HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

OT: Well, that was easy money- Vitamin D vs Covid-19

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic locked
1 2 34 5 6 7
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 6/4/2020 10:48 AM (GMT -5)
I've been "following" this thread (as in reading it) since it started, but will admit that I'm not really "following" it (as in understanding) a lot of the nuances. But it has underscored the importance of Vitamin D to me and, coincidentally, I had my annual labs this week so for the first time I looked at my Vitamin D number...

It's 40 ng/mL, which is in the sufficient range, although at the lower end of it. What I'm trying to understand is there a *likely* benefit to supplementing my Vitamin D (I don't do that now) to boost it even higher than that.
Posted 6/4/2020 3:51 PM (GMT -5)

Michael_T said...
I've been "following" this thread (as in reading it) since it started, but will admit that I'm not really "following" it (as in understanding) a lot of the nuances. But it has underscored the importance of Vitamin D to me and, coincidentally, I had my annual labs this week so for the first time I looked at my Vitamin D number...

It's 40 ng/mL, which is in the sufficient range, although at the lower end of it. What I'm trying to understand is there a *likely* benefit to supplementing my Vitamin D (I don't do that now) to boost it even higher than that.

Michael,
I am not sure if there is all that much nuance to this thread. All that is going on here is that I had previously made a public "bet"(so to speak) in a few online places where I participate, as well as in person to people I know. And that bet was that every one (or very nearly so) who was in ICU with Covid, and most especially critically ill and on the ventilator, had low- most likely very low levels of vitamin D in their blood, and virtually no vitamin C in their blood. (that last part because not only did they likely start out with low vitamin C, but whatever vitamin C we do have is rapidly used up fighting acute stressors like CV-19). Then I had said I felt confident that I would collect on that bet if only some one would put it to the test. ( also, they would have to control for whether folks had started taking high doses of D before they got to the hospital, and or whether their doctor had been treating them with D or C )

And low and behold, a month or two later, multiple studies pop up where they are looking into just that. ( i.e. vitamin D, I have not heard of any one looking into vitamin C blood levels in ICU CV-19 patients. Spoiler alert: it is low unless they are giving it to them). And low and behold, every study I have seen so far ( about 5 now I think) has confirmed my theory, some to an impressive degree. Now, admittedly all but this last one have been observational rather than clinical trials. So all they are doing is either looking at previous studies of peoples vitamin D levels in various countries and comparing that to how these countries have done with their death rates from CV-19. Or, in the last 2 studies(before the most recent one where they actually gave vitamin D), it's almost as if they heard my request: they actually measured the vitamin D blood levels of hospitalized Covid patients, solidly confirming that those doing better had higher levels, and those doing worse and in ICU had the lowest levels. To the point where in the Louisiana study, 100% of those under age 75 and in ICU with CV-19 were "insufficient", i.e. their definition of insufficient: less than 30 ng/ml. IOW, NO ONE with levels 30 or above made it into their ICU with CV-19.

But, nothing much to learn here other than a general principle, most probably: those with "inadequate" vitamin D in the blood tend to do much worse with CV-19, and those with "adequate" tend to do much better. More appears to be better, at least up to some unknown point. That is about it. And unfortunately, except maybe for the last study/trial I just linked to, these studies still do not "prove" that taking vitamin D supplements will help you do better with CV-19. But in the last study I just linked to, they gave a small amount of D, and folks did a good bit better. So that one is getting closer to actual proof.

But now, what about your situation? You have proved me wrong! I have been claiming that just looking at peoples blood levels ( with very rare exceptions) is sort of like determining who has been supplementing(or getting lots of sun). Because, I claimed, that population studies have consistently indicated that almost every one is below 30, and most a lot below 30, if they don't supplement or sun bathe. And here you come strolling in here with a level of 40 without supplementing. ( any sun exposure?). So how have you accomplished that? There are those rare "diseases" where folks run excessively high on vitamin D, though I can't think of what disease that is at the moment.

It seems likely that, with your level of 40 even without supplementation( a couple of months of taking 2000 IUs per day only got me up to 30), you are good to go. And I guess it proves yet once again there is no way to really know without measuring. If you had been in the study done in Louisiana, it seems to me that you could not have gotten sick enough to make it to ICU, with your natural level of 40, since no one else (Under age 75) did so with the level equal to or greater than 30.

