5 ms·

If you want a more full scope of the body of studies around cv19 and vitD I suggest checking out this site [0]. I'll honestly never understand how studies like

by toolz 5y ago

If you want a more full scope of the body of studies around cv19 and vitD I suggest checking out this site [0]. I'll honestly never understand how studies like this make front page or top headlines in mainstream news. Even if vitamin D didn't make a difference with covid outcomes, it's still a vitamin many countries are widely deficient in and can only serve to improve many peoples health. I feel like I've seen more social media posts claiming to show vitamin D isn't effective vs cv19 than the opposite, which is alarming to me. The body of evidence that shows vitamin D working is substantially larger than the studies showing the opposite - and honestly this is a vital vitamin either way! Get your vitamin D levels up people*! It feels like this shouldn't be controversial, but deficiency in first-world countries and posts like these make me wonder. * obviously it's possible to overdose but that window is incredibly large - you're far more likely to be hurting from too little vitD than too much [0]https://c19vitamind.com/ https://c19vitamind.com/ this image summarizes the intent of my post pretty cleanly https://i.imgur.com/ySVX5y0.png https://i.imgur.com/ySVX5y0.png for a nice tl;dr;

neilwilson 5y ago
What I find frustrating is that the levels hypothesised to have an effect on reducing the incidence of respiratory illness is way higher than the current very low 'recommended' limit. Yet when you see studies of Vitamin D they never seem to use the higher level. They seem to stick rigidly to the lower bone health level. Unsurprisingly they see no effect. My own little test[0] showed that inadequacy very easily creeps up on you. Where is the Randomised Control Test on incidence of respiratory diseases with those people held above the 75-100 nmol/L hypothesis level? It's deeply frustrating at the lack of actual solid science experiments that goes on in this area. It appears to be a heavy dose of inferred statistics topped off with a heavy layer of credentials, and hope that nobody asks the awkward questions. [0] https://new-wayland.com/blog/onward-to-100-nmol-update-2/ https://new-wayland.com/blog/onward-to-100-nmol-update-2/
- mulvya 5y ago
  > the current very low 'recommended' limit. Yes. See 'Why the IOM recommendations for vitamin D are deficient' authored by two of the committee members who drafted the first IOM recommendation in 1997 @ https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr.328 https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr....
senthil_rajasek 5y ago
In the context of covid-19, it's important to establish causal benefits of Vitamin-D. Drinking water is good for health, breathing clean air is good, taking Vitamin-D is good but none of these have evidence as a cure for covid-19 specifically.
- toolz 5y ago
  Sure, I've not seen any claims that vitD cures covid (although I can imagine they exist somewhere) - but the full body of science leans heavily towards it being a strong preventative measure against the worst clinical outcomes of a covid attack. I imagine your other points could be preventative as well and I would also highly recommend breathing clean air when possible and staying hydrated. I know that might sound silly to read, but simple measures to boost your own immune system really are far more powerful than society seems to give them credit for.
Exmoor 5y ago
I suspect that Vitamin D was collateral damage of the politicization that happened a year ago. People heard "Here's something that may improve outcomes" and lumped it in with all the medicines with questionable efficacy that were touted early in the pandemic. What has been especially odd to me is the grotesque pleasure certain people (even a few on HN) have taken when studies have appeared to show limited efficacy. Why would you be happy that a treatment doesn't work, especially one that's so affordable and readily available?
- phkahler 5y ago
  I don't get it either. If something is generally harmless and there is reason to believe it may help, the obvious thing is to try it. But then all these studies come out that suggest not doing anything - like Vitamine D supplementation doesnt help people who have sufficient levels (but most people don't in winter but shhhh). The common theme seems to be "you can't treat yourself".
floxy 5y ago
>I'll honestly never understand how studies like this make front page or top headlines in mainstream news. The reason this rises to the top is because this is just one more way otherize the outgroup. As can be seen in a number of the other comments in this HN thread.

by toolz 5y ago

neilwilson 5y ago

What I find frustrating is that the levels hypothesised to have an effect on reducing the incidence of respiratory illness is way higher than the current very low 'recommended' limit. Yet when you see studies of Vitamin D they never seem to use the higher level. They seem to stick rigidly to the lower bone health level. Unsurprisingly they see no effect. My own little test[0] showed that inadequacy very easily creeps up on you. Where is the Randomised Control Test on incidence of respiratory diseases with those people held above the 75-100 nmol/L hypothesis level? It's deeply frustrating at the lack of actual solid science experiments that goes on in this area. It appears to be a heavy dose of inferred statistics topped off with a heavy layer of credentials, and hope that nobody asks the awkward questions. [0] https://new-wayland.com/blog/onward-to-100-nmol-update-2/ https://new-wayland.com/blog/onward-to-100-nmol-update-2/

mulvya 5y ago
> the current very low 'recommended' limit. Yes. See 'Why the IOM recommendations for vitamin D are deficient' authored by two of the committee members who drafted the first IOM recommendation in 1997 @ https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr.328 https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr....

senthil_rajasek 5y ago

In the context of covid-19, it's important to establish causal benefits of Vitamin-D. Drinking water is good for health, breathing clean air is good, taking Vitamin-D is good but none of these have evidence as a cure for covid-19 specifically.

toolz 5y ago
Sure, I've not seen any claims that vitD cures covid (although I can imagine they exist somewhere) - but the full body of science leans heavily towards it being a strong preventative measure against the worst clinical outcomes of a covid attack. I imagine your other points could be preventative as well and I would also highly recommend breathing clean air when possible and staying hydrated. I know that might sound silly to read, but simple measures to boost your own immune system really are far more powerful than society seems to give them credit for.

Exmoor 5y ago

I suspect that Vitamin D was collateral damage of the politicization that happened a year ago. People heard "Here's something that may improve outcomes" and lumped it in with all the medicines with questionable efficacy that were touted early in the pandemic. What has been especially odd to me is the grotesque pleasure certain people (even a few on HN) have taken when studies have appeared to show limited efficacy. Why would you be happy that a treatment doesn't work, especially one that's so affordable and readily available?

phkahler 5y ago
I don't get it either. If something is generally harmless and there is reason to believe it may help, the obvious thing is to try it. But then all these studies come out that suggest not doing anything - like Vitamine D supplementation doesnt help people who have sufficient levels (but most people don't in winter but shhhh). The common theme seems to be "you can't treat yourself".

floxy 5y ago

>I'll honestly never understand how studies like this make front page or top headlines in mainstream news. The reason this rises to the top is because this is just one more way otherize the outgroup. As can be seen in a number of the other comments in this HN thread.