Questions about L-bacteria, vitamin D & candida

Bluestar

Jedi Council Member
Spent this morning doing some research here on candida & L-bacteria and I have some confusion.

So if you feel you have an L-bacteria problem, do not take vitamin D or ALA?
Or do we take it in small doses? Plus I read some threads about nanosilver and am going to purchase some today. Taking the 10pp as recommended.

From reading here, one should start with the elimination diet, which I have for the most part, and have been taking a product made by Solaray called Yeast-Cleanse that has caprylic acid, pau d'arco, grapefruit seed extract and tea tree oil, plus 2 forms of probiotics that have different forms of good bacterias. One focused on the intestinal tract and the other for female bacteria balance. Also I take a product called Emerald Balance that has greens and many of the other good stuff all in one. A liquid multivitamin, B-complex, vitamin D, cal-mag, iodine drops, fish oil & flax seed powder. Taking this once a day and in the evenings magnesium, more yeast cleanse, evening primrose, a hormonal supplement and fish oil.

The diet has been pretty focused, except I have slipped a few times and restarted the process again. For a week had some of what I believe the herk effect, with bloating and irritability, feeling fibromyalgsia pretty strong lately with mornings being the worst. So this prompted me to research the forum and this L-bacteria came up. Read this on Amy Proal's web site http://bacteriality.com/2007/08/15/l-forms/

Hence the question about vitamin D. Also noticed that being in the sun just exhausts me. Had a blood test done about 2 years ago and the Dr. had a vit D test done as well as an inflammatory test done. The results were that vit D was very low at 19 and that the inflammation was normal. Found it odd cause it was when I first was diagnosed with fibro and was in terrible pain. With all the supplements and diet changes since diagnosis, I reduced the pain down about 25-50 % and of course this depends on what I eat.

As far as detox goes, will start when the last of the mercury fillings are gone. This depends on funds for me. Hoping within the next two months.

So again confused about vitamin D in take and is the nanosilver the best way to go? Also, have done a search for the quote and can not find where I read it, but Laura had posted that by using nanosilver while fighting yeast and not doing a heavy metal detox, only brings the candida back. Did I understand this correctly?

Thanks for any feedback on this.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Hi Bluestar,

I think Mark Sircus summed up the issue of L-bacteria pretty nicely, you can read about it here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12149.msg87013#msg87013
 

Bluestar

Jedi Council Member
Thank you so much Psyche for this information. It was beyond helpful. Suggestion, this would be a great article for DOT. I found so much information on this website. Will be ordering some more iodine. I think that would be enough to handle my issues. Plus taking the recommended supplements. Going to a local feed store to see if they carry magnesium Cloride oil or bath salts.

The great thing for me is that I have a well and do not use municipal water. Though it does have a high calcium content and I do not have a water softener. Been drinking bottled water. Have a water filter, but this is not enough to get out the calcium from the water. As soon as I can will be investing in a distiller. There is so much to learn about this and sometimes doing a search is overwhelming. So again thank you for the link. What would we do we do with out you. You are such an important asset to this community. Will do a search on sodium bicarbonate today and see what I can find out.

I did forget to mention that vitamin c is also part of my vitamin intake. And I will continue with vitamin D and ALA. Just up my iodine dose. Maybe once I finish taking the yeast supplement I won't need to take it any longer because the iodine will do the job. Not going to start the apple cider vinegar just yet. Working very hard on my diet. So far I know what I can eat and what I can not.

This forum is a life saver.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Step by step, onwards and forwards :) Keep the good work.

Don't miss our next issue of the DCM magazine, we'll be carrying one of Mark Sircus articles. ;)
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I thought Nora Gedgaudas synthesized the debate of vitamin D as a secosteroid and the argument of Trevor Marshall pretty well in her book Primal Body, Primal Mind. She also has very good recommendations:

Primal Body said:
As much as vitamin E is the primary protective nutrient for omega-6 fats in nature, vitamin D is similarly the primary antioxidant and pro-tective nutrient for omega-3 fats in nature (Sullivan 2006). Vitamin D (known specifically as a secosteroid) is also much more an actual steroid hormone than a vitamin.

