I have been trying for months to get Vinay's attention regarding vitamin D. Most people have far too little, so their immune responses are weak except that they are also prone to dangerously dysregulated hyper-inflammatory responses.
What is it about most doctors and vitamin D??? I partly know, and it would take thousands of words to discuss it. This is the most perplexing and important question of all, but is part of a broader problem of most doctors being overly attracted to complex and so (supposedly) sophisticated treatments rather than nutritional prevention and simpler, safer, less expensive and so less profitable treatments.
Doctors don't know much about nutrition because the AMA lists such classes as elective for medical schools. And medical students don't have time for electives. This started in the early 1900's with the Flexner Report funded by John D. Rockefeller after he learned the chemists could create medical substances from his oil company products. That opened a whole new income source, so he vilified any "alternative treatments" as quackery. As a result, today, medical schools are highly funded by the drug industries and teach students that vitamins are not necessary and can be dangerous. They can even quote studies that used synthetic "vitamins" in tests. It is part of "money driven medicine". An RN, MS
I do not believe Vinay actually reads these comments. I have never seen an "author like" on any of them.
But the facts on Vitamin D need to be properly reported. A recent Australian study showed no positive effect on all cause mortality across many years of study, and in fact, potentially negative effects of Vitamin D in 60,000 adults over 60 randomly selected across the population. The negatives were an increase in cancer in the supplemented group. Although small, the authors conclude that since there is no impact of supplementation on all cause mortality, the precautionary principle militates against supplementing based on this. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35026158/
A recent Finnish study of around 2500 people over 60 showed no impact of vitamin D on major cardiovascular events or cancer. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab419
There seems to be solid (but not RCT) information that those who do NOT have normal levels of vitamin D are more likely to get COVID (and who knows what else). The studies above indicate that most people in the study populations appear to have adequate vitamin D or else the supplemented groups would have looked better on all cause measures. Or perhaps the vitamin D effects are specific to Covid but not the entire range of infectious agents.
We should make sure that the elderly (who are those at substantial risk) have adequate vitamin D stores -- it is the least we can do. But as we look to advocate for interventions that work, it is wise to sell them appropriately...and not to oversell them.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35026158/ "In 4441 blood samples collected from randomly sampled participants (N=3943) during follow-up, mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations were 77 (SD 25) in the placebo group and 115 (SD 30) nmol/L in the vitamin D group." 77 nmol/L = 30 ng/mL and 115 nmol/L = 46 ng/mL. They note supplementation was 60 000 IU vitamin D3 or placebo once a month.
The recommended level of D for seniors is 50-100 ng/mL. We are encouraged to dose daily with smaller doses. That study that noted little effect is likely right for a monthly dose except that's not what most people do.
Despite no RCT for how most of us use supplements, I understand the death rates were lower. And we are told some 40% of people are deficient in D. In the US the standard for that assessment is way lower than the > 50 ng/mL. And darker skins for obvious reasons really do need supplementation.
The government should have sent a bottle of 2000 units to every person on Medicare and told them one per day.
No question it was an odd dosing schedule. I am still surprised that there was NO impact on ACM. Pondering what (if anything that means).
I expect that the shut in elderly population, especially warehoused in nursing homes, are likely D-deficient. As you and others point out often, some decent RCTs in this area would be of great value.
But it is important that everyone speaking to these issues has an eye on all the data. RCTs always have useful data to impart -- even if that useful data is often buried in the actual data tables and obfuscated in the conclusions. So trying to keep everyone up to date...these are all from the last couple months.
I don't know why it happened that we were told an excess of D is a very bad thing. My look says it's nearly impossible to arrive at an excess. My osteo specialist was concerned when my level went to 110, said that was bad but didn't explain why given quite normal calcium levels. I did back off and am at a steady 70 or so given my osteoporosis (finally decided on Prolia).
Perhaps D levels ought to be a routine test in nearly all yearly wellness tests, except for some reason insurers seem reluctant to pay. "Since no trials". The risks of osteoporosis in seniors via fall consequences are at least like those risks of colon cancer for which we do screen at much greater cost. The long term costs of being in a wheelchair are quite large.