Now I personally prefer a level of 50 or 60 or a bit more, and only start to worry about toxicity when I might approach 100. My highest measured level is 80 and that when I was taking 10,000 IU/day, and as I said 2000/day only got me to 30. Here is a quote from a simple wiki article about too much vitamin D (I know nobody likes Wiki, but for convenience) "Hypervitaminosis D is a state of vitamin D toxicity. The normal range for blood concentration is 20 to 50 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL)......A mutation of the CYP24A1 gene can lead to a reduction in the degradation of vitamin D and to hypercalcaemia.......................Based on risk assessment, a safe upper intake level of 250 µg (10,000 IU) per day in healthy adults has been suggested by non-government authors................Acute overdose requires between 15,000 µg/d (600,000 IU per day) and 42,000 µg/d (1,680,000 IU per day) over a period of several days to months. .............................Endogenous production with full body exposure to sunlight is comparable to taking an oral dose between 250 µg and 625 µg (10,000 IU and 25,000 IU) per day.[10][11].................". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hypervitaminosis_d

Here is another: "Vitamin D toxicity is rare. It is caused by supplementing with high doses of vitamin D rather than sunlight. The threshold for vitamin D toxicity has not been established; however, according to some research, the tolerable upper intake level (UL) is 4,000 IU/day for ages 9–71[162] (100 µg/day), while other research concludes that, in healthy adults, sustained intake of more than 1250 μg/day (50,000 IU) can produce overt toxicity after several months and can increase serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels to 150 ng/mL and greater.[28][163] Those with certain medical conditions, such as primary hyperparathyroidism,[164] are far more sensitive to vitamin D and develop hypercalcemia in response to any increase in vitamin D nutrition...........A review published in 2015 noted that adverse effects have been reported only at 25(OH)D serum concentrations above 200 nmol/L.[159] ( that = about 80 ng/ml)

Published cases of toxicity involving hypercalcemia in which the vitamin D dose and the 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels are known all involve an intake of ≥40,000 IU (1,000 μg) per day.[164] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vitamin_d#excess

So some say that above 80 is toxic, some say over 100, the above seems to associate well over 100 with toxicity("in healthy adults, sustained intake of more than (50,000 IU) can produce overt toxicity after several months and can increase serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels to 150 ng/mL and greater")".

My preference for a level greater than 40 is in part based on a study on breast cancer I have linked to before where those with 40 ng/ml did better than those with 30, but those with 60 ng/ml did a good bit better than those with 40. And yes, I do realize this is not a breast cancer forum. or a CV-19 forum. ;)

So you are a lucky fellow with a "natural" level of 40. Possibly good enough to keep you out of that Louisiana ICU with Covid. But should you go for more? I do not know. I would prefer a bit higher, but I certainly have no proof that is beneficial. If you decide to take 1000 or 2000 IU/day or more(think about those days sunning on the beach or at the pool when you probably made 10,000-20,000 IUs), be sure to test again to see what it is doing to you. And if you do, please let me know, I'd be really interested in the results.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 6/4/2020 3:15:43 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/4/2020 5:01 PM (GMT -5)
Maybe nuance wasn't the right word, but there is a lot of info in this thread. I even had to read this last response twice. (Or maybe I'm just not sharpest knife here at Healingwell.)

Although I live in a relatively sunny place (Southern California), other than a daily walk of about 30 minutes, I'm not really outside. And when I go out, I cover up--generally wearing long sleeves and a hat and preferring shady routes when possible. But maybe that still sneaks in some Vitamin D.

I do know that several years ago my wife had a Vitamin D shortage and was prescribed a Vitamin D supplement that was so large it looked like it should have been for horses. Since then she has continued to take 2,000 IU/day of Vitamin D--I should check and see what her most recent Vitamin D level is. She gets somewhat more sun than I do since in addition to our walks, she's also out in the garden most days, but her natural skin color is also a few shades darker than mine.

As to me, it's easy enough for me to supplement for six months or so and see what the effect is--it seems relatively safe to do so. I appreciate your thoughts...
Posted 6/4/2020 8:33 PM (GMT -5)

Michael_T said...
Maybe nuance wasn't the right word, but there is a lot of info in this thread. I even had to read this last response twice. (Or maybe I'm just not sharpest knife here at Healingwell.)

Although I live in a relatively sunny place (Southern California), other than a daily walk of about 30 minutes, I'm not really outside. And when I go out, I cover up--generally wearing long sleeves and a hat and preferring shady routes when possible. But maybe that still sneaks in some Vitamin D.

I do know that several years ago my wife had a Vitamin D shortage and was prescribed a Vitamin D supplement that was so large it looked like it should have been for horses. Since then she has continued to take 2,000 IU/day of Vitamin D--I should check and see what her most recent Vitamin D level is. She gets somewhat more sun than I do since in addition to our walks, she's also out in the garden most days, but her natural skin color is also a few shades darker than mine.

