictly defined and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated measurement based on applying 2 mg/cm2 of product. Studies have shown that most users apply insufficient amounts of sunscreen to meet this FDA standard, and the true SPF obtained is usually less than 50% of that written on the package.”
Dr. Holick also proudly informed the committee of the manner and amount of his vitamin D intake. If you ask us, this is irrelevant. It’s nice that Dr. Holick believes what he says enough to try it on himself, but this kind of data falls to the very bottom of Dr. Kramer’s evidence-based pyramid – the opinion level that should never be used to guide public health decisions.
In the remainder of his talk, Dr. Holick went on to say that no one living in a latitude north of Atlanta, Georgia can make vitamin D in their skin during the winter months. Based on everything else we have heard, maybe you can understand why we’re a bit dubious of this claim.
It seems that one of the unspoken rules of publishing a study on vitamin D is that you must cite Michael Holick – geez, even we have done it. But in light of the conflicting data related to Dr. Holick’s claims, we have to wonder why the man has been accorded that authority and why more people don’t second-guess some of his more definitive statements.
From our perspective, one positive statement Dr. Holick made was when he conceded, as actually many of the pro-vitamin D researchers will do, that vitamin D is not for everyone, specifically not for people with granulomatous diseases such as Crohn’s or sarcoidosis.
A granuloma is a ball-like collection of immune cells which forms when the immune system attempts to wall off substances such as bacteria. But it looks like patients with granulomatous diseases are going to have a tough time if Holick and his colleagues succeed in drowning us in vitamin D. Raising the DRI of vitamin D would inevitably mean that vitamin D would be added to another slew of foods.
When Dr. Holick et al. were questioned about the fact that some people have been shown to develop kidney stones after taking extra vitamin D or that people with granulomatous disease could easily ingest excess levels of vitamin D and become significantly more ill, they seemed ambivalent. In their eyes, if a certain number of people are harmed by taking vitamin D, it should not matter, so long as more people benefit. We find this risk-benefit analysis difficult to stomach having seen first-hand the suffering associated with granulomatous diseases.
Another member of the Vitamin D Council, Dr. Cedric Garland, spoke in his remarks about vitamin D and cancer. After his remarks, a committee member, Dr. JoAnn Manson challenged him on his claim that vitamin D is protective against cancer at high levels of intake. She asked him about the Women’s Health Initiative-led randomized controlled study which trended in the opposite direction when it comes to breast cancer among women who start out with high intakes of vitamin D.
Dr. Garland brusquely and repeatedly dismissed the cancer study, saying that the dose of vitamin D administered to subjects, 400 IU – which happens to be the current adult DRI – was “not even a placebo.” In other words he believes that 400 IUs of vitamin D has no biological effect whatsoever. Dr. Manson responded, “I don’t buy it.” Actually, neither do we. To put things in perspective, you’d have to consume 20 eggs or four glasses of vitamin D fortified milk a day in order to get 400 IUs of vitamin D.
Interestingly, when you take a look at the five most frequently cited papers on vitamin D published in the last five years, the first four are authored by researchers affiliated with the Vitamin D Council. But study #5 derives its conclusion based on data collected by the Women’s Health Initiative, the same research group whose data Dr. Garland suggested should have no implication on the IOM Committee’s decision-making. That other vitamin D researchers are more than inclined to analyze data from the Women’s Health Initiative suggests that, although Garland may seem like he is an expert speaking on behalf of the entire vitamin D community, not all vitamin D researchers share his views.
We have taken the liberty of annotating in red several of Dr. Garland’s slides to make points about the presentation of data especially as it pertains to vitamin D.
Below is Dr. Garland’s slide showing a strong and consistent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1935, which he used as a general indication for why it is important to significantly increase the amount of vitamin D added to the food supply.
However, as you can see below, it is very easy to take that same data and “show” the opposite – that vitamin D consumption has led to a dramatic increase in breast cancer.
Another example: Dr. Garland didn’t mention this publication in his speech, but in a 2008 study, his group found a significant association between “low UVB irradiance and high incidence rates of type 1 childhood diabetes.”
Data derived in this observational manner could just as readily be used to show something else entirely.
As you can see in this graphic above, there is a strong apparent association between states that get more sun and teenage pregnancy. But does sun exposure actually cause teen pregnancy? We certainly hope not!
Obviously, you can try to control for confounding variables, as Dr. Garland did in his ’08 publication, but so too did researchers who repeatedly concluded that hormone replacement therapy was safe. According to Dr. Kramer: “There were literally scores, if not hundreds, of observational studies that showed almost beyond reasonable doubt that hormone replacement therapy would prolong women’s lives, if it were given routinely.”
In the words of Dr. David Ransohoff (who Dr. Kramer quoted in his talk), observational data are “guilty until proven innocent.”
When discussing vitamin D, Dr. Garland put up another thought-provoking chart on the effect of vitamin D and calcium on the development of kidney stones (derived from the Women’s Health Initiative).
Several things about Dr. Garland’s chart are of interest.
In his slot, Dr. Reinhold Vieth was asked to speak on whether there was a safe upper limit/level of vitamin D. As he has stated in at least one paper, his answer was no. In his words, “A prolonged intake of 250 mug (10,000 IU)/d of vitamin D(3) is likely to pose no risk of adverse effects in almost all individuals in the general population.”
Dr. Vieth’s comments echoed those of Dr. Garland, who had earlier concluded, “The benefit/risk ratio for 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D is infinite.”
