5 ms·

Vitamin D has been shown to reduce severity in several different studies. Everyone should consider taking it. https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/search?q=vitamin

Vitamin D has been shown to reduce severity in several different studies. Everyone should consider taking it. https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/search?q=vitamin+D&restrict_sr=on https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/search?q=vitamin+D&restrict... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN30emwcNS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN30emwcNS4

amelius 6y ago
Yes, but are governments recommending it? Are doctors recommending it? Is WHO recommending it? I didn't hear anything about it except from that one post on HN, which I think is quite strange. If this works, then shouldn't there be a nation-wide plan to introduce more vitamin D in the diets of people?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lambdaba 6y ago
  Are you unconvinced? You know basically vitamin D is a kind of "master regulator" of metabolism / immune system. Deficiency of vitamin D is immune system dysfunction.
  - amelius 6y ago
    I believe the studies, but my question is why do we let the health system suffer if there is such a simple solution? Why isn't "take vitamin D" in the same list as "wash your hands often" and "keep distance"?
    - lambdaba 6y ago
      I've seen it recommended by some authorities, but very timidly. There's no single answer. Vitamin D is basically a panacea, but for some reason most medical professionals don't know. Modern western medicine is on the whole ignorant of the role of vitamin deficiencies in disease.
      - JoshTko 6y ago
        Doctors (and basically any degreed professional) aren't interested in recommending anything that doesn't involve them.
        amelius 6y ago
        The pandemic concerns the work and lives of just about any doctor at the moment.
        wolco5 6y ago
        Doctors want things to get better as much as anyone. The timelag between new science and what a doctor recommends can take a generation.
    - mrfusion 6y ago
      Are you sure the government cares about your health?
      - amelius 6y ago
        I'm sure they at least care about getting the economy back on track.
        mrfusion 6y ago
        Even small businesses?
- JoshTko 6y ago
  It was part of the regimen that Trump took when he got Covid.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cinntaile 6y ago
  The NHS recommends it for example. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-... https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk/get-vitamin-d-supplements/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at...
  - amelius 6y ago
    The UK's health services are struggling at the moment. So can the conclusion be that vitamin D does not work as expected? Or is the conclusion that still not enough people are taking vitamin D, and its usefulness should be better communicated?
    - wolco5 6y ago
      The reasons for UK health services failing have little or no connection to vitamin D. Vitamin D has shown signs that it slows down / makes covid less deadly. Because we don't understand: who is taking it, in what amounts, local weather, what the numbers would be without it we can't assume anything from them struggling.
    - spion 6y ago
      The amount recommended is insufficient for most people to get to the level where (correlation) has shown significantly reduced risk - that is >30 ng/ml (>75 nmol/l) Another thing that is tricky is that it really depends how much you need to take on what your levels are personally. We know that the amounts they recommend are completely long term safe for everyone and long term good enough to avoid severe deficiency. But for most people there will still be insuficiency - the necessary average is actually around 2000 IU (for some people it should be up to 4000 IU, others less)
    - travmatt 6y ago
      > The UK's health services are struggling at the moment. Are you saying the NHS is struggling with their doctors publishing dangerous recommendations? I’m not sure what you’re implying.
    - 6y ago
- retrac 6y ago
  For what it's worth, many government authorities already recommend vitamin D supplementation under varying criteria simply for general health. Because a lot of people in temperate-latitude countries really do have a mild to moderate deficiency: > Just over two-thirds of Canadians (68%) had blood concentrations of vitamin D over 50 nmol/L -- a level that is sufficient for healthy bones for most people. About 32% of Canadians were below the cut-off. About 10% of Canadians were below the cut-off of 30 nmol/L -- a level that is considered a deficiency. In Canada, everyone is advised to discuss it with their doctors in relation to the winter season. My doctor tests it with my routine blood work. Many people take a supplement over the winter, especially those with darker skin. And people over 50 have a blanket recommendation to take a 400 IU dose daily year-round.
- TazzyEW 6y ago
  https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564133 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564133
- TazzyEW 6y ago
  Hello,please see petition for Vit D public health campaign https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564133 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564133
colossal 6y ago
It has shown to be correlated with better outcomes. It is also correlated with being healthier, being active, and eating better. As far as I understand there is no strong evidence for a causal relationship. To be clear, if you live in the northern hemisphere, you should be taking vitamin D. It's cheap and at worst harmless. But that's not the same as saying it will improve the outcome of covid patients.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Not just that there is a clinical trial done in spain where giving vitamin D as metabolized clearly improved covid19 patient outcomes.
- lambdaba 6y ago
  Vitamin D is key to T-cell function. T-cell immunity is involved in mild / asymptomatic covid cases (vs antibody immunity).
- mlyle 6y ago
  IV calcifediol (Vitamin D) in early-stage COVID has improved outcomes in small randomized controlled trials. Oral vitamin D has been shown to be ineffective at this point, but this isn't surprising: it takes a long time of sustained oral supplementation to raise levels. Then there's a whole lot of evidence showing correlation, but as you point out, low vitamin D is an indicator of frailty. This is much weaker evidence. I think it's likely that taking oral vitamin D before infection probably improves outcomes somewhat.
  - travmatt 6y ago
    I haven’t heard vitamin d administration is associated with better outcomes, but I’ve heard that vitamin d levels are inversely correlated with outcomes - i.e., people should take a blood test and determine if they are vitamin d deficient, and supplement as needed.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/ > Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50 %) p value X2 Fischer test p < 0.001. Strengths: Randomized, very strong effect, strongly statistically significant. Weaknesses: single trial, single center, relatively small sample, not blinded. https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/12/postgradmedj-2020-139065 https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/12/postgradmedj-20... > Greater proportion of vitamin D-deficient individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection turned SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative with a significant decrease in fibrinogen on high-dose cholecalciferol supplementation. Strengths: Randomized, blinded trial Weaknesses: single trial, single center, relatively small sample, secondary outcome measure
spion 6y ago
Its also been shown not to have an effect in at least one RCT, but the problem is social media skews against spreading that information (its kind of a downer so it won't get shared so much) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232397v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232397v... (Yes, the RCT uses cholecalciferol instead of calcifediol, so the reason why the intervention did not work may be that its a bit late. Yes, the Spanish trial had extremely good results, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/ but it looked unusual (100% adherence / no dropouts). Ultimately we still don't know, which is appalling. We need better ways to conduct RCTs cheaply and efficiently!)
- JoshTko 6y ago
  So even just looking at these two studies, and the relatively safety and low cost of Vitamin D, why wouldn't you take it?
  - spion 6y ago
    I would totally take it, but I wouldn't be very surprised if I still got a severe disease. My point is that its important for people to have an accurate picture of what is the probability of it working, to have a good "feel" of what the likelihood of a good outcome is. Unfortunately social media is providing a skewed picture. I'm not sure what mechanism would ensure that people get an accurate picture.

