• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Covid-19 and Vitamin D

Status
Not open for further replies.

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,073
Likes
3,235
Generally speaking... it is a bit contradictory to make the hypothesis that there is a conspiracy (by mainstream medicine, media or big pharma - insert your preferred villain here) to hide or minimize something and then quote multiple papers/studies/news stories studying that thing to support the hypothesis the thing in question is being suppressed.
 
OP
Matias

Matias

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
2,390
Likes
3,685
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
Thread Starter #102
Generally speaking... it is a bit contradictory to make the hypothesis that there is a conspiracy (by mainstream medicine, media or big pharma - insert your preferred villain here) to hide or minimize something and then quote multiple papers/studies/news stories studying that thing to support the hypothesis the thing in question is being suppressed.
I wouldn't call a "conspiracy" by the media, government and big pharma deliberate hiding or spreading FUD. But I definitely see people in general and governments ignoring the strong hints, or just simplifying by grouping vitamin D with HCQ, Remdesivir and other non-working treatments and categorize them all as non-working. With thousands dying each day, the responsible people should be accountable for not looking and doing greater research into vitamin D. So no conspiracy, just irresponsible omitted, again in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

capslock

Active Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
116
Likes
45
Pathology labs are not too fussy about what they test for as long as they are paid.

Here is what I would expect from an an Australian medical practitioner: https://www.nps.org.au/australian-prescriber/articles/vitamin-d-deficiency-in-adults-1

Do I know better? Well, if I do a medically unsubstantiated opinion ain't going anywhere.
Yes, that is an honest article that acknowledges current research and points out uncertainties. Note that a general need of > 1,000 IU is stated and up to 4000 IU are considered safe under all conditions. This is very much in line with what is advised in Europe and maybe a tad lower than what in the US. It also shows that what people here wrote is sensible.

Where this article differs from Holick is the time of sun exposure. I know Oz had a special situation because of the ozone hole. Still, they do not seem to reflect that it is UV-A that causes the dangerous skin cancers.
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,726
Likes
6,174
Location
Australia
I wouldn't call a "conspiracy" by the media, government and big pharma deliberate hiding or spreading FUD. But I definitely see people in general and governments ignoring the strong hints, or just simplifying by grouping vitamin D with HCQ, Remdesivir and other non-working treatments and categorize them all as non-working. With thousands dying each day, the responsible people should be accountable for not looking and doing greater research into vitamin D. So no conspiracy, just irresponsible, again in my opinion.
There is a lot going on. If the vitamin D thing is so obvious why is it so apparent to you and not the specialists? Stop professing here and convince the medical professionals of your obvious insight.
 
OP
Matias

Matias

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
2,390
Likes
3,685
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
Thread Starter #105
There is a lot going on. If the vitamin D thing is so obvious why is it so apparent to you and not the specialists?
Not only obvious to me, I am no one important in this, I never claimed to have discovered anything. I am just a messenger of several medical doctors and researchers advocating this as well.

Stop professing here and convince the medical professionals of your obvious insight.
Don't like what is written here? Just ignore the thread. Thanks for passing by, have a nice day.
 
OP
Matias

Matias

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
2,390
Likes
3,685
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
Thread Starter #106
This sums it up very nicely, written by MDs, not me.

"It is our responsibility as physicians not to wait for perfect evidence when making life-and-death decisions. Given the safety profile of vitamin D, the 40% prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the U.S., and the fact that this season will likely be the deadliest phase of the pandemic to date, we need to act now. Identifying and eradicating vitamin D deficiency with early and aggressive supplementation in COVID-19 has the potential to save thousands of lives and should be one of our highest public health priorities."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90530
 

preload

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
761
Likes
896
Location
California
Fine, so there are flaws in the study.

I am no researcher but from what I have read, why don't they take the thousands of people coming into hospitals testing positive each day, enroll them into the study, separate them by what appears to be the most common biases (age, sex, even body mass index and skin color), give 1/3 placebo, 1/3 vitamin D3, 1/3 leave alone as control group. A couple of months later measure the results and publish.
Well, for starters, the placebo group = the control group. Second of all, a randomized trial is very expensive and time consuming to perform. It needs IRB approval. Patients would need informed consent. You would need a way to follow up on each patient at defined endpoints. And so on.
That's why the handful of vitamin D vs. placebo in COVID RCT's to date have all had a very small sample size and are not what anyone would call authoritative.

The bottom line is that it's easier and faster to get large retrospective data or non-randomized prospective data, do your best to control the confounders, and draw conclusions from it. Healthcare recommendations are rarely based on studies that can be considered "high quality." Rather, they are based on consideration of the available evidence (even if it is low-quality), application of clinical judgement/experience, consideration of the relative risks/benefits/alternatives, and incorporation of patient's goals. This is why you can't replace a physician with Dr. Google.
 
Last edited:

CtheArgie

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
196
Likes
268
Location
Agoura Hills, CA.
I'm familiar with it. What's point are you trying to make?
Well, you may know it, but it seems that the majority don't.
ERTs were widely considered drugs for the prevention of CV disease in post menopausal women based on huge retrospective studies that appeared conclusive. They even gained FDA approval to use the claim.
Only when prospective randomized studies showed this was not the case did people figure out that women taking ERTs in the prior datasets were inherently healthier than controls. it wasn't ERTs protecting them, it was their lifestyle choices and availability to access to proper health care.
The medical community all supported ERTs. They were surprised by the results of the controlled study. This is why, I personally, am very careful about these "public consensus" of interpretation of data. Cochrane reports and other similar ones are very careful in HOW they evaluate the data NOW. Expert physicians now are much more cautious about interpretation. They also read Kahnemann...
 