Obviously, we disagree. We take no comfort in the fact that a person, as demonstrated in case reports, can accidentally take several thousand times the recommended dose of vitamin D and still seem healthy after only several months – which is the only data Dr. Vieth provided. Our attention is directed towards long-term outcomes, time windows which correspond to the slow growth of chronic bacteria and other pathogens that may play a role in causing chronic disease. Also, the full negative effect of immunosuppressants (recall that we have found that 25-D acts as an immunosuppressant) can often only be noted after decades.
Most of the talks had us scratching our heads, trying to figure out why, when 1,25-D is the biologically active form of vitamin D and the sole vitamin D metabolite able to activate the Vitamin D Receptor (VDR), almost every speaker focused on research and recommendations pertaining to 25-D levels. For a brief discussion of the different forms of vitamin D see my (Paul’s) speech.
One of the points both of us tried to make in our own five minute presentations is that the levels of the different forms of vitamin D are jointly regulated by several feedback mechanisms. This means that if one alters the level of one form of vitamin D, levels of the other vitamin D metabolites will almost certainly shift to accommodate the change.
It seems prudent then, that if a study measures 25-D levels, it should measure 1,25-D levels as well. Without the ability to examine the relationship between the two main vitamin D metabolites, how can a researcher fully understand the spectrum of the changes that occur when vitamin D supplementation takes place? Over a decade ago, even the FDA suggested that “1,25-D should be measured in order to support claims of a drug’s osteoporotic activity.” Yet few researchers seem to have heeded this advice. Thus, we would venture to say that studies absent levels of 1,25-D should at least be regarded with less rigor than those studies that test both metabolites.
At some point in a discussion with the Committee, one of the experts mentioned how 1,25-D is difficult to detect. We hope that doesn’t serve as an excuse for not testing 1,25-D. Since most major laboratories – including Quest Diagnostics – can easily perform the test, we would expect any vitamin D researcher would be able to do so as well. The real reason 1,25-D might be “hard” to test is that the 1,25-D test costs more than the 25-D test. But we’re all trying to do the best possible research… right?
The potential significance of 1,25-D is suggested in a forthcoming study published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. In the study, Dr. Greg Blaney of Vancouver, Canada reported on the 25-D and 1,25-D levels of 100 patients with autoimmune disease.
While many of the subjects had very low levels of 25-D, even more of the subjects (approximately 85%) had levels of 1,25-D elevated above the normal range. Under these circumstances can those subjects with low levels of 25-D but elevated levels of 1,25-D truly be considered vitamin D deficient? They are certainly not deficient in the sole form of vitamin D that actually activates the VDR to transcribe approximately 913 genes, TLR2, and the antimicrobial peptides vital to the innate immune response.
When Dr. Heaney was asked to comment on 25-D’s actions by a member of the committee he admitted that he did not know, biologically speaking, how 25-D exerts any of the myriad beneficial effects that he claimed occur when it is elevated. All he could offer was that he knows that 25-D must be present in patients for them to get better.
Is this what passes for biological plausibility among pro-vitamin D researchers?
Later that afternoon, one committee member asked Dr. Cedric Garland, “Do you have a mechanism to explain the outcomes you’re reporting?”
Dr. Garland proceeded to offer his analysis for how supplemental vitamin D, in his words, “eradicates” cancer. Garland pointed to a stack of his papers and asked that it be passed out. When members of the committee seemed hesitant to do so, he went on to explain the details of his model anyway. Dr. Garland shared that he had developed a novel pathogenesis for cancer in which cancer is caused by gaps between cells, which, in simple terms, he believes form as a body becomes vitamin D deficient. This line of inquiry was clearly only in its infancy and had not yet passed muster with cancer researchers. But even if Garland’s model proves to be valid, one would have hoped he would expose it to great scientific scrutiny before using it as the basis for making unequivocal recommendations regarding vitamin D supplementation.
But as Dr. Garland went on to further describe what he believes are vitamin D’s cancer benefits (he was eventually cut off by a member of the committee), he provided a perfect example of the vitamin D expert that we have trouble following. The reason? He used the broad term “vitamin D” when making claims and by doing so, mixed up research that pertains solely to 25-D or 1,25-D. For example, Garland said that vitamin D is able to “upregulate tumor suppressor genes.” Most audience members probably thought he was referring to 25-D since that was the only vitamin D metabolite he ever mentioned. Yet, only 1,25-D is able to activate the Vitamin D Receptor to express Tumor Metastasis Suppressor 1 and other related genes.
Similarly, another talk that we believe should have discussed 1,25-D levels but did not was Dr. Stephanie Atkinson’s remarks on vitamin D in pregnancy. That is because researchers have realized for some time now that 1,25-D is over-expressed during pregnancy. Placental conversion was demonstrated in vitroin 1979, over-expression of 1,25-D in vivo in 1980, and the dysregulated vitamin D metabolism was described in 1981. If 1,25-D becomes elevated during pregnancy, then isn’t it only prudent that studies on vitamin D and pregnancy should measure it and its relationship to 25-D?
We find the relationship between 25-D and 1,25-D important, because it was by observing relationships between the two metabolites that our group was able to realize that in the majority of cases, when a subject’s 25-D level is low, their 1,25-D levels are actually high (AIDS is an exception because HIV completely co-opts the VDR). And it was these relationships that led to our alternate hypothesis for the low levels of 25-D observed in patients with chronic diseases such as cancer. We have found that when 1,25-D is high, the vitamin D feedback pathways naturally downregulate levels of 25-D. This means that what is now viewed as “deficiency” could simply be a result of the chronic disease process. Under such circumstances, allowing people to create extra 25-D by raising the DRI is not only useless but harmful. We believe that our alternative hypothesis at least deserves consideration by the committee, yet are worried that when they are not presented with data on both 25-D and 1,25-D, they will not be able to recognize the pattern that makes our model plausible.
