Drs. Paul Marik and Justus Hope introduce the ROOT Protocols—combining nutraceuticals and repurposed drugs to reduce cancer risk—featured in the latest edition of the Journal of Independent Medicine.
You could likely find some of these in combo, but the dose would become tricky. Then there are other considerations, like dose timing, and as Surak has pointed out, D3 + K2 benefits from timing alongside fats (these are fat-soluble vitamins). Some could be taken on an empty stomach, some are best taken with food, there may be side effects to watch for, etc. It's best to discuss this kind of plan with a healthcare professional if possible, and it's often recommended to titrate up (increase dose over time).
I am a bit skeptical about the recommended doses for prevention. They may be appropriate for treatment, but I question the safety of taking 4000 mg essential fatty acids daily for an extended period. One's doctor should be consulted, especially if taking other blood thinners like vitamin E for example.
@Surak, @TheScamDoctor I am repeating two and adding another comment here so they will not fall below the one by TheScamDoctor who seems to have deleted my replies on his stack. I apologise for the duplication and the loss of sequence.
=====
@TheScamDoctor
I left this same reply after your post and repeat it here as it seems to offer little remedy except ignoring the deficiency.
-----
Yeah, as with most supplements and medication the dose for a jockey and a sumo wrestler should not be the same. Many researchers have found that the dose of Vitamin-D3 is clearly body weight dependent with a growing number finding that the requirement is increased with increasing obesity above what just body weight suggests. I have tabulated what I have extracted from the research and made some handy tables that provide a first approximation of what one could take to try and achieve physiological serum levels. I link here to my chart and if you scroll back a bit you will get my other more general suggestions. Basically about half of urban (edit: thinking here of clothed, indoor living predominantly non equatorial people) folk are deficient and taking a supplement is prudent if you do not get daily equatorial sun on a lot of skin.
Yep, you are right, urban living on it's own is not a cause of Vitamin-D3 deficiency. However it is strongly correlated with Western lifestyle and as I edited above to clarify with high latitudes, heavier clothing and indoor living.
In Finland at 60+ latitude we only have a few months with elevated sunshine, for many months we can make no Vitamin-D3. The rural people here may spend a bit more time outdoors but it is true that it will not help them much. At the bottom of the page I linked above is a graph showing serum values for a Swedish cohort and the annual fluctuation is significant and mostly deficient, I expect the same for all high latitudes.
Thank you for the sub, I have not posted about Vitamin-D3 here on SubStack but do share what I know in the comments. I collected most of my research on the pages linked above but sort of gave up because the entrenched system was captured and regular folk mostly were not interested.
=====
@TheScamDoctor
What you are saying sounds exactly like a psy op to confuse people about the need to be replete with Vitamin-D3. There are a few making the rounds based on misinterpretations perhaps unintentional at first but then weaponised and allowed to thrive with systematic support.
Sometimes well meaning people get caught up in promoting these myths without understanding what they are promoting, if one reads the research it becomes clear what is real and what is not. The first important thing to come to terms with is that humans evolved to have a certain physiological production of Vitamin-D3 near the tropics on uncovered skin. When humans migrated away from the tropics those communities failed to thrive (frank Vitamin-D3 deficiency causes Rickets and severely hinders childbirth) unless they lost some of their pigmentation. When we cover our skin for modesty or emigrate from the tropics faster than we can loose our pigmentation or spend our days indoors due to work, air conditioning we will be deficient. We also know that some animals gain their Vitamin-D3 from their diet (not humans, though the Inuit are an exception) and sheep and some other animals secrete the precursor to Vitamin-D3 (7-Dehydrocholesterol in lanolin) and then ingest it after solar UV converts it into the vitamin while grooming themselves (or flock mates) because they do not get sun on their skin. So simply put, if you do not get enough sun you need to ingest adequate Vitamin-D3.
Your claim that "Vitamin D supplements have zero beneficial effects on those problems" and that would would have been possible to make about 20-30 years ago but since then the growing volume of evidence shows clearly that it was wrong. Rickets was the first condition that was discovered over 100 years ago due to industrial urbanisation that blanketed cities with coal fire smog. It was called the "English Disease". You can read the link here and see that you are simply wrong in your assertion and I suspect much of your conviction relies on similar falsehoods.
