Lupus - patients with autoimmune diseases have genetic problems in vitamin D metabolism, especially in their vitamin D receptor (VDR). Newly published study concludes that VDR is inversely associated with lupus activity (how much more "regulated" the VDR, less active is the disease, less inflammation). Note: the Coimbra protocol actually treats lupus and other autoimmune with high doses of vitamin D.
______
The expression of vitamin D receptor in peripheral blood cells is associated inversely with the activity of the disease and inflammation in patients with lupus.
(Clinical Rheumatology - 18/05/19)
"Objective: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is characterized by uncontrolled production of inflammatory cytokines. The Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) has powerful anti-inflammatory activities. The aim of this study was to examine the correlation between the expression of VDR and the inflammation and activity of the disease in patients with them.
Conclusion: The expression of VDR of PBMC (peripheral blood mononuclear cells) is associated inversely with the activity of disease and inflammation in patients with them, and the regulation to the low of VDR is probably driven by inflammation."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31104216
______
⚠ the scientific studies published here are informative and do not replace a medical consultation.
Post Credit: Dr. Ricardo Alcantara Arteaga
https://www.facebook.com/eduardo.zepeda.9469/posts/2248643841892327

#lupus #autoimmune #autoimmunedisease #SLE#systemiclupuserythematosus #cicerocoimbra #coimbraprotocol#coimbravitaminDprotocol #vitaminD

I spoke to a member of our group this morning who has an upcoming MRI.  The member commented that they were not sure how it was going to turn out because they had seen a lot of improvement but still had a way to go.  It made me realize that this can be a confusing subject, so I wanted to try to explain it.  It bothered me that many people may be feeling that there is no improvement based on physical symptoms and I wanted to clear up some misconceptions and hopefully remove some unnecessary worries.
Disability occurs as a result of damage to the myelin to the point that the neuron can no longer conduct signals and transport them to the intended target.
Having disability does not mean you have active disease. It means you have prior damage. You can have inactive disease and still have disability.
The good news is that you have these cells called oligodendrocytes, and their job is to rebuild myelin. Until 2015, oligodendrocytes were thought to be inefficient at this, but Cambridge University in England put out a landmark study here showing that: 

"By adding vitamin D to brain stem cells where the proteins were present, they found the production rate of oligodendrocytes (myelin making cells) increased by 80%. When they blocked the vitamin D receptor to stop it from working, the RXR gamma protein alone was unable to stimulate the production of oligodendrocytes."

So please don't feel as though your disease is not suppressed because you're still seeing symptoms. Recent damage (about 12 months out) will likely see reversal. Anything older than that may or may not be repaired, but if it does, it takes time. Some don't feel improvements for several years. 
Please don't lose heart if you're not *seeing* the effect right away, that does not mean it is not working. Just like the damage was working under the radar for quite some time before you noticed initial symptoms, in the same way those oligodendrocytes are hard at work trying to undo all of that damage. It's amazing when physical improvements occur, but the main benefit of the protocol is prevent future activity. 

It is a fact that many medical discoveries were first met with initial skepticism and mockery. Much of the skepticism today is a result of the barrage of ads we see daily. One need to look no further than any webpage to find advertisements touting wrinkle removers and miracle diets to confirm this fact.

Scurvy, a disease that took the lives of more sailors in the 18th century than the enemy did, was discovered to be a deficiency of vitamin C.  Today, no one in the medical community would argue with this fact.  A quick Google search will provide you with stories of unconventional people who left the medical community dumbfounded regarding a simple solution to what was considered a complex malady.

A topic more close to home is the discovery that vitamin D deficiency was responsible for rickets. In 2017, it is common knowledge that this is indeed the case.

I contend that in the coming years, we will find the same is true concerning autoimmune diseases. I, along with thousands of others who have had their disease suppressed, already know this. Most of us feel a deep obligation to show others what we have found.  A better way.  A safer way.  A more effective way.  

Yesterday, I learned of a man diagnosed with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy a disease with a very high mortality rate, especially in patients that carry the John Cunningham or JC Virus.  Of course, my first thought was, "This is heartbreaking. If this man had found the Coimbra Protocol his story would have turned out much differently.

Much our our contemporary society has been conditioned to trust medications as the only alternative, but this is not the case at all. I will be the first to admit, that I never took a second look at any therapy that involved, herbs, supplements or the like 2 years ago, but nearly 2 years and 3 clear MRIs later, I tell people the joke was on me! Not only does this treatment work well, it rivals any of the drugs out there in terms of financial burden, safety and efficacy. There is just one caveat, vitamin D toxicity.