We also find it problematic that none of the experts who spoke at the meeting seem to be aware that microbial metabolites have a profound effect on the activity of the Vitamin D Receptor (VDR). The US NIH now estimates that 90% of cells in the human body are bacterial in origin while only a mere 10% of cells in the body are truly human. Thus, many microbiologists now believe that humans are best viewed as superorganisms in which a plethora of bacterial gene products can effect the activity of our own receptors and genetic pathways.Indeed, independent research teams have found that Mycobacterium tuberculosis downregulates VDR activity by approximately 3.3 times. ActiveBorellia lowers VDR activity by about a factor of 50 and Epstein-Barr Virus by a factor of around 10. HIV completely shuts down VDR activity. It’s quite likely that other pathogens yet to be fully characterized have also evolved ways to decrease VDR activity because by doing so, they slow important components of the innate immune response that might otherwise render them dead. That the experts who spoke before the committee have failed to factor this knowledge into their study designs suggests that they cannot fully account for the actions of the various vitamin D metabolites in an in vivo environment.
Furthermore, no vitamin D researcher, of whom we are aware, makes provision for research which shows that the current view of autoimmune disease – in which the immune system is believed to attack itself – may be running its course. Many microbiologists now believe that at least some, if not all, of the inflammation that drives the autoimmune disease state is caused by the presence of chronic pathogens.
Inflammation is a clear potential link between infectious agents and chronic diseases.
Siobhán M. O’Connor
With this in mind, the claim by many vitamin D researchers that vitamin D can help patients with autoimmune disease by slowing an “over-active” adaptive immune response no longer jives with an emerging view in the microbiology/immunology community – that both the adaptive and innate immune systems should be kept active in autoimmune disease in order to allow the body to best target disease-causing microbes.
The possible presence of pathogens in autoimmune and other inflammatory disease states such as cancer and atherosclerosis makes our group’s findings on vitamin D’s actions more plausible. When the immune system is fighting a microbe, it continually releases inflammatory molecules in an effort to kill the pathogen. If the pathogen dies, endotoxins and cellular debris are generated. This leads to increased symptoms of malaise on the part of a person who harbors such microbes.
It follows that any substance that slows the innate immune response will decrease this battle between man and microbe, causing the patient to feel better. The more the immune response is slowed, the greater the decrease in inflammation and inflammatory markers. But while such measures can make the patient appear as if they are getting better for years, ultimately the bacteria causing their disease are able to spread much more easily and exacerbate the disease state over the long-term.
Our molecular and clinical data shows that 25-D, like the pathogens we describe above, binds the Vitamin D Receptor and slows its activity. Since the VDR largely controls the innate immune response, increasing 25-D levels could easily display the pattern of immunosuppression described above. This begs the question – is 25-D a miracle curative substance or simply an excellent palliative?
If we are correct and 25-D slows VDR activity then we have found that patients who are chronically ill benefit from decreasing their vitamin D intake. This is because their VDR activity already appears compromised by the pathogens they harbor. Yet this should not be interpreted to mean we think healthy people can’t consume vitamin D. However, our data suggest that healthy people can get the vitamin D they need by eating a well-rounded diet that does not include fortified foods and getting sun exposure similar to that of a person taking measures to avoid an increase in skin cancer risk.
In our speeches, we raised the possibility that low levels of 25-D are caused by the inflammatory disease process and that taking vitamin D suppresses the immune response.
In total, the two of us spoke for 600 seconds, and we’re not sure we convinced anyone of anything. By all indications, a discussion of molecular mechanisms was outside the committee’s comfort zone. Most would probably say that they are uninterested in software emulations of molecular interactions, no matter how provocative or far-reaching the conclusions they imply. If we had to pin the members of the committee down on it, I think they would say that when it comes to our clinical trial, we needed better controlled data such as the kind we intend to generate as a part of our West China Hospital collaboration. For this reason, we opted for a more measured tone.
During Paul’s speech, there was some tittering in the audience (not the committee). He saw one prominent researcher, who shall remain nameless, chuckling. For a moment, he thought he had spinach in his teeth or was trailing toilet paper from his shoe, and then he realized that, oh yes, he was telling 50 PhDs and MDs that their conclusions have the potential to be very misguided.
After the day’s business concluded, everyone began to file out. One woman though turned to us and said, “What a bunch of rebels!”
Glad we could liven up the workshop for you, ma’am.
Although during our speeches, we asked people to come by and ask us about our work, only Dr. Tony Norman did. He did not seem convinced, but did invite us to submit an abstract for a poster presentation at an upcoming vitamin D conference in Belgium.
If you ask most Vitamin D Council researchers, they would say that this is the “end game,” and there is already more than enough evidence to raise the level of vitamin D added to the food supply. During the question and answer sessions, some of these scientists such as Dr. Garland were dismissive of evidence to the contrary. It was as if many were saying, “Look – there is no downside here. It is demonstrably impossible that consumption of vitamin D can cause harm. If we don’t have all the requisite evidence, it doesn’t matter. Lives are at stake!” We suspect that even if the committee decides to maintain current vitamin D levels, there are other ways to convince the public to increase vitamin D intake.
But despite the media’s stampede to promote the “sunshine vitamin,” the evidence is ambiguous and the issue of biological plausibility – not knowing how 25-D exerts its claimed benefit – is troubling as well. Dr. Kramer said that the root of science is the art of thinking hard about how you could be wrong. Is this something the vitamin D research community is actively doing? Looking through everything that was presented throughout the day, how many confounding variables might Dr. Kramer have identified? How many surrogate outcomes could he point to?