May we see a disciplined, double-blind study proving your claims for vitamin D? I am not impressed with unsupported statements about what “every MD, immunologist, virologist and epidemiologist” “should know” on the subject..I would require the same of claims for ivermectin, hcq, eye of newt and toe of frog.
Indeed! Dr. Prasad has often noted that the NIH has funds for all sorts of studies except RCTs of cheap stuff. We do have evidence that high levels of D are found in those who survive a covid episode. Many who didn't survive had low levels. Sadly there has been no real effort to collect those data. The newt eyes must be used in combination with chicken broth, not sure about the salt content.
There is no treatment out there that is going to provide this level of efficacy.
This is just one of many, many graphs representing actual data that can be similarly replicated across jurisdictions in the US and the world. And I won't even go into the comparisons between preventive vaccines vs post-infection pharmaceutical treatment on costs, complexity of the intervention, efficiency, and risk (hint: vaccines come out the top in each category.
C'mon man. Early treatment is everything. There are twenty off-the-shelf treatments that are safe and effective. It is medical malpractice for you to remain silent on the importance of early treatment. https://c19early.com/
Agree with Toby! Want to keep people out of hospitals? Beef up Outpatient treatment. Plenty of therapeutics could be used. Two years into the pandemic and the lack of a robust outpatient treatment program is malpractice.
Have you reviewed CDC excess mortality data for 18-44 year olds?? Have you compared it to excess mortality against all other periods? Have you superimposed that excess mortality on vaccines schedules for 2021? What outcome did you find??
Agree with all, but important to add: don't mandate vaccines (especially boosters) for college students, or anyone else for that matter. Provide good up-to-date information about risk/benefit and let people make their own choices.
That's what I thought while reading this. He said he didn't sign it because he didn't agree with everything they said. But there's NO WAY it wouldn't have been better than what we have now. Now he pretty much comes around to it after all.
Vinay has been largely red-pilled as a result of seeing how the government and media actually work. It is refreshing to see from one of the most far-left scientists out there.
I don’t know what mechanism you could mandate elderly people to get booster (except for the younger over 65 who are still working). Maybe as a condition of living in a private retirement or nursing facility where they are private pay, but that’s probably it.
I'm not sure why you asked this question in response to my comment. I didn't argue for a booster one way or the other. I simply said I didn't see how you would mandate a booster for elderly people one way or the other (except a very small number of people in specific situations, but it wouldn't simply be because they are a certain age or whatever). I also didn't even mention prior infection.
Number 8 should read, "Hire back health care workers irrespective of vaccine status." Since we have now seen how useless the vax is at preventing spread, there is no logical reason to shun those who are unjabbed, even if they have not (yet) had covid. They are no more danger to patients and other staff than those who are "fully" jabbed but have not (yet) had covid.
I like most of what you said, but *please* keep track of vaccine reactions. To me, the correlation between vaccination and death is rock solid. I would only recommend it for certain politicians and technocrats, and for them, daily or even hourly.
"Give credit for natural immunity." For *what*? Are you in favor of vaccine mandates, if they're "more reasonable"?
I hope not. These vaccines are dangerous and ineffective.
After seeing how the sausage is made, I believe that no mandates of any kind are justified for the covid-19 vaccines. And watching our institutions in action, I'm closing in on opposing mandates for *any* vaccines under *any* circumstances.
Also, why not run RCT’s on VitD levels and risk of severe disease? If it ends up being true that >40/50 ng/ml reduces risk of severe disease, that’s another cheap and safe tool to use.
Great analysis. I’m worried about my area’s reaction to the next wave. I have a feeling mandates will automagically appear right after Election Day.
We all know another wave will hit, and I wish more governments would adopt a measured approach. To truly help the most people, politicians should focus on efforts that gain broad acceptance, instead of just earning kudos from their side and shaming everyone else.
I live in a very mandate/heavy handed area, and I’m not super concerned about things swinging too far back in that direction. Why? Public sentiments have dramatically shifted and will shift further when people adjust to living without restrictions, are reminded of what life was like, and the media realizes the public isn’t interested in the impending doom stories anymore. But mostly — public figures all over the country at every level of government are looking at the calendar and all they can see is November.
