On March 14, Dr. Joseph Mercola, put up a post on his website, “Clearing Up Confusion on Vitamin D — Why I Don’t Recommend the Marshall Protocol.” As someone who has written and published on different aspects of the Marshall Pathogenesis and the Protocol, this article piqued my interest.

Looking through the article, it’s clear that even some of the most basic aspects of the science behind the Marshall Pathogenesis and Protocol seem to have eluded Dr. Mercola. Apparently, Dr. Mercola read my About the Marshall Protocol article and not much else – certainly not any of Dr. Marshall and team’s peer-reviewed published research or conference presentations, all of which are available online.

In fact, Mercola readily admits that his primary source of information when learning about the Marshall Protocol was a conference in Chicago he attended given by Dr. Marshall “nearly ten years ago.” I can only assume Dr. Mercola is referring to the Chicago conference, which was not even four years ago.

The problem isn’t that Dr. Mercola is critical of the MP – those of us who work with Autoimmunity Research Foundation are always willing to engage even our detractors in a discussion of the science and the treatment. The problem is that Mercola’s characterization of the Marshall Protocol is very wrong.

Perhaps the biggest issue I have is his unfair characterization of light and the MP. Do all Marshall Protocol patients have to restrict light? No. That’s something I discussed over a year ago in my article Top 14 misconceptions about the MP: addressed and explained. Light restriction is only necessary for patients who are photosensitive, and many are. However, as the article discusses, photosensitivity wanes over time, and almost all the patients in later stages of the MP no longer need to restrict light. Nor do people who are healthy.

The people who wear the “strange glasses” that Dr. Mercola references in his article (which are just sunglasses) do so not because Trevor Marshall has declared it to be so, but because the glasses reduce light-related symptom flares. While the molecular nature of these flares is unknown, they correlate directly with the presence of chronic bacteria in patients on the MP. It is these bacteria and not the Marshall Protocol that cause temporary photosensitivity in MP subjects. As the bacteria are killed, light sensitivity decreases and finally disappears.

I can testify to this myself. When dealing with a high bacterial load at the onset of the MP I had to stay out of the sun and wear sunglasses, even inside. But after four years on the MP, my bacterial load is low and I’m currently in Lake Tahoe enjoying the sun, wearing glasses in only very bright sunlight. Dr. Marshall couldn’t be happier.

This is something I tried to explain in a response to Dr. Mercola’s article, but curiously that comment was never approved. Meanwhile, I see a number of other comments by repeat posters have been approved – even ones that are harshly critical. I guess this is what happens when you try to correct Dr. Mercola on one of his demonstrably incorrect points. Maybe if I sounded more clownish and attacked the man personally I would get my comment approved?

Meanwhile my colleague Paul Albert has just notified me that Dr. Mercola failed to accept two of his comments that provide other important corrections to the interpretation of the MP discussed in your piece. It seems as if Dr. Mercola is not accepting comments from people who work closely with the MP, who deal with MP patients on a regular basis, or those who have been best trained to understand the molecular science behind the treatment. While he claims to write his articles because of a deep concern for his readers’ health, is hiding substantive criticism really providing them with a picture that allows them to make the most informed choice?

Joseph Mercola’s crude recitation of the science behind the MP leaves out vital information. What about the elevated levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D in patients with autoimmune disease? A recent peer reviewed paper by Dr. Greg Blaney found that 80 of 100 patients with autoimmune diagnoses had elevated 1,25-D. How about the evidence that patients with inflammatory diseases have reduced expression by the PXR nuclear receptor such that expression of CYP27A1 is inhibited, which downregulates conversion of vitamin D into 25-D?

Did any of that make into Dr. Mercola’s analysis? It did not.

Instead, Mercola “cites” the likes of Mark London (there’s a footnote and everything), a man who maintains a webpage about the MP after he was banned from the MP study site, because of Lyme rage. Despite the “edu” domain for his site, Mr. London has no scientific or medical training. In the past year, I have given about a half dozen presentations and had four papers accepted for publication by peer-reviewed scholarly journals. I can only imagine the kind of look I would get if I cited Mark London’s webpage.

So, here I am arguing about vitamin D with a person who makes money selling tanning beds and vitamin D supplements. Can such a person remain objective on vitamin D in the face of new molecular evidence which suggests that such products exacerbate disease? I suppose it’s possible, but Dr. Mercola’s latest article does not bode well.