It is difficult to anticipate exactly what decision the IOM Committee will arrive at. However, from this perspective, it would be hard to see how the group could raise the dietary reference intake in light of such an equivocal set of conclusions in the Tufts report – in spite of considerable pressure to do so.
Will an IOM committee ever emerge from this climate of consensus and consider research that would cause them to lower the DRI of vitamin D?
Here are a few possibilities:
After the meeting adjourned, we were approached by a nattily attired man in his thirties, originally from Barcelona. He offered us a ride home to New York. His Mercedes SUV looked quite appealing, so we skipped the bus and took him up on his offer.
On the ride home, this fellow – who told us he had a PhD in oncology – told us he agreed with the sentiment of our remarks and expressed disappointment with the lack of rigor of the science presented. The word he used to describe the majority of presentations was “pseudoscience.” He told us that, based on what he saw, vitamin D was harmful and that it was only a matter of time before the hype surrounding vitamin D would fizzle.
Although we felt validated, we wondered why he had attended the conference in the first place. It turns out that he was an entrepreneur, had just bought the patent for a new formulation of calcium, and wanted the discussion at the IOM workshop to help him decide how much vitamin D to add to his product.
He seemed like a honest and honorable guy until, that is, he let us know that despite his negative view of vitamin D, he intended to add high levels of it to his supplement anyway, so long as the medical community and public viewed it as beneficial. Later on, he said, he planned to strategically remove it “just before the vitamin D bubble bursts.”
Well, isn’t that wonderful? Some reassurance about the people behind products aimed at “improving our health.”
In that vein, we couldn’t help remembering the short speeches delivered by members of the Dairy Council as well as a yeast company, whose goal in speaking before the Committee were simply to urge the Committee that, if more vitamin D is added to the food supply, it should be added to the food they market. This would give these interests the ability to claim more health benefits from their food and, of course, make more money.
In sum, our adventure in the nation’s capital left us with a bad taste in our mouths. We’d like to wash it away but we’re worried that by the time we do so, no drink won’t be fortified with vitamin D.
11 Jun 2009
Two weeks ago, I boarded a 747 to travel to Beijing, China in order to speak at the 2009 International Congress of Antibodies. Within minutes of hitting the runway, we were greeted by a crew of officials wearing surgical masks and wielding thermometers. The fever analysis was performed as part of an effort on behalf of the Chinese government to ensure that neither I nor my fellow travelers had the swine flu. Luckily I was cleared and proceeded to my hotel which was also the site of the Conference. Before checking into my room, I had to get my temperature checked yet a second time by the hotel staff. I wasn’t opposed to the routine screenings since, at the time, if anyone on my hotel floor had the swine flu the entire floor would be quarantined.
The door of our hotel was guarded by two cement lions and delicate Chinese flowers in a vase were built into the hotel revolving door. The first night, I was exhausted and fell into a deep sleep due to the jet lag. I woke up to greet my colleague, Dr. Trevor Marshall, whose flight had arrived during the night. He was surprisingly chipper and we set off to explore our surroundings. The hotel was located close to the stadium from the 2008 Summer Olympics, also known as the “Bird’s Nest.” Dr. Marshall was lucky enough to have a view of the stadium from his hotel room window. I had to settle for a view of the boring side of the street. Down the street we discovered a Chinese cafeteria that served the locals and had better food than the hotel, at least in my opinion. It was the first of my many trips there to get a stir-fry or other delicious dishes. We also cheated by discovering a supermarket with American food products that we stocked up on for snacks. Then we went to a fourteen-story building occupying a whole city block. It was full of innumerable electronic devices for sale at low prices. Given his earlier work as a microchip designer, surely this was Dr. Marshall’s mothership.
The first thing I’ll say about the Conference is that its name – International Congress of Antibodies – is something of a misnomer. The reality is that the Conference was not for antibodies but people.
Conference registration was the next day. Finding the registration took some time. It was in a completely different part of the hotel and most of the hotel staff didn’t speak any English at all. In fact, it was the first time in my life where I truly felt “lost in translation.” Even my elaborate hand gestures often couldn’t help the hotel staff understand what I needed, particularly when it came to setting up my Internet connection, trying to use their business center, or communicating with the housekeeping staff about when I would and would not be in my room.
It quickly became apparent that essentially all guests that stay at the Beijing International Continental Hotel are Chinese and that few tourists stay at the hotel. This meant it was easy to pick out other researchers arriving for the Conference. It was as simple as noting that someone spoke a foreign language, had european or hispanic features, or was gesticulating at the front desk.
The Conference officially began on Thursday morning. The opening talks consisted largely of the Conference sponsors touting their products or companies. Eventually I became even more accustomed to such talks since at least half of the researchers presenting were also associated with biotech companies or other businesses that not only conduct research but also sell tools for antibody detection and creation. Their talks were generally of less interest to me than those that discussed purely scientific work.
The researchers hailed from around the world, several from Europe and the USA, even some from Latin America. Unfortunately, most of the researchers from Japan were not able to attend the Conference because of an increasing number of swine flu cases in their country that had made the Chinese authorities nervous. Perhaps this worked in my favor. Originally I had been scheduled to speak at a session on Saturday afternoon about antibodies and diagnostic tools. However, there is actually very little about diagnostics in my speech. So I asked one of the Conference organizers if I could switch to speak in a session specifically about autoimmune disease the next morning, which had an empty slot because of a Japanese speaker’s absence. She said yes.
Before Sunday rolled around I perused the halls, introducing myself and getting to know my fellow conference attendees. Most people were very open and eager to talk about their work or China in general. Every lunch and dinner we would all walk in a pack back to the main hotel where a buffet-style meal was served. The food was Chinese and sometimes intriguing – intriguing as in I really didn’t know what I was eating! There was plenty of meat in sauce and green leafy vegetables, and of course, plenty and plenty of rice.