If you tell most physicians that you're interested in trying a new therapy that involves taking mega doses of vitamin D, your comment will almost certainly be met with strong objection and most likely a refusal to help...but why? Many will say, money talks, and in many cases, sadly that is the case, but I would like to believe--and it has been my experience--that most physicians are good people and it is more a case of lack of information. This notion of mega doses of vitamin D terrifies them, especially in our litigious society. 

It has been in medical textbooks for years that high doses of vitamin D results in vitamin D toxicity, but regardless of what the medical establishment has said, they cannot explain why thousands of us are alive and well today with no sign of hypercalcemia or subsequent cardiac, arterial or kidney damage when we follow the protocol correctly.

The truth is vitamin D toxicity is a real problem. It is serious and we should never take it lightly. However, the protocol mitigates this issue 2 major ways:

1.  Limitation of products that contain excess calcium with nuts and dairy products at the top of the list.

2.  Sufficient hydration.  We say 2.5 liters of water per day to flush any excess calcium through the kidneys. 

Your body gets calcium from 2 places, your bones and your diet. When you follow the above rules and have your calcium levels monitored during periodic visits, you can implement the protocol safely and effectively. We also supplement with sufficient quantities of magnesium to further protect us from hypercalcemia.

The next question is usually in regard to osteoporosis. If you're not supplementing with enough calcium in your diet, then doesn't your body deplete your calcium stores resulting in osteoporosis? 

We restrict excessive-dairy foods. We do not completely omit all dairy as that would be unsafe as well, and this helps to maintain the balance as well as weight bearing exercises to preserve the bone deposition and resorption process that is constantly building and strengthening our bones.

The conscientious physician should be able to look objectively at this model and see how logical and practical it is.  We applaud the one's that do.  They will change history.

Dr. Coimbra (2017, German interview) We avoid complete suppression of PTH production to avoid potentially toxic doses of vitamin D. I can't suppress PTH causing it to be undetectable because if I did that the patient would be at risk of developing hypercalcaemia and consequent kidney damage. Thus, parathormone is also a safety parameter for us, a security level. If I do not suppress parathormone, I'm sure I'm not giving toxic doses of vitamin D. I can balance it to the specific biological resistance to the effects of vitamin D that the individual has for hereditary genetic reasons. Kidney stones (for instance, composed of calcium oxalate) may still occur in a few patients (without hypercalcemia or hypercalciuria) as it may also occur in any other individual bearing a tendency for excessive oxalate production independently on vitamin D therapy. That is another reason why it is so important to maintain a minimal daily hydration of 2,5 liters. They would be toxic for people who have a normal response to vitamin D – but not in vitamin-d-resistance. It is also important to understand that therapeutic use of Vitamin D3 is very different from preventive use. The therapeutic use of vitamin D always requires the guidance and monitoring by a physician with specific training to analyse each particular case and to determine the right dose. Otherwise there may be serious damage to health. People following our protocol also have to eat a very low-calcium diet, with complete restriction of dairy products and drink at least 2,5 litres of water a day. Also urinary and blood calcium have to be carefully monitored. These are measures to protect the kidneys. Apart from that, our patients have to maintain a daily aerobic exercise and obtain periodical dexa-scans to make sure their bones stay healthy.
​
FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FOLLOW THE DIET, THESE ARE SOME OF THE EFFECTS YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO. PLEASE!!! DO NOT DO THIS WITHOUT THE GUIDANCE OF A PHYSICIAN. UNDER A PHYSICIAN’S CARE IT IS EXTREMELY SAFE!!!