As to me, it's easy enough for me to supplement for six months or so and see what the effect is--it seems relatively safe to do so. I appreciate your thoughts...

Hey, it's not you failing to be the sharpest knife, it' me being so danged long winded! I can't put into one sentence what I can put in a novel!

But that is interesting about your wife, it will be great if you can check her level. Let us know. If it turns out to be not high enough, a heads up about those huge single doses docs like to give: they don't work well against certain diseases! A few studies now have shown that smaller daily doses work best, weekly work OK, and monthly or multi month huge mega-doses not so much.
Posted 6/8/2020 12:53 PM (GMT -5)
Wow, it seems like once the ball started rolling, there is just no stopping it. The studies are continuing to roll in, and continuing to show impressive benefits for having higher levels of vitamin D in your blood vs Covid-19. And of course, with rare exceptions, the only way to have higher levels of D i your blood is by supplementing or getting a good bit of sunshine(which doctors have advise us to avoid for the last few decades, so it is a rare person who will get it from sunshine). I can't help but think of a famous person who used to post here, who declared that the science was in, and there was no need for any more testing of vitamin D because it had been proven to be pretty worthless for most folks and for anything. I sure would love to have a friendly discussion with him now about that very subject. I think a lot of lives could have been saved(and still could) if these various studies would just be publicized. But alas, it rarely makes the news.

Any way, this one comes out of the University of Chicago. While the last one I reported was actually a clinical trial where thet gave a measly 1000 IUs to their CV-19 patients with very worthwhile results, this newest one is another observational study, like all of the earlier I have reported on(except for the last one), They simply looked at 4300 patients who had been tested for Covid-19, and found 499 who had a vitamin D level in the year before testing. Then they divided them up into categories, depending on whether or not they had, during the last year, been supplementing with high enough doses or not, of:
1: likely deficient for 127(25%) patients, (Vitamin D deficiency was defined by the most recent 25-hydroxycholecalciferol <20ng/ml ) or
2: likely sufficient for 291(58%) patients, and
3: uncertain for 81(16%)

I wondered why they did not simply measure their current levels as some previous studies have done. But I suppose that is because some folks, once they started feeling bad or got scared by the news, might have already started supplementing but not before they already had CV-19. So, they just went by their measurement done within one year.

Results: for those deficient ( unfortunately, no comparisons specified for folks who were not only not deficient, but actually on the high side, say 40-60+) at <20 ng, almost twice as likely to test positive for CV-19.
"Importance: Vitamin D treatment has been found to decrease incidence of viral respiratory tract infection, especially in vitamin D deficiency. It is unknown whether COVID-19 incidence is associated with vitamin D deficiency and treatment. Objective: To examine whether vitamin D deficiency and treatment are associated with testing positive for COVID-19

Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was testing positive for COVID-19....................COVID-19 rates in the vitamin D deficient group of 21.6%(95%CI[14.0%-29.2%] ) versus 12.2%(95%CI[8.9%-15.4%]) in the vitamin D sufficient group. ..............................
Conclusions and Relevance: Vitamin D deficiency that is not sufficiently treated is associated with COVID-19 risk. Testing and treatment for vitamin D deficiency to address COVID-19 warrant aggressive pursuit and study........".
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.08.20095893v1

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 6/8/2020 12:00:22 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/8/2020 1:40 PM (GMT -5)

Michael_T said...

It's 40 ng/mL, which is in the sufficient range, although at the lower end of it. What I'm trying to understand is there a *likely* benefit to supplementing my Vitamin D (I don't do that now) to boost it even higher than that.

Michael, I first tested in the upper 20's and my MO had me take 2800 iu. Got into the upper 30's and he upped me to 3800 per day. I last tested in the 70's and my MO is pleased.
Posted 6/8/2020 3:06 PM (GMT -5)
Does CNN want more people to die from Covid-19? Surely not, but this article is so insane that one might wonder. Here we are with study after study of most folks who have serious CV-19 cases also having low blood vitamin D, and even one successful clinical trial with CV-19 patients treated with D, and CNN's main concern seems to be that we will end up with too much calcium absorbed if we take more than the recommended 600 IUs/day. This adds to my over all disgust with our system and the "authorities" in that system, some of whom are being quoted here.