Lunch and dinner served as perfect times to make friends. I met a woman from the UK with a wonderful sense of sarcasm and humor. Two German men who managed biotech companies were also very outgoing and full of interesting stories about Germany and their other travels abroad. I really enjoyed the enthusiasm of a Chinese-born researcher who now works at the University of Toronto. His interest piqued when I told him about the MP. Later, after hearing my talk, he became even more enthusiastic and kindly told me that my speech had exceeded his expectations. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever been at a Conference where Dr. Marshall’s work was so well-received. Nearly everyone wanted to learn about the Pathogenesis. Many weren’t even familiar with latest estimates released by the Human Microbiome Project which state that at least 90% of cells in the human body are bacterial in origin. Everyone seemed to agree that such a plethora of bacteria could very likely cause a wide variety of autoimmune and inflammatory diagnoses. By Sunday morning I had whetted the scientific appetities of as many people as I could so that they would come listen to my speech.
Every session at the Conference was monitored by two chairmen, and in my case, both were very open-minded and intelligent scientists. My speech was the last in the session, but finally I made my way to the podium. As I spoke, I could sense that the colorful backgrounds and strong images on my slides (designed by my colleague Paul Albert) were helping people to capture the important aspects of the speech. Several camera flashes illuminated the room when I put up a slide covered by a prolific number of names of different bacterial species recently determined to persist in saliva.
The main point of my speech was to re-examine the concept of the “autoantibody.” Currently, autoimmune disease is thought to result when the immune system attacks itself. In such a model, antibodies, which are molecules used by the immune system to neutralize foreign objects, are thought to be created in response to our own human DNA.
What I pointed out was that, since the human body is composed of more microbial than human cells, this is not necessarily the case. The antibodies detected in what is now considered to be “autoimmune” disease may actually be created in response to bacteria. Specifically, when the innate immune system is activated by continually trying to kill chronic bacteria it activates the adaptive immune system. The adaptive immune system, which is the branch of the immune system that creates antibodies, then likely proceeds to create such antibodies in response to fragments of bacterial DNA generated by the death of the infected cells.
At the conclusion of the speech, those members of the crowd that hadn’t left in disgust began to lob vegetables towards the stage. Fortunately, some of the produce was fresh, and I had enough for a salad….
The truth is more boring: the speech seemed to go over quite well. The audience applauded enthusiastically, and a number of hands shot up for questions. So many people had questions that a number of people missed lunch to listen to my follow-up remarks. One of the session’s chairmen, Dr. Audrey Tchorbanov of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, seemed impressed with the speech and we posed for photos together. A few other people did the same. A pediatrician from Denmark who had given a very interesting speech himself about sepsis in infants commented numerous times on the groundbreaking nature of Dr. Marshall’s work. I think, as has been the case with every conference I’ve spoken at so far, the audience was pleasantly surprised to hear a speech that discussed how scientific observations and more theoretical work can be applied to clinical care.
To celebrate a successful presentation, Dr. Marshall treated me to a meal that has been a favorite of Chinese emperors since the time of the early Ming dynasty. I forget the Mandarin term for it, but I believe in English it is calledgrilled cheese sandwich and french fries with ketchup.
Later that day, I returned to a few sessions and then retired to my room to decompress. The wry woman from the UK arranged for a group of us to go out that night in honor of the end of the Conference. There were about eight of us including the biotech guys from Germany and the pediatrician from Denmark. We were also joined by a scientist from Ireland whose thick brogue and lively banter kept us laughing all night. One of the members of our group, a Chinese woman, took us to a lake surrounded by rows of outside bars with comfy couches and chairs. The temperature was perfect – warm and breezy. We celebrated until four or five in the morning when we finally headed back to the hotel. It was encouraging to see that, like me, most of my fellow scientists are able to combine work with play.
If it were even possible to sum up China and her people in a single word, that word would be “ambitious.” You can see ambition in the medal counts from the 2008 Beijing Olympics and in the Beijing skyline, being built ever upwards at a furious pace. But I can also see the urge to succeed in Chinese researchers’ apparent receptiveness to the MP and the science which supports it.
I feel that China may eventually prove to be fertile ground for the MP to flourish. There is no vitamin D added to the food chain. Supplementation with D is not promoted or generally used as a therapy in chronic disease. Because pale white skin is considered beautiful in China, staying out of the sun is common practice for the Chinese. Chinese women in particular walk around with sun umbrellas and wear sunglasses and often long-sleeved shirts. Whereas American magazines advertise tanning salons and creams, Chinese magazines advertise hats and skin-whitening cream.
Perhaps I should not have been surprised then that the Chinese people seemed much healthier than the Americans I’m used to seeing. For one thing, almost no one in China is obese or even fat, and it’s not like these people don’t know how to eat! Also, I was impressed at the lack of acne in the Chinese population. It seemed that every Chinese woman – whether at the airport, the hotel, or at the Conference itself – had perfectly blemish-free skin.
All in all, it was a great trip. I certainly plan to keep in touch with some of the people I met, and I definitely hope to return.
6 Jun 2009
Hello readers! Suffice it to say I’ve been missing in action for several months. For much of the time I’ve been traveling. Some of you may know that I just got back from China where I gave a speech at the International Congress of Antibodies. That will be the subject of my next post when the video of my speech is ready. In the meantime, I finally have time to give you an update of what I was up to before I left for Beijing…just to keep things in chronological order.
Several months ago I travelled to Vancouver Island to stay with Paul’s brother and his wife. It was wonderful to be surrounded by nature again! We took hikes through 200 year old forests and climbed gnarled driftwood on the beach. It was the first time I’ve sat around a bonfire since getting sick. I even got to take a horseback riding lesson and stayed on the horse!