amelius 6y ago

Yes, but are governments recommending it? Are doctors recommending it? Is WHO recommending it? I didn't hear anything about it except from that one post on HN, which I think is quite strange. If this works, then shouldn't there be a nation-wide plan to introduce more vitamin D in the diets of people?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lambdaba 6y ago
Are you unconvinced? You know basically vitamin D is a kind of "master regulator" of metabolism / immune system. Deficiency of vitamin D is immune system dysfunction.
- amelius 6y ago
  I believe the studies, but my question is why do we let the health system suffer if there is such a simple solution? Why isn't "take vitamin D" in the same list as "wash your hands often" and "keep distance"?
  - lambdaba 6y ago
    I've seen it recommended by some authorities, but very timidly. There's no single answer. Vitamin D is basically a panacea, but for some reason most medical professionals don't know. Modern western medicine is on the whole ignorant of the role of vitamin deficiencies in disease.
    - JoshTko 6y ago
      Doctors (and basically any degreed professional) aren't interested in recommending anything that doesn't involve them.
      - amelius 6y ago
        The pandemic concerns the work and lives of just about any doctor at the moment.
        wolco5 6y ago
        Doctors want things to get better as much as anyone. The timelag between new science and what a doctor recommends can take a generation.
  - mrfusion 6y ago
    Are you sure the government cares about your health?
    - amelius 6y ago
      I'm sure they at least care about getting the economy back on track.
      - mrfusion 6y ago
        Even small businesses?
JoshTko 6y ago
It was part of the regimen that Trump took when he got Covid.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cinntaile 6y ago
The NHS recommends it for example. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-... https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk/get-vitamin-d-supplements/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at...
- amelius 6y ago
  The UK's health services are struggling at the moment. So can the conclusion be that vitamin D does not work as expected? Or is the conclusion that still not enough people are taking vitamin D, and its usefulness should be better communicated?
  - wolco5 6y ago
    The reasons for UK health services failing have little or no connection to vitamin D. Vitamin D has shown signs that it slows down / makes covid less deadly. Because we don't understand: who is taking it, in what amounts, local weather, what the numbers would be without it we can't assume anything from them struggling.
  - spion 6y ago
    The amount recommended is insufficient for most people to get to the level where (correlation) has shown significantly reduced risk - that is >30 ng/ml (>75 nmol/l) Another thing that is tricky is that it really depends how much you need to take on what your levels are personally. We know that the amounts they recommend are completely long term safe for everyone and long term good enough to avoid severe deficiency. But for most people there will still be insuficiency - the necessary average is actually around 2000 IU (for some people it should be up to 4000 IU, others less)
  - travmatt 6y ago
    > The UK's health services are struggling at the moment. Are you saying the NHS is struggling with their doctors publishing dangerous recommendations? I’m not sure what you’re implying.
  - 6y ago
retrac 6y ago
For what it's worth, many government authorities already recommend vitamin D supplementation under varying criteria simply for general health. Because a lot of people in temperate-latitude countries really do have a mild to moderate deficiency: > Just over two-thirds of Canadians (68%) had blood concentrations of vitamin D over 50 nmol/L -- a level that is sufficient for healthy bones for most people. About 32% of Canadians were below the cut-off. About 10% of Canadians were below the cut-off of 30 nmol/L -- a level that is considered a deficiency. In Canada, everyone is advised to discuss it with their doctors in relation to the winter season. My doctor tests it with my routine blood work. Many people take a supplement over the winter, especially those with darker skin. And people over 50 have a blanket recommendation to take a 400 IU dose daily year-round.
TazzyEW 6y ago
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564133 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564133
TazzyEW 6y ago
Hello,please see petition for Vit D public health campaign https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564133 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/564133