Below is a very comprehensive page on the history of vitamin-D and the scientific findings that are not imagined, they are repeatably tested and used to determine the value and functions of the Vitamin. Dismissing what is known to be real and repeating what is known to be false is a sign of capture by harmful forces. Is that how you want to be remembered?
I left this same reply after your post and repeat it here as it seems to offer little remedy except ignoring the deficiency.
-----
Yeah, as with most supplements and medication the dose for a jockey and a sumo wrestler should not be the same. Many researchers have found that the dose of Vitamin-D3 is clearly body weight dependent with a growing number finding that the requirement is increased with increasing obesity above what just body weight suggests. I have tabulated what I have extracted from the research and made some handy tables that provide a first approximation of what one could take to try and achieve physiological serum levels. I link here to my chart and if you scroll back a bit you will get my other more general suggestions. Basically about half of urban (edit: thinking here of clothed, indoor living predominantly non equatorial people) folk are deficient and taking a supplement is prudent if you do not get daily equatorial sun on a lot of skin.
I subscribed because I like the name of your Substack. ;)
I disagree with one thing you wrote. Vitamin D deficiency is not correlated with whether you are "urban folk" or not, but it is correlated with whether you have darker skin color and are living far away from equatorial-tropical latitudes.
Yep, you are right, urban living on it's own is not a cause of Vitamin-D3 deficiency. However it is strongly correlated with Western lifestyle and as I edited above to clarify with high latitudes, heavier clothing and indoor living.
In Finland at 60+ latitude we only have a few months with elevated sunshine, for many months we can make no Vitamin-D3. The rural people here may spend a bit more time outdoors but it is true that it will not help them much. At the bottom of the page I linked above is a graph showing serum values for a Swedish cohort and the annual fluctuation is significant and mostly deficient, I expect the same for all high latitudes.
Thank you for the sub, I have not posted about Vitamin-D3 here on SubStack but do share what I know in the comments. I collected most of my research on the pages linked above but sort of gave up because the entrenched system was captured and regular folk mostly were not interested.
Weight is just one factor that affects serum levels, I go over a couple others in the post. It is true many people are deficient. It is NOT true that taking a supplement is prudent.
As I say in the post, low Vitamin D is *associated with* a lot of problems, but Vitamin D supplements have zero beneficial effects on those problems.
Dear @TheScamDoctor I will reply to an earlier comment earlier in this thread to prevent you deleting my comments by removing your own as you did on your own stack.
I had a relative who never went outside except open drive 1/4 mile to store every 2 weeks. I used to tease her about being a vampire because she never went outside. She maintained her vitamin D supplement was just as good as sunshine. She died from cancer.
I have a question regarding the curcumin part of this. Of course, turmeric is the base spice that contains the ingredient curcumin, so is it 4 grams of turmeric (a big dose but manageable) or 4 grams of curcumin (this would be quite a lot)? Also was wondering about the addition of the COX2 inhibitor celecoxib to the protocol.. any reservations regarding blood thinning and bleeding risk? (Lots of blood-thinning supps in here.) Thx.
No, 4 grams of turmeric does not equal 4 grams of curcumin. Turmeric is around 10% curcumin. It's recommended to titrate up to a dose of 4 grams per day. There are definitely considerations when it comes to blood thinning, it's important for people to work with their doctor when starting any new protocol though. Dr. Marik and Dr. Hope's work is a base guidance, and with medical supervision, the individual protocol will vary from person to person.
I've looked into turmeric and curcumin extensively. I have yet to find a single example of clear benefit in humans. You may be able to point me towards a study that shows some benefit?
Thank you. The part relevant to my question is #10, clinical trials. The rest is mere hypothesis from experiments in a chemistry lab, similar to the work I was doing before medical school.
Coincidentally, I have read this review before. The first clinical trial has incredibly low statistical power, not very useful at all by itself. Same with the 3rd clinical trial looking at only 29 patients. This is especially disappointing because multiple myeloma isn't very rare, so it should be easier to study large numbers of people.