Ironically, and surprisingly, after their dire warnings against too much vitamin D and repeating of the favorite mantra "there is no evidence", later in the article they wrote this: "The fuss began when researchers in the US and UK began comparing the vitamin D levels of various countries to their coronavirus death rates and found an association: The countries who reported lower levels of vitamin D also had higher death rates from Covid-19.
Was that association caused by a lack of vitamin D or by other factors at play during the pandemic?.................................
After all, people around the world who are at highest risk of vitamin D deficiency -- those with underlying chronic disease, an older age or darker skin color -- are also the same people at highest risk of dying from Covid-19..................However, Henley added, not all of that increased risk can be explained by known factors, so investigations into vitamin D are "urgently" needed to see if it too may play a role.
"It is too early to draw firm conclusions about the importance vitamin D in explaining Covid-19 susceptibility," Henley said. "However, given the current lack of therapeutic options for tackling Covid-19, playing close attention to population levels of vitamin D merits attention."......................... ( BB388 inserts a thought: Or, you could just recommend D, you moron, since you know dang well the odds of harm are extremely low )
But vitamin D does much more than protect bone and muscle development. It helps brain nerve cells carry messages, and helps the immune system fight off invading bacteria and viruses.
Studies have shown that vitamin D deficiency impairs the immune system, and some older studies found that vitamin D supplements may reduce the risk of respiratory virus infections and immune system overreaction.
Former CDC Director Dr. Tom Friedan pointed to some of those studies in an op-ed he wrote for Fox News, suggesting that additional supplement might be good for the vulnerable in society, such as the elderly and those with chronic conditions. ( BB inserts another thought: OR, what about: suggest reasonable doses to everyone, or sunshine, until some one actually PROVES it one way or another, as your odds of causing harm appear to be extremely low. And you MIGHT keep many thousands from dying from CV-19 or flu or other health issues related to low D. DUH! )
"There are many crackpot claims about miracle cures floating around, but the science supports the possibility -- although not the proof -- that Vitamin D may strengthen the immune system, particularly of people whose Vitamin D levels are low," Friedan wrote.
But those infections are not Covid-19, and there is no known benefit at this time to taking higher than recommended doses of vitamin D, some experts say........................................".

OK, which is it? Is it "Studies have shown that vitamin D deficiency impairs the immune system, and some older studies found that vitamin D supplements may reduce the risk of respiratory virus infections and immune system overreaction."? Or is it "there is no known benefit at this time to taking higher than recommended doses of vitamin D, some experts say"? One or the other, please pick. And here is a hint: It is the first one.

""Globally, there is mixed evidence around the role of vitamin D and respiratory tract infections," said Michael Head, a senior research fellow in global health at the University of Southampton in the UK..............................................Studies are underway to see if supplementation with D will have an effect, but until then, the experts who wrote the vitamin D consensus paper urge caution:" Proving yet once again that experts can be real morons, or something a lot worse. What evidence do they have of harm from supplementation with the amounts between 1000 and 5000 IU? Right, zero, especially if blood is tested.

They urge caution. Their concern is that you are going to hurt yourself by elevating your vitamin D levels, with minuscule evidence available to prove that(talk about no evidence! ). Are they also concerned that we might overdose from sunshine when we go to the beach and our bodies make 10,000- 20,000 IUs? Millions of people have been supplementing with D from 1000 to 10,000 IUs per day for years, and yet no reports of serious SEs in any significant numbers that I know of. In the meantime, study after study rolls in showing the powerful and consistent correlation between low D and severe cases of CV-19 and flu other infectious disease of the lungs, but their main concern is that we might take some D and actually hurt ourselves. Despite many studies with supplementation with reasonable amounts showing no significant unwanted SEs(unlike most drugs), this is their concern rather than that you might possibly die of covid( or even regular flu) for lack of D?

So, when it comes to vitamins D and C and zinc, I have been ranting for a long time about the guilt that belongs to these authorities who refuse to tell us about things that are very likely to help us while being very unlikely to hurt us, as well as being dirt cheap. While they await the miracle drug or vaccine, newly patented, and almost certainly with some unwanted SEs. But in this case, as thousands die from CV-19, CNN is actually stepping in and apparently hoping to scare people out of taking D. While racking my brain to come up with a possible excuse for this imbecility, it does cross my mind: "no wonder some people are conspiracy theorists".


https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/health/vitamin-d-coronavirus-wellness/index.html

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 6/9/2020 6:44:11 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/22/2020 9:17 AM (GMT -5)
The evidence continues to mount. Who knows why on earth the Dr. Faucis of the world, or our government, will not inform the public about this. The authors of this study give the usual caution about how this does not prove that the low vitamin D levels CAUSED the Covid-19 deaths, because of course it MIGHT be the covid caused the low vitamin D levels. But I would counter that based on numerous population studies of people who do not have covid-19, almost NO ONE has vitamin D levels above 20 or 30 unless they supplement or sun bathe. Therefore, it is almost certain that those in this study, with levels above 30 and who had a 10 times lower death rate, had been supplementing or getting a lot of sun.