colossal 6y ago

It has shown to be correlated with better outcomes. It is also correlated with being healthier, being active, and eating better. As far as I understand there is no strong evidence for a causal relationship. To be clear, if you live in the northern hemisphere, you should be taking vitamin D. It's cheap and at worst harmless. But that's not the same as saying it will improve the outcome of covid patients.

ekianjo 6y ago
Not just that there is a clinical trial done in spain where giving vitamin D as metabolized clearly improved covid19 patient outcomes.
lambdaba 6y ago
Vitamin D is key to T-cell function. T-cell immunity is involved in mild / asymptomatic covid cases (vs antibody immunity).
mlyle 6y ago
IV calcifediol (Vitamin D) in early-stage COVID has improved outcomes in small randomized controlled trials. Oral vitamin D has been shown to be ineffective at this point, but this isn't surprising: it takes a long time of sustained oral supplementation to raise levels. Then there's a whole lot of evidence showing correlation, but as you point out, low vitamin D is an indicator of frailty. This is much weaker evidence. I think it's likely that taking oral vitamin D before infection probably improves outcomes somewhat.
- travmatt 6y ago
  I haven’t heard vitamin d administration is associated with better outcomes, but I’ve heard that vitamin d levels are inversely correlated with outcomes - i.e., people should take a blood test and determine if they are vitamin d deficient, and supplement as needed.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/ > Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50 %) p value X2 Fischer test p < 0.001. Strengths: Randomized, very strong effect, strongly statistically significant. Weaknesses: single trial, single center, relatively small sample, not blinded. https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/12/postgradmedj-2020-139065 https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/12/postgradmedj-20... > Greater proportion of vitamin D-deficient individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection turned SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative with a significant decrease in fibrinogen on high-dose cholecalciferol supplementation. Strengths: Randomized, blinded trial Weaknesses: single trial, single center, relatively small sample, secondary outcome measure

spion 6y ago

Its also been shown not to have an effect in at least one RCT, but the problem is social media skews against spreading that information (its kind of a downer so it won't get shared so much) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232397v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232397v... (Yes, the RCT uses cholecalciferol instead of calcifediol, so the reason why the intervention did not work may be that its a bit late. Yes, the Spanish trial had extremely good results, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/ but it looked unusual (100% adherence / no dropouts). Ultimately we still don't know, which is appalling. We need better ways to conduct RCTs cheaply and efficiently!)

JoshTko 6y ago
So even just looking at these two studies, and the relatively safety and low cost of Vitamin D, why wouldn't you take it?
- spion 6y ago
  I would totally take it, but I wouldn't be very surprised if I still got a severe disease. My point is that its important for people to have an accurate picture of what is the probability of it working, to have a good "feel" of what the likelihood of a good outcome is. Unfortunately social media is providing a skewed picture. I'm not sure what mechanism would ensure that people get an accurate picture.