What is seen as a nutrient's action is not always the same result got¬ten with supplementation, however, and more research is needed to deter-mine not just the effects of vitamin D levels in the body but the effects of supplementation as well.

The Unfortunate Flaw in Nutrient Research

All this renewed attention paid to such a clearly important and previ¬ously undervalued and even irrationally feared nutrient is, of course, wonderful.

The problem lies in one simple fact: All nutrients operate in a com¬plex system of interrelationships in the body, and requirements will vary greatly from person to person. Furthermore, modern-day research simply fails to take all these variables into account, instead studying nutrients in relative isolation, compartmentalizing what is never compartmentalized in nature.

The role of certain nutrients in relation to others and the need for certain cofactors in order to optimize a nutrient's function or prevent imbalances aren't normally discussed at all.

This, of course, leads to problems. For instance—and perhaps critically—for each and every receptor for vitamin D, there are two receptors for vitamin A on every cell. Because of the compartmentalized approach to vitamin D research, this sort of thing does not get recog¬nized or discussed. A relative balance of these two nutrients is vital to their healthy functioning in the body. An excess of one can create a rela¬tive deficiency of the other. For instance, if you take large amounts of vitamin D without vitamin A, you are potentially more likely to develop symptoms of vitamin A deficiency and experience an actual immunosuppressive effect. Conversely, taking certain commercial cod-liver oil supple-ments that are rich in vitamin A but poor in vitamin D can lead to more severe vitamin D deficiencies. (It's important to read labels. The amount of vitamin D in a serving of high-vitamin cod-liver oil is around 1,000 IU. Most commercial brands don't exceed between 20 and 400 IU). Recent research from Spain indicates that vitamin A is necessary for both vita¬min D binding and vitamin D release to receptor sites. The two vitamins are synergistic and should always be balanced in the diet or in supplementation. Individual needs for both may vary considerably.

A Possible Dark Side to the Sunshine Vitamin

There is some recent evidence and an "alternative vitamin D hypothesis" put forward by the Autoimmunity Research Foundation, a nonprofit organization, suggesting that excess supplemental vitamin D may actually be immunosuppressive in effect and may actually interfere with healthy immune function and recovery rather than protect against disease. Offering a conflicting perspective to the more common favorable view of vitamin D supplementation held by the Vitamin D Council, the head of the foundation, Professor Trevor Marshall, Ph.D., of Australia's Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology, suggests that low vitamin D levels in some people may actually be the result of a disease process or immune compromise and not the actual underlying cause—and that supplementation may not always be desirable.

Marshall says, "Our disease model has shown us why low levels of vitamin D are observed in association with major and chronic illness. . . . Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone, and the body regulates the production of all it needs. In fact, the use of supplements can be harmful, because; they suppress the immune system so that the body cannot fight disease and!, infection effectively" (Marshall 2008).

It's clear that further research is needed to clarify the roles of vitamin D in human health before everyone goes off half-cocked and starts popping vitamin D pills in willy-nilly fashion. What is referred to broadly as vitamin D is also found in the body in different forms.
Vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol, which is sometimes found in plant foods, is largely inactive and requires the action of sunlight and 7-dehydrocholesterol (there goes that eeeevil cholesterol again!) to be usable. Also, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, a metabolite of vitamin D metabolism (converted endogenously), seems to be most directly responsible for immune activation through the activa-tion of what is known as the vitamin D nuclear receptor, which essentially mediates the way vitamin D in the body is used.. 25-hydroxyvitamin D3, the form most commonly measured in serum blood to determine vitamin D levels and the form most commonly sold as supplements, may actually serve to inactivate the vitamin D nuclear receptor, suppressing immune function either when necessary or when oversupplemented. Marshall also says, "Vitamin D affects the expression of over 1,000 genes, so we should not expect a simplistic cause and effect between vitamin D supplementation and disease" (Marshall 2008). Not meaning to con¬fuse everyone, but it seems that much more needs to be understood here. People should not be running out to their health-food stores and pop¬ping vitamin D pills like candy. Testing is essential in ascertaining healthy vitamin D levels. Vitamin D gotten from sun exposure is much more nat¬urally regulated in the body and probably the safest way to get vitamin D, though it isn't always practical, but the doses we get from sun exposure are far from predictable.