The second clinical trial is a Phase 1 trial. They are simply looking at how much curcumin can safely be given to a person before they can no longer tolerate side effects.
The rest are either planned or ongoing trials. To sum it up: this review summarizes that we do not have any convincing data that curcumin affects cancer outcomes in humans.
Message to the mindless and the scam doctor. Ivermectin, fenbendazole, cannabis oil, Curcumin, soursop wormwood all work the same way as micro tubule disruptors, all are potent anticancer substances. Hint beware of disinformation agents.
Yes I understand your frustration - as I'm sure you're well aware, big pharma (and others) have no interest in looking at biological effects when they can't own a patent on it. Be that as it may, I take it every day with dried ginger as it costs pennies and there are no side effects!
If curcumin was provably effective for something, Big Pharma could 100% profit off of it. All they would have to do is change the molecule slightly to make it more effective. That's one of the most common ways new drugs have been made. That's what they did with turning penicillin into amoxicillin and salicin into acetylsalicylic acid.
When Big Pharma can't prove a chemical is useful, Big Supplement steps in to profit off of it since there's zero proof needed to sell a supplement.
P.S. anything at all that has a therapeutic effect also has side effects. If it can have a biological effect on the body for good, it can have a biological effect on the body for bad.
Couldn't agree more. It's truely sobering to see the rising incidence. How can we ensure these crucial preventative strategies reach everyone equitably? Fantastic and vital work, Dr. Marik and Dr. Hope.
A terminally ill cancer-patient (prostate, metastasis to the bones, etc) cured himself with prolonged (40+ days) fasting and proper nutrition (garlic, etc).
He has a channel on JewTube.
I think that fasting and boosting the immune system would be sufficient in most people having a functional immune system.
Certainly any model that focuses on prevention, healthy and corrective lifestyle changes, and early intervention goes without saying and without argument. But for you to suggest that "Oncologists bill separately for chemotherapy products and make a margin; this creates an unethical incentive to prescribe these toxic and mostly ineffective agents" without any evidence whatsoever is despicable and subverts and divisively & purposely sows distrust in patients and their families who would and should have for their primary oncologist. You would have us believe that each and every oncologist is unethically motivated by pure greed alone, which is an absolute lie and you know it, just as you know that your "prescriptive" regimen for cancer treatment is completely ineffective for every patient, and you are being equally dishonest. Why not, then, go on record with the claim that each and every patient should abandon traditional medical oncology, dispense with the tedious and greedy oncologists with their toxic medications with all the noxious side-effects, and give them a 100% guarantee that your combination of "alternative products" will cure each and every case of cancer? Even you are not foolish enough, nor stupid enough to do so. In my estimation, you are not "miracle workers," but just plain lucky.
Is there a formulation that combines all ingredients in one ROOT protocol? Which brands are best for each ingredient?
You could likely find some of these in combo, but the dose would become tricky. Then there are other considerations, like dose timing, and as Surak has pointed out, D3 + K2 benefits from timing alongside fats (these are fat-soluble vitamins). Some could be taken on an empty stomach, some are best taken with food, there may be side effects to watch for, etc. It's best to discuss this kind of plan with a healthcare professional if possible, and it's often recommended to titrate up (increase dose over time).
I am not aware of a single omnibus formula. However, I take these:
https://www.healthydirections.com/products/heart-health/omega-q-plus-max
Includes essential fatty acids, L-carnitine, turmeric (curcumin), CoQ10, resveratrol, B6, folate, B12, chromium.
https://www.swansonvitamins.com/p/swanson-premium-nac-detox-milk-thistle-broccophane-60-caps
Includes NAC (important for detox), milk thistle (same), and sulforaphanes.
https://www.sportsresearch.com/products/vitamin-d3-k2
D3+K2 (should both be taken together) in coconut oil MCT.
https://www.swansonvitamins.com/p/now-foods-egcg-green-tea-extract-400-mg-400-mg-180-caps
EGCG
I am a bit skeptical about the recommended doses for prevention. They may be appropriate for treatment, but I question the safety of taking 4000 mg essential fatty acids daily for an extended period. One's doctor should be consulted, especially if taking other blood thinners like vitamin E for example.