"Of those who died most (85%) had a co-morbidity, the real surprise is that even more than that, 96% had low Vitamin D levels. Of those who survived, most people had normal Vitamin D levels. Only 7% of survivors had low or deficient Vitamin D. That is quite a split.

Vitamin D deficiency was very common among these Indonensian patients. Half of those measured did not have enough Vitamin D in their blood. Of those that did, 96% survived, and only 4% “expired”. Vitamin D looks like a good protector.

After controlling for known risk like being old, or male or having high blood pressure, a Vitamin D level described as deficient (less than 20ng/ml) was associated with a 10 fold greater risk of death. These are quite extraordinary numbers. In most medical studies an OR (odds ratio) as low as 1.3 is notable enough to get published. But these are OR’s of 10...............................

BB@388 adds: In the above study of 780 people in the hospital with CV-19, of the 400 who had not died, TWO were deficient in vitamin D!

"Just looking at the raw data, without adjusting for risk factors, suggests that when vitamin D levels fall below 30 ng/ml (moderate levels) people were 12 times as likely to die — and when they were even lower, below 20ng/ml, people were 19 times as likely to die. These were higher risks than those from the pre-existing conditions themselves.

The patients were an average age of 54. But it is sobering that the paper notes that even of the under 50s who survived, 80% are still in hospital.

As I wrote about Vitamin D

The cost of one night in intensive care would provide vitamin D supplements for a month for 3,000 people......".".

http://joannenova.com.au/2020/05/indonesian-study-low-vitamin-d-patients-ten-times-more-likely-to-die-of-coronavirus/

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 6/22/2020 8:21:02 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/22/2020 9:34 AM (GMT -5)
From the article you linked: "This doesn’t mean taking a Vit D pill will protect you. It’s possible the severe form of the disease might have caused the low Vitamin D levels, in which case taking a supplement may or may not help."
Posted 6/22/2020 11:10 AM (GMT -5)

Buddy Blank said...
From the article you linked: "This doesn’t mean taking a Vit D pill will protect you. It’s possible the severe form of the disease might have caused the low Vitamin D levels, in which case taking a supplement may or may not help."

Absolutely, you are correct, still does not PROVE that taking supplements or sunbathing will help anything. Just as I wrote in my previous post: "The authors of this study give the usual caution about how this does not prove that the low vitamin D levels CAUSED the Covid-19 deaths, because of course it MIGHT be the covid caused the low vitamin D levels. But I would counter that based on numerous population studies of people who do not have covid-19, almost NO ONE has vitamin D levels above 20 or 30 unless they supplement or sun bathe. Therefore, it is almost certain that those in this study, with levels above 30 and who had a 10 times lower death rate, had been supplementing or getting a lot of sun. ".

So, it is virtually certain that those who had the levels above 30 ng/ml, and who also were the ones who did vastly better than the ones who had low levels, had either been supplementing or sun bathing. Again, from my previous post: "Vitamin D deficiency was very common among these Indonensian patients. Half of those measured did not have enough Vitamin D in their blood. Of those that did, 96% survived, and only 4% “expired”. Vitamin D looks like a good protector."

As we know from many population studies of populations who do not supplement or get plenty of sun, almost every one is below 30 and a whole bunch are below 10. Just as with, no doubt, these Indonesians. They are below 30 before they ever get Covid-19 or flu. Thus, though possible, it is extremely unlikely that CV-19 either caused the low vitamin D in the patients who died, or contributed to the higher vitamin D levels in the ones who survived. It is far more likely that the ones who were deficient, and who had so much higher death rate, were deficient before they ever got CV-19, just as most non-supplementing populations, including these Indonesians, normally are.

From previous post: "BB@388 adds: In the above study of 780 people in the hospital with CV-19, of the 400 who had not died, TWO were deficient in vitamin D! ".

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 6/22/2020 10:14:24 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/22/2020 11:25 AM (GMT -5)
Not likely that Covid-19 is causing the low vitamin D levels:
" In areas with available data, the prevalence of low vitamin D status is a global problem in all age groups, in particular in girls and women from the Middle East."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4018438/ ( caution, the very low levels show in this study are both in nmol/L and ng/ml) Notice that 86% of Iranians are < 12 ng/ml! And 93% are < 30! In Turkey, 98% are < 30, India 99% <30. USA blacks 46% < 20, whites 56% < 30.