preload

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
761
Likes
896
Location
California
Well, you may know it, but it seems that the majority don't.
ERTs were widely considered drugs for the prevention of CV disease in post menopausal women based on huge retrospective studies that appeared conclusive. They even gained FDA approval to use the claim.
Only when prospective randomized studies showed this was not the case did people figure out that women taking ERTs in the prior datasets were inherently healthier than controls. it wasn't ERTs protecting them, it was their lifestyle choices and availability to access to proper health care.
The medical community all supported ERTs. They were surprised by the results of the controlled study. This is why, I personally, am very careful about these "public consensus" of interpretation of data. Cochrane reports and other similar ones are very careful in HOW they evaluate the data NOW. Expert physicians now are much more cautious about interpretation. They also read Kahnemann...
I still remember what a shock it was when the HERS trial came out. I think it was a reminder of the importance of large randomized trials before drawing definitive conclusions. And as you likely know, this wasn't the first time a large, randomized trials reversed the prevailing medical opinion at the time. Other examples include preoperative beta-blockers (POISE), preoperative cardiac revascularization (CARP), intensive glucose targets (NICE-SUGAR), antiarrhythmics for asymptomatic arrhythmias (CAST), and so on.

I agree that we should consider the evidence a recommendation is based on (best example: the notion that opioids are not addictive when used to treat pain is based on a decades-old letter-to-the-editor, not even a study). But this doesn't mean that we can ignore retrospective or non-randomized studies, particularly when they are independently reporting the same outcomes. How often does a large, authoritative, randomized trial actually CONFIRM the results of prior lower quality papers? Actually quite often. Sure, when "medical reversal" occurs, it is sensationalized, and people get understandably upset. Some people might even say "well I'm never trusting anything again unless it's a multi-center RCT published in NEJM." But in reality, true medical reversal only occurs 15-20% of the time. What this means is that if we only act based on large, authoritative RCT's, and we disregard anything "lesser" (like a large retrospective/observational paper), then statistically, then an actual effective medical therapy/intervention is not being provided for fear of being wrong.

It's very possible that vitamin D has zero benefit for preventing or treating COVID-19 infections. But there is currently low-quality published evidence that it does carry a benefit. The risk of vitamin D supplementation, for me, is probably exceedingly low. Plus, they come in gummy vite form. So until there is more definitive evidence available, the risk/benefit consideration for me favors taking it. And I do.

None of this should be construed as medical advice, btw.
 
Last edited:

Thomas savage

Major Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,085
Likes
15,167
Location
uk, taunton
Feeling more optimistic might very well give you better outcomes when infected with covid19...

I saw a fine arse on the way how from work today , I felt better after that, could this be a preventative course of action against infection ? @Wombat ? What say you engineer? If it works folly lay within understanding of mechanics..
 

CtheArgie

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
196
Likes
268
Location
Agoura Hills, CA.
@preload , I was reading not very carefully, but it appears the French pharmacovigilance group has received a large number of reports of hypervitaminosis of Vit D. Et voilà!

Also, being in CA, you are probably aware of the Amgen project to validate many “cancer dogma preclinical studies” and achieving a high degree of failure, or non validation.
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,073
Likes
3,235
FWIW

1)

Randomized controlled test. Read comments on study power though.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...t-effective-moderate-severe-covid-study-finds

This just shows that studies are being done. The issue and potential benefits is not ignored. Results are a bit light either way to start large scale strategies though.

2)

Real ICU protocol proposal. Slightly controversial issue (ivermectin). The thing to notice: it is a bit more complicated that "I have a good friend who is a MD and thinks that..." Oh, and there are 386 further references for ones education if one is really interested in the issue.

https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_pub...cine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf
 

vert

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
168
Likes
120
Location
Switzerland
Cod liver oil in pure liquid Form, not the crap conditioned in gelly pills by pharma, is an incredible product, I get an instant noticeable boost from it. 100%vitamins D and A from just a spoon. Not to mention very economical (hence, not easy to find). Absent from the pathetic public "health" fear-based recommendations, including all the media doctor grim clowns, is anything about nutrition, exercise and general optimism, not to mention proper breathing ie through the nose, a true microbe barrier.
 

Dimifoot

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
450
Likes
605
Location
Greece
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...)00003-6/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header

“NICE should continue to monitor new evidence as it is peer-reviewed and published, including results from several clinical trials on vitamin D and COVID-19 outcomes that are currently underway. However, particularly in countries where the pandemic situation continues to worsen (and will continue to do so during the winter months before the effects of vaccinations become perceptible), additional evidence could come in just too late. In an ideal world, all health decisions would be made based on overwhelming evidence, but a time of crisis may call for a slightly different set of rules.”
 

CtheArgie

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
196
Likes
268
Location
Agoura Hills, CA.
@Dimifoot , did you read the entire article or are you just transcribing the section that fits your bias?
I may argue that they did NOT specify what they mean by "slightly different set of rules". Easy to write a position paper if you don't then deliver actual recommendations. Leave it general so anyone can interpret what they want.
You also do know that the primary job of NICE is reviewing new drugs for cost effectiveness and pricing negotiations, right?
 

Tim Link

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
155
Likes
153
Location
Eugene, OR
I've been taking vitamin D for years, and along with that eating natto regularly to provide plenty of vitamin K2. I have no idea if it's really doing anything good for me. I've acquired a taste for natto if nothing else.
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,605
Likes
3,248
I've been taking vitamin D for years, and along with that eating natto regularly to provide plenty of vitamin K2. I have no idea if it's really doing anything good for me. I've acquired a taste for natto if nothing else.
That's because the bacteria have colonized your entire body, and are building up a reserve...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top Bottom