Then, I went to visit my twin sister Sara in Dubrovnik, Croatia where she and her fiancee Tony live. Not only did I walk the city walls and streets with vigor (old town Dubrovnik is surrounded by an ancient fortress), but I got to see some serious water polo action between my sister’s fiancee’s club team, JUG Dubrovnik, and the top Serbian club team in the world.
The two teams are intense rivals and JUG won their biggest game of the year when I was there. The whole city went nuts and I got to participate in the celebration… and with the team no less. Sara and I also celebrated our birthday together in Dubrovnik – it was the first time we have been together for our birthday in about 8 years.
After that excitement I returned to New York where I worked on writing two papers for the scientific journalAutoimmunity Reviews. One of them describes how the interaction between human and bacterial genomes drives the autoimmune disease process:
For the second paper I worked (with Paul, see below) to explain, as simply as possible, how the Marshall model of vitamin D metabolism contrasts with the current model of “vitamin” D’s properties currently put forth by much of the mainstream medical community. Among other topics, we point out how the Marshall model is supported by molecular data but certainly makes more sense in the face of research showing that the diseases apparently “helped” by vitamin D supplementation are actually becoming increasingly widespread:
Also, I wrote press releases for both articles. These have sparked the interest of at least a few journalists and their publications including Science Daily.
I have also been doing my best to keep up with comments posted on this site. As you may have noticed, my trusted colleague, Paul Albert of Weill Cornell Medical College, has been answering some of the questions himself. I enjoy everyone’s comments but since I’m getting increasingly busy I’m sorry if my turnaround time is a bit slow sometimes. Or if I somehow miss your post or email it’s definitely not intentional!
In the fall, I will start graduate school at University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) where I’ll be pursuing a degree in microbiology. The school appeals to me on many levels. During the interview process the school’s researchers seemed genuinely interested in my work with the MP. They asked questions, watched my videos, and truly appreciated the personal statement that I had labored over in an attempt to best communicate my passion for exploring the microbial world. Several researchers are studying biofilm bacteria, which is a topic of great personal interest.
In particular, one researcher, who graduated from Princeton rather recently, is working on bacterial communication in biofilms. He’s also very interested in the role of bacteria in chronic disease. He called me a perfect prospective graduate student, so I hope that I can live up to his impression of me. Obviously grad school will take up much of my time, but I need the expertise that comes with a PhD and I’m excited to better learn how to use some of the latest molecular techniques. However, I plan to try my hardest to continue to work with ARF on the side.
In less than a week I’ll be heading to Chicago for Sara’s bachelorette party – a three day bacchanalia with her friends from around the world. Then I’ll take some time to look for an apartment in Chicago and visit my family in the area. As soon as I get back my parents are visiting me in New York. Another reason I had to take some time off from Bacteriality is because I worked with Paul to design and write the content for Sara and Tony’s wedding website.
During my free time I’ll be working on another paper for Autoimmunity Reviews – this one will discuss immunopathology. I also plan to help Paul edit what I think is a groundbreaking project on his behalf – the MP Knowledge Base. Paul has been faithfully gathering both old and new content on essentially every topic related to the MP and is organizing it in easy-to-read articles on a very searchable website. His perserverence amazes me. While the site will take a few more months to complete, I’m going to review the major articles and try to ensure the content is in tip-top shape.
4 Apr 2009
In a recent prospective study appearing in Neurology, researchers at various scientific institutions including many in Korea set out to examine the relation between milk and calcium intake in midlife and the risk of Parkinson’s disease. The team analyzed data based on records of dietary intake observed from 1965 to 1968 in 7,504 men enrolled in a cohort called the Honolulu Heart Program. The men ranged from 45 to 68 years of age.
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a degenerative condition affecting movement and balance in more than one million Americans each year: its prevalence is expected to rise in aging populations.
The men were followed for three decades. At that point, 128 men had developed Parkinson’s. But… cue drum roll… the risk of Parkinson’s disease increased as the amount of milk consumed each day rose. Heavy milk drinkers, who drank more than 16 oz a day, were 2.3 times more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease than those men who didn’t drink any milk. Milk was related to PD whether it was whole or skim.
One may ask, “Why?” The beautiful person with the milk mustache in the latest magazine add told me milk was good for me!
Perhaps it’s the calcium? Nope. The team, under Dr. Park, used careful statistical analysis to rule out the possibility that calcium could have caused the increased disease incidence. “In addition, calcium intake from non-dietary sources was not related to PD, further suggesting that a role for calcium in altering PD risk is absent,” states the paper, which was published in the March issue of the Journal of Neurology.
Total fat and protein also had no relation with the risk of PD. Park and team suggest that neurotoxins such as organochlorine, tetrahydroisoquinoline, and heptachlor may be to blame, but even they would concede that this explanation is speculative at best. In fact, according to the study’s authors, “Unfortunately, there are no clear explanations for the relation between milk intake and the risk of PD.”
What the researchers fail to even consider is that since the 1930′s, milk suppliers have been fortifying milk with vitamin D. According to, A. W. Norman in the book, Vitamin D: The calcium homeostatic steroid hormone, “There developed in the 1940′s, and continues to the present, a large business of industrial production of vitamin D3 used for the supplementation of foods for human consumption: milk (both homogenized and evaporated), some margarine and breads. Since the 1960′s vitamin D3 has been used also for the supplementation of farm animal and poultry food. In 1973 in the United States some 290 trillion (290 x 1012) International Units of vitamin D3 was manufactured and sold for over 3 million dollars. This vitamin D3 is the equivalent of approximately 8 tons.”
