3 ms·

Evidence on vitamin D is equivocal. [0][1] Experts disagree on how to interpret the various studies that have come out that do not all show the same results. O

Evidence on vitamin D is equivocal. [0][1] Experts disagree on how to interpret the various studies that have come out that do not all show the same results. On the other hand, an official proclamation that people should ensure their vitamin D levels are okay would cause a rush on it with many people taking much more than they should. We've seen this with other medications that have not been systematically shown to help COVID but still obtain meme-like status. Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use, but has resulted in overdoses [2] and a spike in calls to poison control centers over its use [3] Maybe there's a middle ground there on something like vitamin D, which as you say is often deficient. But it's a fine line to walk when the evidence is uncertain about its impact on COVID. [0] https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-d/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/sup... [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/coronavirus-and-vitamin-d/faq-20493088 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/e... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/man-covid-overdoses-ivermectin-doctors-warn-ineffective-not-safe-1625340 https://www.newsweek.com/man-covid-overdoses-ivermectin-doct... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

weaksauce 5y ago
> Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use well it was actually pretty promising in some countries data early on. the problem is when you extrapolate that data to the world at large you have problems with populations. so yes, ivermectin is useful in areas that have parasites that can cause the host to die from when in a weakened state due to the immunosupressing drugs that they give to stop the cytokine storms that kill covid patients, exactly the populations that the data showed a benefit from and also standard course in those countries. when done in places without a high risk of secondary parasitic infection the data was that it was not useful. There were/are some studies done now because it's so cheap but it's not really all that effective outside of it being an secondary treatment in those parasitic prone countries. But since it showed promise there the antivaxxers were hell bent on using it regardless of the why because it wasn't a vaccine and here we are. Too much vitamin D is bad too and you definitely don't want that and without data supporting it being highly effective against covid it's not useful as a prophylactic. That said, vitamin D is generally correlated with a better immune system response against respiratory illness. supplementing a reasonable amount is not usually considered harmful but it's wise to talk to a doctor.
phkahler 5y ago
Those first 2 links suggest to me that it's worth trying. The second two are just about misuse of ivermectin. I think informing the public of this option is a good idea. They could also be informed not to take it in excess. This whole concept about withholding information or trying to influence peoples behavior is part of the problem. Vitamin D should have been proposed in the beginning due to its documented effects on reducing respiratory illness, but even then anything people suggested was being shot down as not FDA approved treatment for Covid. But there weren't any such treatments at the time.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  This whole concept about withholding information The first two links specifically say there is not enough information to make a full determination. Public health policy shouldn't be based on "We don't really know, but maybe?" Also it's not withholding information: Proper nutritional guidelines are published all over the place, including recommended daily intake of vitamins, and we've known pretty much from the beginning that otherwise healthy people are much safer from COVID. That seems more than sufficient to provide people with guidelines about how to stay low risk for COVID with respect to their diet. The government shouldn't have to spoon feed every detail, a little self-reliance should be expected of the population. Especially when singling out any one substance could result in unanticipated consequences.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    >> The first two links specifically say there is not enough information to make a full determination. Public health policy shouldn't be based on "We don't really know, but maybe? They say that up front but then go on to site some rather compelling results. Then they mention some of the failures - like giving it to people who are already on deaths doorstep and not being effective. They also mention that "observational studies" are ongoing, which also suggests there is hope. >> Also it's not withholding information: Proper nutritional guidelines are published all over the place, including recommended daily intake of vitamins, and we've known pretty much from the beginning that otherwise healthy people are much safer from COVID. Nobody is reminding people of that in regard to Covid. ALL the messaging is "get the vaccine". I've said in other threads that I've had Covid, and that offers better protection than the vaccine, so why do people keep insisting that I should get it? The response (which is valid) is that it will offer even more protection, and that we should do everything we can to slow the spread. Well, if we want to do everything we can then why is "everything" restricted to just getting the vaccine? Where are the calls for people to keep in shape, lose weight, make sure they get good nutrition - in relation to preventing Covid?

weaksauce 5y ago

> Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use well it was actually pretty promising in some countries data early on. the problem is when you extrapolate that data to the world at large you have problems with populations. so yes, ivermectin is useful in areas that have parasites that can cause the host to die from when in a weakened state due to the immunosupressing drugs that they give to stop the cytokine storms that kill covid patients, exactly the populations that the data showed a benefit from and also standard course in those countries. when done in places without a high risk of secondary parasitic infection the data was that it was not useful. There were/are some studies done now because it's so cheap but it's not really all that effective outside of it being an secondary treatment in those parasitic prone countries. But since it showed promise there the antivaxxers were hell bent on using it regardless of the why because it wasn't a vaccine and here we are. Too much vitamin D is bad too and you definitely don't want that and without data supporting it being highly effective against covid it's not useful as a prophylactic. That said, vitamin D is generally correlated with a better immune system response against respiratory illness. supplementing a reasonable amount is not usually considered harmful but it's wise to talk to a doctor.

phkahler 5y ago

Those first 2 links suggest to me that it's worth trying. The second two are just about misuse of ivermectin. I think informing the public of this option is a good idea. They could also be informed not to take it in excess. This whole concept about withholding information or trying to influence peoples behavior is part of the problem. Vitamin D should have been proposed in the beginning due to its documented effects on reducing respiratory illness, but even then anything people suggested was being shot down as not FDA approved treatment for Covid. But there weren't any such treatments at the time.

ineedasername 5y ago
This whole concept about withholding information The first two links specifically say there is not enough information to make a full determination. Public health policy shouldn't be based on "We don't really know, but maybe?" Also it's not withholding information: Proper nutritional guidelines are published all over the place, including recommended daily intake of vitamins, and we've known pretty much from the beginning that otherwise healthy people are much safer from COVID. That seems more than sufficient to provide people with guidelines about how to stay low risk for COVID with respect to their diet. The government shouldn't have to spoon feed every detail, a little self-reliance should be expected of the population. Especially when singling out any one substance could result in unanticipated consequences.
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> The first two links specifically say there is not enough information to make a full determination. Public health policy shouldn't be based on "We don't really know, but maybe? They say that up front but then go on to site some rather compelling results. Then they mention some of the failures - like giving it to people who are already on deaths doorstep and not being effective. They also mention that "observational studies" are ongoing, which also suggests there is hope. >> Also it's not withholding information: Proper nutritional guidelines are published all over the place, including recommended daily intake of vitamins, and we've known pretty much from the beginning that otherwise healthy people are much safer from COVID. Nobody is reminding people of that in regard to Covid. ALL the messaging is "get the vaccine". I've said in other threads that I've had Covid, and that offers better protection than the vaccine, so why do people keep insisting that I should get it? The response (which is valid) is that it will offer even more protection, and that we should do everything we can to slow the spread. Well, if we want to do everything we can then why is "everything" restricted to just getting the vaccine? Where are the calls for people to keep in shape, lose weight, make sure they get good nutrition - in relation to preventing Covid?