I want my pound of flesh. There's not knowing and acting with limited information (best you can do) and acting against precedent to try and salvage your reputation because of hubris. All the while doing so much harm. Willfully shutting down people to save your hide? That's criminal.
Why oh why do you NEVER address early treatment. That should have been key from the very beginning. The doctors who have been treating early are reporting great success yet you focus on masks and how ineffective they are. Well early treatment isn't ineffective and should be the focus of all doctors looking to save lives.
Still no comment regarding nutrition and supplements? Are there things some of us do in flu/cold season useful - like gargling with solutions and nasal cleaning? Assisting the immune system should be advocated along with added helpful infection reduction methods - preventing infection before replication takes off.
Why have you not included the most important way to fight covid? Early treatment stops covid, reduces hospitalizations and deaths.
I have been trying for months to get Vinay's attention regarding vitamin D. Most people have far too little, so their immune responses are weak except that they are also prone to dangerously dysregulated hyper-inflammatory responses.
What every MD, immunologist, virologist and epidemiologist should know about vitamin D and the immune system: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ .
What is it about most doctors and vitamin D??? I partly know, and it would take thousands of words to discuss it. This is the most perplexing and important question of all, but is part of a broader problem of most doctors being overly attracted to complex and so (supposedly) sophisticated treatments rather than nutritional prevention and simpler, safer, less expensive and so less profitable treatments.
Doctors don't know much about nutrition because the AMA lists such classes as elective for medical schools. And medical students don't have time for electives. This started in the early 1900's with the Flexner Report funded by John D. Rockefeller after he learned the chemists could create medical substances from his oil company products. That opened a whole new income source, so he vilified any "alternative treatments" as quackery. As a result, today, medical schools are highly funded by the drug industries and teach students that vitamins are not necessary and can be dangerous. They can even quote studies that used synthetic "vitamins" in tests. It is part of "money driven medicine". An RN, MS
I do not believe Vinay actually reads these comments. I have never seen an "author like" on any of them.
But the facts on Vitamin D need to be properly reported. A recent Australian study showed no positive effect on all cause mortality across many years of study, and in fact, potentially negative effects of Vitamin D in 60,000 adults over 60 randomly selected across the population. The negatives were an increase in cancer in the supplemented group. Although small, the authors conclude that since there is no impact of supplementation on all cause mortality, the precautionary principle militates against supplementing based on this. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35026158/
A recent Finnish study of around 2500 people over 60 showed no impact of vitamin D on major cardiovascular events or cancer. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab419
Yet another recent study of 25,000 Americans showed a 22% reduction in autoimmune disease in the supplemented group. https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-066452
There seems to be solid (but not RCT) information that those who do NOT have normal levels of vitamin D are more likely to get COVID (and who knows what else). The studies above indicate that most people in the study populations appear to have adequate vitamin D or else the supplemented groups would have looked better on all cause measures. Or perhaps the vitamin D effects are specific to Covid but not the entire range of infectious agents.
We should make sure that the elderly (who are those at substantial risk) have adequate vitamin D stores -- it is the least we can do. But as we look to advocate for interventions that work, it is wise to sell them appropriately...and not to oversell them.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35026158/ "In 4441 blood samples collected from randomly sampled participants (N=3943) during follow-up, mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D concentrations were 77 (SD 25) in the placebo group and 115 (SD 30) nmol/L in the vitamin D group." 77 nmol/L = 30 ng/mL and 115 nmol/L = 46 ng/mL. They note supplementation was 60 000 IU vitamin D3 or placebo once a month.
The recommended level of D for seniors is 50-100 ng/mL. We are encouraged to dose daily with smaller doses. That study that noted little effect is likely right for a monthly dose except that's not what most people do.
Despite no RCT for how most of us use supplements, I understand the death rates were lower. And we are told some 40% of people are deficient in D. In the US the standard for that assessment is way lower than the > 50 ng/mL. And darker skins for obvious reasons really do need supplementation.
The government should have sent a bottle of 2000 units to every person on Medicare and told them one per day.
No question it was an odd dosing schedule. I am still surprised that there was NO impact on ACM. Pondering what (if anything that means).