A growing, very real problem, too, is the excessive "fortification" of processed foods with vitamin D as a means of marketing and selling more of certain food products in an effort to capitalize on all the media hype about vitamin D's benefits. This is a potentially great cause for concern and could lead to toxic and even immunosuppressive effects in people who consume vitamin D in excess, particularly where preformed vitamin A deficiency might also be an issue.

What is certain is that both vitamin D and vitamin A have important roles to play in the human body, but they do not exist or function in iso-lation. Vitamin E helps recycle vitamin A, vitamin A needs zinc in order to be properly used, zinc and copper need to be in an 8:1 to 12:1 ratio in order to function properly, and on and on. Inadequate levels of either vitamin A or vitamin D, coupled with a significantly higher level of one or the other, can also result in a relative toxicity at much lower levels than if the two were properly balanced. This complex web of interrelationships is rarely discussed in the articles promoting vitamin D, or any other nutri¬ent, as the answer to all ills. This is deeply problematic.

Furthermore, often no mention is made of all the varying requirments for vitamin D relative to individual needs or time of year. Taking any solitary nutrient (or hormone) doesn't just affect one thing; it affects many, many things. This needs to be intelligently considered. Plus, people with impaired biliary function or who no longer have a gallbladder may find it particularly difficult to absorb and use even supplemental fat-soluble nutrients.

Complex systems models, functional medicine, and functionally, foundationally based nutritional therapy must be the next evolution of research and practice across the spectrum of health care. Science and medicine can no longer be compartmentalized in their thinking or sell their souls to pharmaceutical and corporate greed if we are to genuinely uncover useful truths toward our enhanced well-being.

With all that in mind, back to vitamin D ...

According to the Vitamin D Council, the amount of vitamin D most of us should have—measured as the amount of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in the blood—in order to prevent cancer is about 60 ng/dL. The rec-ommended range of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 according to a wide variety of experts lies somewhere between 40 and 80 ng/dL. The opti¬mal amount, in light of the Vitamin D Council's findings, is probably ! closer to 60 to 80 ng/dL. If you happen to have an autoimmune illness, your ability to effectively use vitamin D is potentially impaired and your ( requirements are said to be generally higher. The guideline there is to shoot for between 80 and 100 ng/dL. Vitamin D can also help to mitigate the balance between TH-1 and TH-2 immune responses—a critical issue for people with an autoimmune condition. Currently, it is advised that no one exceed 100 to 150 ng/dL because of toxicity concerns.

Deficiencies of vitamin A, however, can make vitamin D toxic at much lower levels. Excesses of vitamin A can also result in greater vitamin D deficiencies. Again, proper balance is needed. Getting most of our nutrients from quality, nutrient-dense food sources is what seems to make the most sense, wherever possible. That helps take the guesswork out of it.

When vitamin D supplementation is determined to be necessary, care, in my opinion, must be taken to use a supplement with a vitamin D complex containing the vitamin's numerous cofactors in relative bal-ance, or rather, with vitamin A in its true state, as found in beef liver, grass-fed butter and ghee, and what is called "high-vitamin" cod-liver oil (rich in both vitamins A and D)—not simply beta-carotene. Taking a "vitamin D pill" may not necessarily be the best option. Emulsified, liquid forms of supplemental vitamin D may be a better choice for some people, as they are far better absorbed by most people and are much safer. Emulsification improves the vitamin's water solubility, so excesses can be more readily excreted. Far and away the safest means of obtaining vitamin D is through exposure to sunlight (which contains ultra¬violet B, or UVB, light). This allows the body to make what it needs as it needs it. It is possible now to buy UVB-based vitamin D–enhancing light systems for home use.

It is very difficult to ascertain just how much vitamin D to recom¬mend for any given individual, supplementally, to adequately and safely meet his or her needs. Recommended supplemental amounts of vitamin D may vary from as low as 1,000 IU for relative maintenance in an other¬wise vitamin D–sufficient individual to upward of 10,000 IU per day for someone with an autoimmune condition. The woefully outdated govern-ment guideline established as the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for Americans is a meager 400 IU. Available data from modern-day, primitive hunter-gatherer societies generally estimate that the daily dietary intake was probably close to 4,000 IU of dietary vitamin D per day (Price 1939). This does not include vitamin D synthesized in the body from sun exposure, another highly variable and unpredictable process, depending on geographic location, time of year, and one's own inherent density of vitamin D receptors (and metabolic functioning). Higher amounts may be needed for a time to remediate deficiency states, however, or for spe¬cific conditions.