This strongly suggests that the men in the Honolulu heart study were drinking vitamin D fortified milk. With this in mind, the powerful secosteroid incorrectly labelled “vitamin” D seems like an extremely logical culprit for the rise in PD amongst subjects drinking higher amounts of milk. As described in this recent paper, vitamin D’s steroidal properties allow it slow the innate immune response. While this allows for palliation and symptom reduction in the short-term, it causes chronic bacteria that very likely contribute to the progression of PD to proliferate more easily.
When writing previously about vitamin D, I’ve argued that, “One of the abiding weaknesses of studies on vitamin D is that researchers do not follow subjects consuming the secosteroid for a sufficient period of time. Instead they track subjects over the course of weeks, months, or one or two years, during the period of time when study participants are usually feeling the palliative effects of the secosteroid. Researchers will rarely, if ever, track subjects over the course of decades, the length of time needed to begin to note the negative changes that chronic bacteria cause later in life.”
So hooray for the authors of the Honolulu Heart Study who spent the time and money to monitor subjects for 30 years after their dietary intake was reported. Clearly, when it comes to vitamin D, patience is needed for the negative impact of consuming the secosteroid to be noted.
Another clue that vitamin D likely caused the increase in PD risk among men drinking more milk in the Honolulu study was that consumption of cheese and ice-cream did not affect PD risk. The explanation? Although these products are made from milk, they are generally made from milk before it has been fortified with vitamin D.
That Park and team did not even consider the vitamin D in milk as a possible cause for the increase PD among men consuming more of the substance speaks to the incredible strength of the current consensus that fails to recognize the immunosuppresive properties of vitamin D. This is bound to change, but in the meantime, vitamin D fortified milk should at least come with the message, “Immunosuppressive steroid included at no extra charge!!”
21 Mar 2009
Excuse me, my what?!
Duh, Kineosphaeram, one of the over 600 bacterial species that may be living in your mouth or other areas of your body. If you don’t harbor Kineosphaeram, then perhaps your mouth is home to Bergeriella, Buttiauxella, Cedecea, Derxia, Faecalibacterium, Hallella, Mannheimia, Paludibacterm, Ruminococcus, Thermovirga, or Wolinella. The list goes on….
If these bacterial species sound new to you, it’s because many of them are. Several of the species were just recently named after researchers led by Dr. Mark Stoneking of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany conducted the first in-depth study of global diversity in the human mouth. The team sequenced and analyzed variations in the bacterial gene encoding 16S rRNA, a component of the bacterial ribosome, in the salivary metagenome (bacterial population) of 120 healthy subjects from six geographic areas. The researchers proceeded to compare the sequences they found with a database of previously categorized 16S rRNA sequences to categorize the types of bacteria present.
These sequences could be assigned to 101 known bacterial genera, of which 39 were not previously reported from the human oral cavity; phylogenetic analysis suggests that an additional 64 unknown genera are present. The results suggest great diversity in the salivary microbiome within and between individuals that until this point had never been realized.
“The healthy human mouth is home to a tremendous variety of microbes including viruses, fungi, protozoa and bacteria,” said Professor William Wade from King’s College London Dental Institute. “The bacteria are the most numerous: there are 100 million in every millilitre of saliva and more than 600 different species in the mouth. Around half of these have yet to be named and we are trying to describe and name the new species.”
Are these bacteria helpful or up to no good? While some may not impact dental health, disease causing bacteria in the mouth are rampant – ranging from species that cause the dental plaque that leads to cavities to forms that weaken the gums or cause bad breath. For decades scientists have advised patients to brush their teeth (don’t forget to scrub for a full three minutes!), floss, and often use a variety of mouthwashes to rid the mouth of as many bacteria as possible. There is little worry that such procedures might kill commensal or “helpful” bacteria in the mouth, probably because most dental bacteria are seen as a menace to to salivary and dental health.
Three of the bacteria identified in the “healthy” subjects in Stoneking’s study are certainly not bacteria anyone wants to be carrying around – Neisseria. Treponema neisseria and Yersinia. Treponema and Neisseria can cause gonorrhea and syphilis respectively. Infection with Yersinia leads to a variety of symptoms including fever, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, which is often bloody. It has also been implicated in Reactive Arthritis.
At my last appointment, my dentist showed me an awesome video of biofilm (bacterial colonies) on the surface of normal teeth. The images were so cool that I asked him for permission to put the video up on this site, but, alas, it is copyrighted. My dentist proceeded to laud the virtues of regular flossing, a practice which I do regularly. (I swear!) In his opinion, flossing helps break up these biofilms and is critical to preventing tooth decay.
Interestingly, the Marshall Protocol does just that – although it uses pulsed, low-dose antibiotics – which have been shown to effectively destroy biofilms – and Benicar to get the job done with more vigor than a flossing addict could ever achieve. Take a certain MP patient (to protect her anonymity, I will call her “Mom”), who has been seeing the dentist for years due to tooth decay. I am told there is a ski home somewhere in Vail funded in large part by “Mom’s” regular dental work. She started the MP two years ago and now her dentist is more than a little surprised. At her last appointment, he said that he simply could not fathom the lack of plaque or tooth decay in any area of her mouth. Boy, does “Mom” wish she had started the MP earlier!