@Surak, @TheScamDoctor I am repeating two and adding another comment here so they will not fall below the one by TheScamDoctor who seems to have deleted my replies on his stack. I apologise for the duplication and the loss of sequence.
=====
@TheScamDoctor
I left this same reply after your post and repeat it here as it seems to offer little remedy except ignoring the deficiency.
-----
Yeah, as with most supplements and medication the dose for a jockey and a sumo wrestler should not be the same. Many researchers have found that the dose of Vitamin-D3 is clearly body weight dependent with a growing number finding that the requirement is increased with increasing obesity above what just body weight suggests. I have tabulated what I have extracted from the research and made some handy tables that provide a first approximation of what one could take to try and achieve physiological serum levels. I link here to my chart and if you scroll back a bit you will get my other more general suggestions. Basically about half of urban (edit: thinking here of clothed, indoor living predominantly non equatorial people) folk are deficient and taking a supplement is prudent if you do not get daily equatorial sun on a lot of skin.
https://cholecalciferol.miraheze.org/wiki/Kalle_Pihlajasaari#Easy_chart_to_estimate_a_default_Vitamin-D3_dose
=====
@Surak
Yep, you are right, urban living on it's own is not a cause of Vitamin-D3 deficiency. However it is strongly correlated with Western lifestyle and as I edited above to clarify with high latitudes, heavier clothing and indoor living.
In Finland at 60+ latitude we only have a few months with elevated sunshine, for many months we can make no Vitamin-D3. The rural people here may spend a bit more time outdoors but it is true that it will not help them much. At the bottom of the page I linked above is a graph showing serum values for a Swedish cohort and the annual fluctuation is significant and mostly deficient, I expect the same for all high latitudes.
Thank you for the sub, I have not posted about Vitamin-D3 here on SubStack but do share what I know in the comments. I collected most of my research on the pages linked above but sort of gave up because the entrenched system was captured and regular folk mostly were not interested.
=====
@TheScamDoctor
What you are saying sounds exactly like a psy op to confuse people about the need to be replete with Vitamin-D3. There are a few making the rounds based on misinterpretations perhaps unintentional at first but then weaponised and allowed to thrive with systematic support.
Sometimes well meaning people get caught up in promoting these myths without understanding what they are promoting, if one reads the research it becomes clear what is real and what is not. The first important thing to come to terms with is that humans evolved to have a certain physiological production of Vitamin-D3 near the tropics on uncovered skin. When humans migrated away from the tropics those communities failed to thrive (frank Vitamin-D3 deficiency causes Rickets and severely hinders childbirth) unless they lost some of their pigmentation. When we cover our skin for modesty or emigrate from the tropics faster than we can loose our pigmentation or spend our days indoors due to work, air conditioning we will be deficient. We also know that some animals gain their Vitamin-D3 from their diet (not humans, though the Inuit are an exception) and sheep and some other animals secrete the precursor to Vitamin-D3 (7-Dehydrocholesterol in lanolin) and then ingest it after solar UV converts it into the vitamin while grooming themselves (or flock mates) because they do not get sun on their skin. So simply put, if you do not get enough sun you need to ingest adequate Vitamin-D3.
Your claim that "Vitamin D supplements have zero beneficial effects on those problems" and that would would have been possible to make about 20-30 years ago but since then the growing volume of evidence shows clearly that it was wrong. Rickets was the first condition that was discovered over 100 years ago due to industrial urbanisation that blanketed cities with coal fire smog. It was called the "English Disease". You can read the link here and see that you are simply wrong in your assertion and I suspect much of your conviction relies on similar falsehoods.
https://vitamindwiki.com/pages/proof-that-vitamin-d-works/
Below is a very comprehensive page on the history of vitamin-D and the scientific findings that are not imagined, they are repeatably tested and used to determine the value and functions of the Vitamin. Dismissing what is known to be real and repeating what is known to be false is a sign of capture by harmful forces. Is that how you want to be remembered?
https://vitamindwiki.com/pages/vitamin-d-100-year-anniversary-of-discovery-holick/#the-discovery-of-the-sunshine-vitamin-d
Here's more about vitamin D: https://thescamdoctor.substack.com/p/why-your-vitamin-d-protocol-is-a?r=6hgshq
I left this same reply after your post and repeat it here as it seems to offer little remedy except ignoring the deficiency.