Read below to find out why they have not used it with MS. At the moment many practitioners may be hesitant, as no clinical RCTs with your protocol have been conducted – why is that the case?
This question is very important because physicians can't randomize metabolic alterations that cause disease: they are obliged to correct them. If there's one person who has a metabolic disorder diagnosed through laboratory - for example a person with hypothyroidism: a deficiency in thyroid hormones that is potentially lethal and can cause damages to someone's health, if it is not adjusted. I have to correct it. Another example is that of type 1 diabetes, in children that can't produce insulin. Physicians are obliged to correct this deficit and have to administer insulin. So, in those circumstances, when the patient has a metabolic problem, a deficiency, a sort of resistance inherited, in relation to a hormone or a vitamin, the caring physician is ethically obliged to intervene to adjust it. Doing otherwise could be regarded as negligence. So, if you are talking of a double-blind and randomized research, you are teling me that I will have one group of patients that will treat for example with high doses of vitamin D and a group of patients who will receive placebo; and both doctors and patients involved in this research don't know who are the patients receiving vitamin D and who are receiving placebo. Well, one couldn't do this kind of research with diabetic children, for example. We have never done a randomized double-blind research to know if insulin is suitable for diabetic children!
We have never done and will never do. The same happens with people with hyperthyroidism, since we are forced to give a treatment. A randomized double-blind study will never be done, where a group receives thyroid hormones and the other receives placebo. The same happens in case of a deficiency of vitamin B12. A vitamin B12 deficiency can cause a devastating neurologic disease destroying the spinal cord, so you can't leave a person that suffers from a deficiency of vitamin B12 without treatment, because that would be negligence. You can't leave a person that suffers of pellagra, with a deficiency of niacin (vitamin B3) without treatment, because this can cause diarrhea, dermatitis and even death. So, you can't leave these persons with treatable deficiencies. If I make a randomized double-blind study, I will be negligent with 50% of my patients. The placebo group will be victim of medical negligence. This is a very important concept because nowadays the medical community has been taught that all the results published in the literature are not to be considered if they aren't the result of a randomized double-blind study. This is a big mistake. Especially for nutrients and hormones. So we don't have any randomized double-blind study and we will never do one with any of the patients under our care because of the two great basic principles in medicine, that are taught in all western medical schools around the world. The first principle says not to worsen the state, not to hurt, not to act on your patient in such a way that worsens his clinical state. And the second principle says that the patient has to receive all the possible benefits. Then, if I left a patient with uncorrected vitamin D deficiency (or uncompensated vitamin D resistance) – although aware that vitamin D is a great immunomodulator, probably the most powerful immunomodulator substance existing in nature - a patient with an autoimmune disease who has an unregulated immune system producing aberrant TH17-immunological reaction, if I leave this patient with deficient levels of the only substance that, selectively and powerfully, is able to inhibit this TH17 reaction and induce the proliferation of regulatory lymphocytes, I will be negligent toward this person. So, I will never do a randomized double-blind study using vitamin D and placebo with persons having autoimmune disease. Why? Because I wouldn’t do this sort of things with my daughter, my wife and I won't do it with my patients. Whenever there is a cause-effect relationship (like vitamin D deficiency or resistance causing autoimmune diseases), the cause has to be removed, or disease activity would be sustained. We have thousands of documented cases that more than demonstrate our concept. A fundamental issue regarding RCTs is that the therapeutic efficiency of our protocol cannot be tested that way. RCTs require giving the same daily dose of vitamin D to all individuals involved in the experimental group, and the research physician who is supposed to administer the substances has to be blind to what he is giving each patient (placebo or testing substance). In our protocol the caring physician has to calculate (from laboratory data) the daily dose of vitamin D to be given. The result is a wide range of daily doses, each one tailored to the needs of each specific patient as to compensate for his / her individual needs (his / her specific level of resistance to vitamin D). So the caring physician cannot be blind to what the patient is taking. Another fundamental issue is that there is at least one RCT available where Finish researchers have used 20,000 IU of vitamin D weekly. That is equivalent to less than 3,000 IU per day – much less than the minimal dose of 7,000 IU per day, which is now recognized to be the minimal dose to correct vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. Nevertheless, they have shown a reduced number of active lesions on the MRI after one year of treatment compared to the placebo group.
We started using vitamin D to treat autoimmune disease for the patients’ sake. Our objective wasn't the research, wasn't to convince anyone but was simply satisfying the second principle of the medical practice: to benefit the patient in the most optimal way. Namely, if the patient has a deficiency of a powerful immunoregulator, known and documented, we have to correct this deficiency. If he has a resistance, we have to increase the dose in such a way that this deficiency is compensated. We have gathered a lot of data during this period, and we got experience with the adjustment of the dose for these patients. We have published preliminary data about vitiligo and psoriasis, as these are the only diseases that we were able to get an approval by the ethical-medical committee of the UNIFESP (our university) to do any research on. We would like it done also for other diseases, but, unfortunately we do not get approval for reasons that many times we don't understand – how can it be unethical to find a treatment that could benefit, in the same way we don't understand how the ethical condition to correct a nutrient-deficiency in a patient could be denied. I am not able to understand this, however the answer has been negative for many diseases. But even if we are not allowed to research, this hasn't stopped us from continuing to treat our patients according to their interest and we have accumulated great experience and thousands of very well documented cases. And when we will have the possibility, we will solicit an ethical committee to allow us to evaluate these cases retrospectively. Because you need this approval for scientific publications: If I want to submit a publication to a journal with 2,500 patients treated with high doses of vitamin D, the journal editor will ask us for the approval of the ethical committee - otherwise they will not be able to publish. So first we have to request the ethical committee to approve a revision of the medical records of these patients. With the revision of the medical records we could send the material to a medical journal. Let's hope we don't get problems.
​
Dr. Cicero Coimbra, MD, PhD (excerpt from German interview)