So, I'm thoroughly confused now. I've been reading up on biofilms, auto-immune diseases, and the Marshall Protocol. The Marshall camp suggests that Vitamin D supplementation, while being extremely effective in the short term, will likely be detrimental in the long term because it impairs the function/activity of the vitamin D receptor. Like taking a conventional corticosteroid, it can dramatically reduce inflammation and modulate the immune system - but greatly increases the chance and severity of relapse in the long run.
They suggest low dose, pulsed antibiotics to destroy low-grade biofilm bacterial infections, and the vitamin D receptor agonist "olmesartan" to promote vitamin D activity while also remedying vitamin D metabolism (for serious "chronic inflammatory diseases", as they define them). The protocol seems to be supported by very little documented empirical evidence, but does have intriguing anecdotal and circumstantial support.
What concerns me most is their critique of vitamin D supplementation. Among other charges, they suggest that Vitamin D studies are flawed by their short term focus, that many populations with low vitamin D levels nonetheless show high vitamin D "activity" and are healthy in terms of chronic disease incidence, and that both observational and interventional studies on vitamin D have had wildly inconsistent results. On a more emotionally charged note, levels of vitamin D in breastmilk are very low, despite supplementation in pregnant women.
So what gives? I was hoping the community had already grappled with this, but I couldn't find anything terribly relevant when searching. Can some people smarter than me please explain?