-----
Yeah, as with most supplements and medication the dose for a jockey and a sumo wrestler should not be the same. Many researchers have found that the dose of Vitamin-D3 is clearly body weight dependent with a growing number finding that the requirement is increased with increasing obesity above what just body weight suggests. I have tabulated what I have extracted from the research and made some handy tables that provide a first approximation of what one could take to try and achieve physiological serum levels. I link here to my chart and if you scroll back a bit you will get my other more general suggestions. Basically about half of urban (edit: thinking here of clothed, indoor living predominantly non equatorial people) folk are deficient and taking a supplement is prudent if you do not get daily equatorial sun on a lot of skin.
https://cholecalciferol.miraheze.org/wiki/Kalle_Pihlajasaari#Easy_chart_to_estimate_a_default_Vitamin-D3_dose
I subscribed because I like the name of your Substack. ;)
I disagree with one thing you wrote. Vitamin D deficiency is not correlated with whether you are "urban folk" or not, but it is correlated with whether you have darker skin color and are living far away from equatorial-tropical latitudes.
Yep, you are right, urban living on it's own is not a cause of Vitamin-D3 deficiency. However it is strongly correlated with Western lifestyle and as I edited above to clarify with high latitudes, heavier clothing and indoor living.
In Finland at 60+ latitude we only have a few months with elevated sunshine, for many months we can make no Vitamin-D3. The rural people here may spend a bit more time outdoors but it is true that it will not help them much. At the bottom of the page I linked above is a graph showing serum values for a Swedish cohort and the annual fluctuation is significant and mostly deficient, I expect the same for all high latitudes.
Thank you for the sub, I have not posted about Vitamin-D3 here on SubStack but do share what I know in the comments. I collected most of my research on the pages linked above but sort of gave up because the entrenched system was captured and regular folk mostly were not interested.
Weight is just one factor that affects serum levels, I go over a couple others in the post. It is true many people are deficient. It is NOT true that taking a supplement is prudent.
As I say in the post, low Vitamin D is *associated with* a lot of problems, but Vitamin D supplements have zero beneficial effects on those problems.
Dear @TheScamDoctor I will reply to an earlier comment earlier in this thread to prevent you deleting my comments by removing your own as you did on your own stack.
I didn't delete any comments. Your comments are still there.
Fenbendazole dosage
https://www.fenbendazole.org/fenbendazole-information/fenbendazole-dosage-guide/
I had a relative who never went outside except open drive 1/4 mile to store every 2 weeks. I used to tease her about being a vampire because she never went outside. She maintained her vitamin D supplement was just as good as sunshine. She died from cancer.
I have a question regarding the curcumin part of this. Of course, turmeric is the base spice that contains the ingredient curcumin, so is it 4 grams of turmeric (a big dose but manageable) or 4 grams of curcumin (this would be quite a lot)? Also was wondering about the addition of the COX2 inhibitor celecoxib to the protocol.. any reservations regarding blood thinning and bleeding risk? (Lots of blood-thinning supps in here.) Thx.
No, 4 grams of turmeric does not equal 4 grams of curcumin. Turmeric is around 10% curcumin. It's recommended to titrate up to a dose of 4 grams per day. There are definitely considerations when it comes to blood thinning, it's important for people to work with their doctor when starting any new protocol though. Dr. Marik and Dr. Hope's work is a base guidance, and with medical supervision, the individual protocol will vary from person to person.
We know that curcumin bio availability can be increased by 2000% by adding piperine (found in black pepper).
Therefore should the dose of turmeric combined with black pepper be 2g?