None of these low levels are caused by CV-19 or any other disease. The low numbers are caused by lack of sunshine and/or dietary/supplemental doses of Vitamin D.
Posted 6/22/2020 11:31 AM (GMT -5)
Yes, and as you know, I posted the RCT re: vitamin D back in March. I first became aware of the RCT from Dr. John Campbell's YouTube channel. He takes 4000 IU per day himself, as do I, and at those levels, it can't hurt a person - I hope. I've read the main concern with too much D is hypercalciuria (excess calcium in the urine), and the loss of bone mass density. I might go back to 3000 IU a day. I don't know yet.

Hope all is well. It's raining here so my usual walk around town is on hiatus until it stops.
Posted 6/25/2020 9:57 AM (GMT -5)
Oh, okay, now I'm going to be informed, probably it's high time I buy vitamin D. By the way, update, lol, I really love this thread, Thanks BobbyLive for posting your studies, they're actually captivating and informative to read. Besides, speaking of surveys, have you conducted any research, any surveys in order to collect accurate data? I personally tend to take surveys of my particular field, which I usually find on yourmoneygeek.com. That is the best source providing a full list of the most reliable companies offering taking online surveys for money.

Post Edited (Andysalman67) : 8/15/2020 2:20:02 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/25/2020 10:13 AM (GMT -5)
I have been on 2000 units of D-3 twice a day for years now. My GP put me on it because of my heart issues....
Posted 6/27/2020 1:22 PM (GMT -5)
BB perhaps of interest: "Vitamin D hits the media" by Dr. John Campbell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qymfslfae5o

It's quite good.
Posted 6/27/2020 2:14 PM (GMT -5)

Buddy Blank said...
BB perhaps of interest: "Vitamin D hits the media" by Dr. John Campbell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qymfslfae5o

It's quite good.

Thanks for the link, Buddy. Very interesting.
Posted 6/27/2020 9:31 PM (GMT -5)
Billy did you expect anything different from the Communist News Network?
Posted 6/29/2020 8:15 AM (GMT -5)

Skypilot56 said...
Billy did you expect anything different from the Communist News Network?

Well, probably not, Sky. I'm all for wearing masks to protect others, distancing as much as possible and hand washing. But I think there are things our government and authorities could advise our doctors and us about that would help us far more than those measures, far more even if added to those measures. I truly wonder how many lives might have been saved if they only would spread the word. And if it didn't actually help, it seems the down side is very limited regarding side effects and cost, so how can they keep silent?

I tell every one I know, but I fear that a lot of those folks just listen politely and think I am some kind of loon, because after all their doctors would have told them if it was so, or it would be on the news, or Dr. Fauci would have told us in a news conference. However, even though I feel many won't listen, I also feel that many have listened and taken action.

In the meantime, in the UK( as far as I can tell, this is a link to a group that is involved with alternative pproaches. However, it appears the health care workers are happy to be supplied, and at the bottom of the page are links to summaries of the research so far):
"Let us come together to provide the best quality immune-supportive packs for NHS frontline staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Let us help keep these wonderful people protected

>> from the inside out <<

The Frontline Immune Support Team was founded to make available some of the best quality immune supportive products on the market to help keep those on the NHS frontline resilient and strong.


Immune supportive packs are sent directly to each individual NHS healthcare worker who signs up for this initiative - and they receive all products for FREE.

We currently have hundreds of NHS staff already signed up ready to go; and with your contributions we can supply and reach thousands more.................................................................

Packs include:

Liposomal Vitamin C

Vitamin D

Zinc

Many more incredible immune boosting products............................

Liposomal Vitamin C is the best absorbed Vitamin C on the market. It is well researched and known to support immunity during times of viral pandemics.


As NHS health workers are on the receiving end of an ongoing high viral load in the workplace, the Liposomal Vitamin C - alongside all the other immune supportive products in these packs, will give our wonderful frontline NHS workers the best chance to keep resilient and strong in these times ................."
https://www.frontlineimmunesupport.com/