I expect that the shut in elderly population, especially warehoused in nursing homes, are likely D-deficient. As you and others point out often, some decent RCTs in this area would be of great value.
But it is important that everyone speaking to these issues has an eye on all the data. RCTs always have useful data to impart -- even if that useful data is often buried in the actual data tables and obfuscated in the conclusions. So trying to keep everyone up to date...these are all from the last couple months.
I don't know why it happened that we were told an excess of D is a very bad thing. My look says it's nearly impossible to arrive at an excess. My osteo specialist was concerned when my level went to 110, said that was bad but didn't explain why given quite normal calcium levels. I did back off and am at a steady 70 or so given my osteoporosis (finally decided on Prolia).
Perhaps D levels ought to be a routine test in nearly all yearly wellness tests, except for some reason insurers seem reluctant to pay. "Since no trials". The risks of osteoporosis in seniors via fall consequences are at least like those risks of colon cancer for which we do screen at much greater cost. The long term costs of being in a wheelchair are quite large.
May we see a disciplined, double-blind study proving your claims for vitamin D? I am not impressed with unsupported statements about what “every MD, immunologist, virologist and epidemiologist” “should know” on the subject..I would require the same of claims for ivermectin, hcq, eye of newt and toe of frog.
Indeed! Dr. Prasad has often noted that the NIH has funds for all sorts of studies except RCTs of cheap stuff. We do have evidence that high levels of D are found in those who survive a covid episode. Many who didn't survive had low levels. Sadly there has been no real effort to collect those data. The newt eyes must be used in combination with chicken broth, not sure about the salt content.
We have studies of *treatment* with calcifediol, a fast acting form of vitamin D. IT WORKS. This is *causal* evidence that cannot be hand-waved away.
Trying to beef up your system does take some time using typical D3. Calcifediol is the very big hammer.
We have studies of *treatment* with calcifediol, a fast acting form of vitamin D. IT WORKS. This is *causal* evidence that cannot be hand-waved away.
Quite agree. Somehow the officials seem to think we will overdose given our propensity to take more of something might be better.
Yes, Vitamin D as well as omega-3 supplements as needed, as part of an overall emphasis on plant-based, nutrient-rich diets that boost the immune system. Many studies echo this one --> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.24.21259283v1.full.pdf
Ivermectin, hcq, vitamins? No mention of adverse events to vaxx, or ADE?
Vaccines are still by far the most important way to fight COVID. Early treatment is the best back stop.
Vaccines haven't been working since Omicron and their effectiveness continues to wane. We need safe and effective treatments.
Haha those negative efficacy numbers are showing the vaccines are the best way to get COVID.
I'm not sure what reality you are operating in, but it isn't one that is ruled by facts.
There is no treatment out there that is going to provide this level of efficacy.
This is just one of many, many graphs representing actual data that can be similarly replicated across jurisdictions in the US and the world. And I won't even go into the comparisons between preventive vaccines vs post-infection pharmaceutical treatment on costs, complexity of the intervention, efficiency, and risk (hint: vaccines come out the top in each category.
https://nbcmontana.com/resources/media/c38d35ca-3838-4e8c-ac8f-c0e4aa49b9e7-medium16x9_ScreenShot20211028at9.47.14AM.png?1635538204990
But I have a feeling no amount of facts or data is going to change an already made up mind...
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107934
Thanks. This study in no way contradicts my statement.
C'mon man. Early treatment is everything. There are twenty off-the-shelf treatments that are safe and effective. It is medical malpractice for you to remain silent on the importance of early treatment. https://c19early.com/
Agree with Toby! Want to keep people out of hospitals? Beef up Outpatient treatment. Plenty of therapeutics could be used. Two years into the pandemic and the lack of a robust outpatient treatment program is malpractice.
Agree
High VitD level + Ivermectin works: https://philharper.substack.com/p/uttar-pradesh-put-covid-early-treatment
As stated in earlier comment, vaccines > treatment.
Just repeating it doesn't make it true Katie.
No, outcomes do.
Then why does the most vaccinated place in the world, Israel, have the highest rate of Covid deaths?
Where in the world are you guys getting your data from?
Then why do vaccinated have higher hospitalization rates?