To explain: 2g turmeric = 0.2g curcumin (according to your calculation)
0.2g curcumin X 2000% (when piperine is added) = the equivalent of 4g curcumin
I've looked into turmeric and curcumin extensively. I have yet to find a single example of clear benefit in humans. You may be able to point me towards a study that shows some benefit?
Are you familiar with PubMed?
Yes, that's one of the places where I was unable to locate a specific study showing convincing benefit of curcumin for any indication in humans.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8464730/
Thank you. The part relevant to my question is #10, clinical trials. The rest is mere hypothesis from experiments in a chemistry lab, similar to the work I was doing before medical school.
Coincidentally, I have read this review before. The first clinical trial has incredibly low statistical power, not very useful at all by itself. Same with the 3rd clinical trial looking at only 29 patients. This is especially disappointing because multiple myeloma isn't very rare, so it should be easier to study large numbers of people.
The second clinical trial is a Phase 1 trial. They are simply looking at how much curcumin can safely be given to a person before they can no longer tolerate side effects.
The rest are either planned or ongoing trials. To sum it up: this review summarizes that we do not have any convincing data that curcumin affects cancer outcomes in humans.
Message to the mindless and the scam doctor. Ivermectin, fenbendazole, cannabis oil, Curcumin, soursop wormwood all work the same way as micro tubule disruptors, all are potent anticancer substances. Hint beware of disinformation agents.
Guess you were incapable of reading the comment you replied to? Curcumin, as far as we know, is absolutely useless in cancer.
Yes I understand your frustration - as I'm sure you're well aware, big pharma (and others) have no interest in looking at biological effects when they can't own a patent on it. Be that as it may, I take it every day with dried ginger as it costs pennies and there are no side effects!
If curcumin was provably effective for something, Big Pharma could 100% profit off of it. All they would have to do is change the molecule slightly to make it more effective. That's one of the most common ways new drugs have been made. That's what they did with turning penicillin into amoxicillin and salicin into acetylsalicylic acid.
When Big Pharma can't prove a chemical is useful, Big Supplement steps in to profit off of it since there's zero proof needed to sell a supplement.
P.S. anything at all that has a therapeutic effect also has side effects. If it can have a biological effect on the body for good, it can have a biological effect on the body for bad.
Love Drv Paul Marik HERO!
Thank you for publishing this. You are both a blessing to humanity.
Love Dr Marik thank you & Cheers
Quackery
Couldn't agree more. It's truely sobering to see the rising incidence. How can we ensure these crucial preventative strategies reach everyone equitably? Fantastic and vital work, Dr. Marik and Dr. Hope.
It if works for prevention, how about for a cure?
A terminally ill cancer-patient (prostate, metastasis to the bones, etc) cured himself with prolonged (40+ days) fasting and proper nutrition (garlic, etc).
He has a channel on JewTube.
I think that fasting and boosting the immune system would be sufficient in most people having a functional immune system.
But let's hope no-one of us needs to find out…
Certainly any model that focuses on prevention, healthy and corrective lifestyle changes, and early intervention goes without saying and without argument. But for you to suggest that "Oncologists bill separately for chemotherapy products and make a margin; this creates an unethical incentive to prescribe these toxic and mostly ineffective agents" without any evidence whatsoever is despicable and subverts and divisively & purposely sows distrust in patients and their families who would and should have for their primary oncologist. You would have us believe that each and every oncologist is unethically motivated by pure greed alone, which is an absolute lie and you know it, just as you know that your "prescriptive" regimen for cancer treatment is completely ineffective for every patient, and you are being equally dishonest. Why not, then, go on record with the claim that each and every patient should abandon traditional medical oncology, dispense with the tedious and greedy oncologists with their toxic medications with all the noxious side-effects, and give them a 100% guarantee that your combination of "alternative products" will cure each and every case of cancer? Even you are not foolish enough, nor stupid enough to do so. In my estimation, you are not "miracle workers," but just plain lucky.
Ivermectin - and if you want the protocols which go with it, ask me and I'll post them.
Thank you!!
If you take Metformin should you still take Berberine?
It's definitely something to consider with your doctor. Both can potentially blood sugar