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 6/29/2020 8:07:53 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/29/2020 9:01 AM (GMT -5)
And of course, though I started this thread to discuss the many recent studies that have come out on D vs CV-19, D is by no means the only approach that has a good chance of helping a lot and even saving a lot of lives, with little risk or cost, some of which we have discussed more than once here. From the link in my previous post(which is from folks with a more natural, non traditional approach, so they might be biased, but though they provide links to the traditional medical research), there was this link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fkdkobx0tyosmhf1zifapb6kvf7ftzpqzwjfqtxl8sk/edit
"Vitamin C: Supporting Scientific Evidence
There are so many compelling reasons why high dose oral vitamin C should be given to frontline workers, anyone with an active infection and given intravenously to those critically ill COVID-19 patients in ICU to speed up recovery and reduce mortality.
1. A randomised controlled trial, one in Wuhan, China has shown a third less deaths (31.5%), less inflammation (IL-6), less time on ventilators. Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan gave patients 12 grams IV, twice a day, versus sterile water. 
Ruijing Hospital in Shanghai reported no deaths  in an interim report of their first 50 cases of moderate to severe COVID-19 cases given IVC (10-20g a day for 7-10 days). Patients who received high dose IVC had a hospital stay about 3-5 days shorter than the overall patients. Dr.Mao discussed one severe case in particular who was deteriorating rapidly. He gave 50g IVC over a period of 4 hours. The patient's pulmonary status stabilized and improved as the critical care team watched in real time. There were no side effects reported from any of the cases treated with high dose IVC. The Shanghai Medical Association endorse vitamin C for the treatment of COVID-19 infections (statement in the The Chinese Journal of Infectious Diseases).

A trial in Italy is under way trialing 10g IVC in 500 patients at the Arnas Civico-di Cristina-Benfratelli National Relevance Hospital.
2. High dose vitamin C speeds up pneumonia recovery. A 2018 study of 56 patients with severe pneumonia given 6g oral vitamin C daily reported an 85% drop in mortality and double the rate of radiologic improvement in the lungs after a week.
3. Cold duration is 20% shorter and symptoms less severe. In a controlled (but not placebo) trial[6], 85% of the 252 students treated experienced a reduction in symptoms in the high-dose oral vitamin C group (6g on day 1 and 3g daily thereafter). In two placebo studies[7] giving 6-8g in the first day, colds were 20% shorter. In those taking 8g in the first day 46% had symptoms that only lasted for one day. A trial published in March in the British Medical Journal military edition shows 20% less colds in soldiers given 6g of vitamin C daily, versus placebo.[11]
4. Vitamin C shortens stay in ICU. In five trials [8] including 471 patients requiring ventilation for over 10 h, an oral dosage of 1–6 g/day of vitamin C shortened ventilation time on average by 25% (P < 0.0001).
27 hospitals in New York , Wisconsin, Houston and East Virginia are using intravenous vitamin C and report remarkable improvement in symptom severity, duration and deaths. Houston Hospital has reported ‘zero deaths’. Professor Paul Marik at East Virginia Medical School, who has already established the efficacy of IVC in sepsis patients, has reported no deaths in the first 30 seriously ill COVID patients in his ICU.
5. Vitamin C is safe. No adverse effects have been reported in any trials giving high dose oral or intravenous vitamin C to those with influenza, colds or pneumonia.
This review on ‘Vitamin C and Infections summarizes the research to date on vitamin C supplements if you’d like to see the evidence for yourself.".

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 7/1/2020 7:18:39 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 6/30/2020 10:36 PM (GMT -5)
I've been taking supplemental Vitamin D for 20 years. I've been taking CoQ10 for about 2 years. Does any know if it helps the immune system, or is it advertising hype?
Posted 7/1/2020 7:50 AM (GMT -5)

Tim G said...
I've been taking supplemental Vitamin D for 20 years. I've been taking CoQ10 for about 2 years. Does any know if it helps the immune system, or is it advertising hype?


.........................................................................................
I have not heard one way or the other about CoQ10 and the immune system, I have heard it is more related to heart health and perhaps muscle pain. Especially for those taking statins, since supposedly statins deplete CoQ10. But I have not researched it much, so I am fairly ignorant on it.

OTOH, vitamin D, C and A, among others, seem to be strongly related to immune system function, as well as various other bodily functions.
Posted 7/1/2020 8:13 AM (GMT -5)
Coenzyme Q10 supplementation and oxidative stress parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials (2020, Review, Full Text)

Djin
Posted 7/5/2020 4:21 PM (GMT -5)
Hey, have I already reported this one? There have been so many recent studies on this that they are starting to blur together for me, but this one does not seem familiar. It is another pre-print, so still has some peer review to go through, but with so many dying I'm glad they are quick to get these things out to us quickly. If it later proves to be wrong or over stated, probably little harm done considering low cost and SEs. From Israel, July 3rd. I'm not going to quote extensively from it with copy and paste, as I am not certain of copyright issues.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.01.20144329v1.full.pdf

But, to summarize, they looked at many thousands of folks who tested for CV-19 between Feb and Apr 2020, and who also had at least one previous blood D test on record. They picked the recently popular level of < 30 ng/ml as "Suboptimal". This worked out to be about as expected based on all the other recent studies. 782 tested positive for CV-19. There appears to be a typo, as it says there was a significant difference in the mean levels of those who tested positive (19.55 ng/ml) vs those who did not (20.55). I say "typo" because that does not sound like a significant difference to me, and both are severely into the "suboptimal" category, and simply makes no sense. I suspect they maybe meant "30.55", since 30 was the cut off for "suboptimal"? It will be interesting to see if there is a correction later.