Active, usable dietary vitamin D3 is found almost exclusively in ani¬mal and fish body fats and is not stored in any one organ.

The dogmas promoting low-fat diets, ultraviolet sunlight fear-monger¬ing hysteria, and sun protection factor (SPF) sunscreen lotions have been responsible for rampant deficiencies of this potentially lifesaving nutrient (vitamin D3) and its important cofactors. The body is able to manufacture I vitamin D from a combination of its precursor ergocalciferol, vitamin D2, I which is found in some plant foods, and a form of cholesterol in the skin when exposed to UVB sunlight. Of course, this presupposes adequate levels of UVB sunlight (which is markedly insufficient in the more northern latitudes), adequate sun exposure (which almost no one gets, even in sunny locations), and an absence of any sunscreens worn. SPF sunscreen lotions stop natural vitamin D production dead in its tracks and may actually make you more susceptible—not less—to various skin cancers (including deadly melanoma) and many other cancers.
Living in the Pacific Northwest, where there are above-average rates of cancer and seasonal affective disorders, I have yet to measure vitamin D levels in a person (other than yours truly) that showed actual blood levels even approaching optimal sufficiency (according to Vitamin D Council guidelines).

[...]Far and away the safest manner of obtaining adequate vitamin D is exposure to natural sunlight. In many areas of the country and during much of the year, however, this can be an impractical, if not impossible, proposition. Tanning beds using UVB bulbs can be another surprisingly viable option. Vitamin D obtained via natural sunlight has no potential vitamin D toxicity, though it will increase your requirement for vitamin A.

Note that only UVB light, from the sun or tanning bulbs, will convert to vitamin D in combination with nutrient precursors and cholesterol in your skin. If you are inclined to use a tanning bed, always ask for one I with the highest percentage of.UVB bulbs for this purpose and patronize only reputable and sanitary tanning establishments. Take care not to overdo it; a sunburn is never a good thing!

Make sure to take quality cod-liver oil, too, to get adequate vitamin A, especially after being out in the sun, as sunlight exposure depletes vitamin A levels (Sullivan 2006). [...]

Those people with a diet excessively high in omega-6 fats (from soy¬bean oil, sunflower oil, canola oil, safflower oil, corn oil, and cottonseed oil), trans fats, and other processed fats and excessively low in both satu¬rated fat and cholesterol are far and away the most vulnerable to skin can¬cers as well as numerous other cancers. These diets are also much more likely to_wrinkle your skin. Damaged, rancid, artificial, or overly processed fats are known to damage DNA and generate particularly dangerous free-radical activity. The problem is not natural sunlight or some "SPF lotion deficiency" or some deficiency of any other magic potion marketed for your skin, but rather, it's what you put inside your body that most deter¬mines your susceptibility to skin cancer and wrinkles.
Malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, has been widely associated with vital vitamin D deficiency. And what is everyone rushing to do? They lavishly apply sunscreen to supposedly prevent the very thing for which they're actually increasing their risk. It's crazy! People almost seem to suffer from sunlight-avoidant hysteria. The only people genuinely benefiting from sunscreens in this world are the ones who sell them. Most SPF sunscreens use a base made of omega-6 oil, (likely rancid), and they tend to be formulated with many toxic and carcinogenic chemicals for the ultimate effect of blocking not only sunlight but vitamin D production as well.
 

Bluestar

Jedi Council Member
Thank you Psyche for posting this info. Have not been able to get this book yet. As soon as I am able will do so.

The balancing act of getting the correct amount of vitamins and such has been on my mind lately. Though my current situation is rather stressful and I do not have a lot of free time. Working on the low carb diet is my focus for now and most likely will do the balancing for me when I get to ketosis.

Thanks again for posting.
 
Top Bottom