What intrigues me about bacteria in the mouth is that scientists regard most of them as harmful to our health and have no problem with procedures that would seek to sterilize the mouth. But when one mentions other parts of the body – let’s say the gut – and points out that perhaps the majority of bacteria in that area are also causing inflammation and disease, the same researchers often strongly disagree. Currently bacteria in the gut are largely assumed to be “helpful”, although in many cases such thinking is based only on speculation. Perhaps some gut bacteria may help with metabolic breakdown, but it is quite possible that the environment in the gut more closely resembles that of the mouth – an environment that can easily be overtaken by pathogens. Under such circumstances, a treatment like the MP that kills bacteria in the gut is therapeutic against inflammatory diseases such as Crohn’s, colitis and myriad other bowel ailments. This is especially true since patients on the MP are reporting improvement and recovery from bowel diseases that have never previously been reversed.
Also interesting is that many bacteria in the mouth seem able to migrate down the esophagus and reach the interior organs of the body. For example,Porphyromonas gingivalis and A. actinomycetemcomitans, both of which cause decay in the mouth, have been repeatedly identified in artherosclerotic plaque. This strongly suggests that these bacteria may be wreaking havoc on the blood vessels and contributing to heart disease. In fact, biomedical research Trevor Marshall believes that arterial plaque is a result of chronic bacterial infection. Indeed, where arterial plaque was once thought to be made of cholesterol and lipids it is now known that it is largely composed of dead macrophages. Since bacteria can infect and kill macrophages the death of such cells and their accumulation in patients with heart conditions seems logically tied to bacterial infection. With the above in mind, it’s not surprising that patients on the MP have reported improvement and recovery from various cardiac conditions. Some have tests showing that after years on the MP the plaque in their arteries is greatly reduced.
So keep on brushing people, but I recommend doing the MP too. In a theoretical sense the MP “brushes” our insides – the places we can’t reach to kill pathogenic bacteria physically. For most MP patients doing so is proving to be quite rewarding.
5 Dec 2008
Not long ago I reported on the results of multiple studies, the results of which indicate that the class of medications known as Angiotensin Receptor Blockers or ARBs have the potential to ameliorate a variety of cardiovascular conditions.
Today another study joins the list – this one conducted by Atsushi Hirohata, M.D, Ph.D and his team at the the Sakakibara Heart Institute of Okayama in Japan. Hirohata, who presented his findings at last week’s 20th annual Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) scientific symposium, presented study data, which strongly suggests that Olmesartan may play a role in reducing coronary plaque.
The trial, “Impact of olmesartan on progression of coronary atherosclerosis; evaluation by IVUS [OLIVUS],” was performed on 247 angina patients with native coronary artery lesions. Angina is chest pain or discomfort that occurs when the heart muscle does not get enough blood. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 20-40mg/day of Olmesartan or a placebo. Then, depending on the guidance of their individual physicians, they were treated with a combination of beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, nitrates, glycemic control agents and/or statins.
Subjects underwent examination by a technique know as Serial Intravenous Ultrasound (IVUS) which allowed the research team to assess the amount of coronary plaque before and 14 months after the start of Olmesartan administration. At the trial’s onset, patient characteristics and all IVUS measurements were identical between the two groups. However, after 14 months of treatment, IVUS showed significant decreases in measurements of plaque volume in the Olmesartan group, despite the fact that subjects displayed similar blood pressure readings. In addition, a multivariate analysis ruled out the other forms as treatment (the beta blockers, statins, etc.) as the source of the decrease in plaque, confirming that Olmesartan administration was indeed one of the factors responsible for the decrease in plaque volume.
“Management of plaque is a key front in the war on sudden heart attack,” states Hirohata. “These results suggest a positive role in potential plaque regression through the administration of Olmesartan, an angiotension-II receptor blocking agent, for patients with stable angina pectoris.”
Hirohata’s results are welcome news for patients on the Marshall Protocol (MP) – a novel treatment that uses Olmesartan in concert with carefully chosen pulsed, low-dose antibiotics to eliminate chronic pathogens that are increasingly implicated in inflammatory disease. Cardiovascular diseases are included in this category. “Many years ago, atherosclerosis was thought to be related to lipids and to the excessive deposit of cholesterol in the arteries,” states Luigi Fontan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis and an investigator at the Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome, Italy. “Nowadays, it’s clear that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disease.
But why the reduction in plaque formation? According to biomedical researcher Trevor Marshall, macrophages begin to clump together at injured areas along the blood vessel wall in people with heart disease. Since macrophages are meant to be extremely active immune cells that engulf and kill invading pathogens, Marshall views aggregation of these listless white blood cells in individuals with cardiovascular disease as a sign that the immune system is not functioning optimally. In his opinion, the reason that the white blood cells are weakened in the first place is because they are infected by chronic bacteria. If these bacteria kill their host cells, dead macrophages may eventually accumulate and form part of the plaque that perpetuates cardiac disease – a perspective supported by the fact that Streptococcus was recently identified in arterial plaque. If the immune system were able to function correctly, it might be able to clear away developing plaque, but “When the immune system is compromised, it simply can’t clear away the obstruction,” states Marshall.
Enter Olmesartan. MP patients take 40 mg of Olmesartan four times a daily. Molecular modeling data shows that Olmesartan is a potent Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) agonist, meaning that it binds and activates the receptor. Because the VDR controls expression of the bulk of the body’s antimicrobial peptides – proteins that serve as natural antibiotics- VDR activation greatly stimulates the innate immune response. This means that the innate immune systems of people taking Olmesartan may regain the ability to recruit active monocytes and other white blood cells to areas where they can clear away dead or dying macrophages, keeping them from becoming part of arterial plaque.
Regardless of whether Marshall’s hypothesis is right or wrong, Hirohata’s study adds yet another benefit to what’s become a laundry list of positive outcomes associated with Olmesartan administration. Let’s hope that the medical community takes notice!
Amy Proal graduated from Georgetown University in 2005 with a degree in biology. While at Georgetown, she wrote her senior thesis on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the Marshall Protocol.