Have you reviewed CDC excess mortality data for 18-44 year olds?? Have you compared it to excess mortality against all other periods? Have you superimposed that excess mortality on vaccines schedules for 2021? What outcome did you find??
I assure you, it isn't pharam. I fully back Vinay on his cancer drug stances.
Agree with all, but important to add: don't mandate vaccines (especially boosters) for college students, or anyone else for that matter. Provide good up-to-date information about risk/benefit and let people make their own choices.
In other words, just what the Barrington scientists advocated.
That's what I thought while reading this. He said he didn't sign it because he didn't agree with everything they said. But there's NO WAY it wouldn't have been better than what we have now. Now he pretty much comes around to it after all.
Vinay has been largely red-pilled as a result of seeing how the government and media actually work. It is refreshing to see from one of the most far-left scientists out there.
"Boost elderly and vulnerable people in advance" - Offer and encourage if you want, but don't mandate.
Yes, and also hire back ALL health care workers as part of increasing hospital capacity
Why get boosted if double vaxed and survived Covid? Any evidence?
I don’t know what mechanism you could mandate elderly people to get booster (except for the younger over 65 who are still working). Maybe as a condition of living in a private retirement or nursing facility where they are private pay, but that’s probably it.
Would like to see evidence you need booster after covid and vaccine x 2
I'm not sure why you asked this question in response to my comment. I didn't argue for a booster one way or the other. I simply said I didn't see how you would mandate a booster for elderly people one way or the other (except a very small number of people in specific situations, but it wouldn't simply be because they are a certain age or whatever). I also didn't even mention prior infection.
Number 8 should read, "Hire back health care workers irrespective of vaccine status." Since we have now seen how useless the vax is at preventing spread, there is no logical reason to shun those who are unjabbed, even if they have not (yet) had covid. They are no more danger to patients and other staff than those who are "fully" jabbed but have not (yet) had covid.
…you forgot ‘stop watching cable news’. It’s not really news anymore
Another suggestion is to stop counting cases.
I like most of what you said, but *please* keep track of vaccine reactions. To me, the correlation between vaccination and death is rock solid. I would only recommend it for certain politicians and technocrats, and for them, daily or even hourly.
"Give credit for natural immunity." For *what*? Are you in favor of vaccine mandates, if they're "more reasonable"?
I hope not. These vaccines are dangerous and ineffective.
After seeing how the sausage is made, I believe that no mandates of any kind are justified for the covid-19 vaccines. And watching our institutions in action, I'm closing in on opposing mandates for *any* vaccines under *any* circumstances.
absolutely right, they can never be trusted
Also, why not run RCT’s on VitD levels and risk of severe disease? If it ends up being true that >40/50 ng/ml reduces risk of severe disease, that’s another cheap and safe tool to use.
Great analysis. I’m worried about my area’s reaction to the next wave. I have a feeling mandates will automagically appear right after Election Day.
We all know another wave will hit, and I wish more governments would adopt a measured approach. To truly help the most people, politicians should focus on efforts that gain broad acceptance, instead of just earning kudos from their side and shaming everyone else.
I live in a very mandate/heavy handed area, and I’m not super concerned about things swinging too far back in that direction. Why? Public sentiments have dramatically shifted and will shift further when people adjust to living without restrictions, are reminded of what life was like, and the media realizes the public isn’t interested in the impending doom stories anymore. But mostly — public figures all over the country at every level of government are looking at the calendar and all they can see is November.
I want my pound of flesh. There's not knowing and acting with limited information (best you can do) and acting against precedent to try and salvage your reputation because of hubris. All the while doing so much harm. Willfully shutting down people to save your hide? That's criminal.
Why oh why do you NEVER address early treatment. That should have been key from the very beginning. The doctors who have been treating early are reporting great success yet you focus on masks and how ineffective they are. Well early treatment isn't ineffective and should be the focus of all doctors looking to save lives.
Still no comment regarding nutrition and supplements? Are there things some of us do in flu/cold season useful - like gargling with solutions and nasal cleaning? Assisting the immune system should be advocated along with added helpful infection reduction methods - preventing infection before replication takes off.
EARLY F*CK*NG TREATMENT. https://c19early.com/