In addition, it also says that after Univariate analysis , there was an association ( odds 55% higher) between low ( less than 30, right?) plasma 25(OH)D level and a positive test, and a 95% greater chance of hospitalization. These odds remained about the same after a multivariate analyses that controlled for demographic and several other variables.

These studies, done all over the world, have been very consistent. Now what I would love to see: break down the odds for folks with at least 40 ng/ml, 50 ng/ml, etc. as well as the other end, those
< 20, < 15, etc. But so far, if you manage to reach 30 ng/ml, which for most folks is going to mean supplementation or sunbathing, you will be in a group who have at least cut their odds of ending up in the hospital with CV-19 by about 1/2. And I would guess cut them even more for ending up in ICU. Who knows what the results might be with levels above 40 or 50?

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 7/5/2020 3:24:35 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 7/6/2020 8:45 AM (GMT -5)
Again, if it was as simple as that BB, why aren't our medical professionals ringing the alarm bells? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Posted 7/6/2020 9:32 AM (GMT -5)

Buddy Blank said...
Again, if it was as simple as that BB, why aren't our medical professionals ringing the alarm bells? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know, Buddy, you will have to tell me. Have they told you to take D or C? If not, then why do you take it? Why, if the majority of the medical pros have not rang the alarm bells?

Or perhaps, a medical pro that you know has actually told you to take it, for whatever reason. There are several folks here who have said their docs have told them to take D, for example. Are their docs stupid, or do they know something that the top dogs do not or at least refuse to consider? Why are some small number of docs advising their patients to take D(or at least get their blood levels measured to make sure they are not deficient), but the guys at the top are not "ringing the alarm bells?" You tell me.

Buddy, I know you(and some other folks here) see it different than me regarding this general subject, but to me it really is as simple as that, even if I can't answer the "why" for our medical and governmental authorities. It is as simple as the studies have piled up to the ceiling know, all of which indicate something is up. Why is this evidence being ignored by so many at the top, and even some of our local docs? Why is my URO taking D because, for one reason, he has a family history of PC, and yet he never told me about his thoughts on that? Why, in a previously linked to article about one of the recent studies on D vs CV-19, did experts chime in to caution you and me against taking D in hopes of improving our odds against CV-19, because, well you know, that old mantra "there is no evidence"(even though the study being discussed was at least some evidence)? And then the very same people, further down in the article, admitted(perhaps unintentionally) that while there was not yet enough evidence for CV-19, there was for many other infectious diseases, and those docs and THEIR families started taking the vitamin D at the beginning of the pandemic. What could possibly be the reason for that, that in the same breath they would caution us to not take D in the battle against CV-19, while they and there families were doing exactly that? Can you think of a reason for such, what shall I call it? Well, maybe I can not give for certain the why, by the facts are the facts and that is what they did. Let me know if you need it, and I will go back and find the quotes for you.

Why are at least 1/2 dozen well thought of critical care docs across this country ( I have previously provided links to those docs ) making their routine care, instituted immediately upon hospital admission for CV-19, giving IV vitamin C, B1, along with the old, cheap drug methylprednisolone, and claiming major success, and yet the guys at the top have never mentioned this to the public? These docs include Paul E. Marik, M.D., FCCM, FCCP, Endowed Professor of Medicine, Chief, Div. of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School. And Joseph Varon, M.D., FCCP, FCCM, Professor of Acute & Continuing Care, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Chief of Staff & Chief of Critical Care, United Memorial Medical Center, Houston, Texas. And at least a few others with equal credentials. These guys are obviously not stupid. And they are doing this and trying to get others to do it. But has anyone sounded the national alarm? Have you heard about this on the nightly news or from Dr. Fauci? Well, why not? I don't know, you tell me. But maybe I can't answer such questions, but I know if I find my self critical with CV-19, I am going to fight to get to one of these docs, or try to force my docs to follow their protocol.



Buddy, it is indeed just as simple as the studies, at least until a study shows up to counter the more than 1/2 dozen recent studies on D vs CV-19, not to mention the many previous studies on D vs various infectious diseases and other health issues. It is that simple, which is why you and I and I bet the majority of folks at this forum try and make sure their blood D is adequate, even if they won't ring the alarm bells from on high.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 7/6/2020 10:19:33 AM (GMT-6)

✚ New Topic locked
1234567