There is also this[1] meta study that claims that you are only about half as likely to catch a cold if you treat your vitamin D deficiency. https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583
> But sometimes misinformation can develop even around ideas that have some truth to them
So many words and FUD in continued denial that there is more to science than “gold standard” double-blind randomised controlled trials. Bayesian statistics can inform hypotheses at any level of evidence, and zero-cost interventions like “wear a mask” and “take Vitamin D” require just a tiny bit of evidence. And even without any evidence they’re still better than the reverse (“don’t wear a mask”, “don’t take Vitamin D”) which are also without evidence.
In a novel crisis, you have to act without firm evidence (I cal this “executive ability”). Most Western governments and medical organisations failed to do that, so now they’re continuing to gaslight the public to conceal their failure.
I thought the early reluctance to recommend masks was because there was a shortage and medical staff needed them more, and there was the fear that constantly touching your face to adjust a mask and incorrectly wearing or removing masks might increase exposure.
That was part of the message, but another part was that it was "not airborne" (and that messages to the contrary are misinformation) and that healthy people wearing masks has "no medical benefit". All while they were walking around in bunny suits and full face masks in china.
The article does a good job of refuting your points, I'm surprised you made them having read it.
You don't want to give people a sense of false hope because it discourages compliance with interventions with known effectiveness, like social distancing.
>...because it discourages compliance with interventions with known effectiveness
It's been very disheartening watching so many of our essential institutions toss aside their credibility this last year. I wish I had to words to express how dangerous this is moving forward.
I'm not from the US, but I feel the same way. The all powerful European Union just gives me a sense of despair after how they handled this crysis; I feel like I should start building my life with the assumption that I am alone in time of crysis.
It showed me that failed German politicians go to the EU and become High-Ranking officials there, possibly because Germany is the most powerful country in the EU.
It showed me there are people in power that - together with an army of legal advisers - haven't ever read or written a single private economy delivery contract in their life.
I don't know who else was involved but it certainly wasn't just von der Leyen, this was complete institutional failure.
Probably as well the most effective Brexit propaganda you can imagine.
Hardly. Vaccine procurement was never supposed to be a core EU competency. But the EU still managed to negotiate good faith contracts with a number of suppliers.
Of those suppliers, only AstraZeneca acted with bad faith to excuse non-delivery. The other suppliers - having the sense to understand Covid is a global problem, not a national one - didn't.
The UK then used its gamble on an untested schedule - the gap was originally supposed to be weeks, not months - to turn vaccination into a propaganda exercise.
Meanwhile the British variant, which appeared because the UK failed to lock down properly in the first place, is still causing tens of thousands of deaths across the EU.
Institutional failure you say? Indeed it is - on the British side. If the UK had acted rationally and responsibly a year ago, there would have been no need for vaccine nationalism.
Lol, keep kicking the ball to the other side while not seeing the EU's own mistakes. The UK started vaccinating its citizens right after Pfizer Phase 3 was confirmed. The US, UK and Israel are actually overpaying for the Pfizer vaccine, while the EU resorted to haggling on price. Of course, misers always get pushed to last.
This seems exactly backwards. The EU's involvement in vaccine and PPE procurement was at least partially a propaganda exercise to try and undo the damage done when member states with more manufacturing capacity cut off the supply to other states with a more desperate immediate need like Italy and the EU was impotent to stop it. Which was a potential existential threat - the whole purpose of the EU was to encourage trade and interdependence between European states and ban them from using protectionism to ensure the existence of local manufacturers, and now, when a crisis had hit, this was literally killing people
Changing the vaccination schedule in the UK, on the other hand, was an informed gamble that - based on what was known about the vaccine at the time - would likely result in much fewer people dying and being hospitalized than sticking to the original, basically arbitrary, vaccination schedule.
Also, blaming AstraZeneca for the EU falling behind the UK in vaccination is 100% pure propaganda. As far as I can tell, at this point their vaccine deliveries to the UK are about as far behind schedule as the ones to the EU, and the UK is a lot more reliant on AZ vaccinations than the EU. The EU just didn't order enough - their initial AZ order was about the same size as the UK one, for a much larger population, meaning they ended up with less production capacity relative to their population than the UK. The reason it seems like the UK vaccination scheme is going to plan is because the UK contract had contractual clauses with teeth requiring AZ to promptly notify them of how much they were actually going to deliver once they had their plants up and running, and the UK's plan was based on the actual delivery schedule. The EU... didn't. At all. I don't think they understand this even now, judging from all the conspiracy theories about how the yield problems are an excuse and AZ are really just sneaking off doses to the UK.
The EU is built for slown policy making, not crisis. There is a lot of complexity in wrangling 27 governments to take a joint decision that a single country just doesn't have.
I call that a failure of governance. A ship's bridge or a plane's cockpit might mostly be a place for slow decision making. However, in times of crisis, it should show off its true nature and effectivity.
The danger is that there's a big "we know better than you" component to it, which is used to justify hiding the truth. For example it might be true that the population in general would be better off if we save the masks for nurses. Then, the government should say "don't wear a mask, we need them for nurses". They should not say "don't wear a mask, they don't work". Also it might even be true that wearing masks reduces distancing, on average. Then, the government should say "wear a mask but pay attention that you don't stop distancing", and not "don't wear a mask, they don't work". The paternalistic PR-minded reasoning goes like
1) What do we want people to do?
2) How do we get them to do it?
The answer to 2 should always be simply explaining the reasoning for 1, even if it would be a little less effective than making up some lie. In the long run this builds trust in the government, instead of reducing it leading to a total breakdown of compliance because they lie all the time.
The most dangerous and insidious thing about this dynamic, IMHO, is that a certain type of smart or self-identified elite person will go along with it, because they, too, believe that you can't just tell the truth to the general public (of which they don't consider themselves a part of course).
To be clear here, the CDC first issued guidance for the general community to wear masks on 3 April 2020, so about 2 months after the U.S declared a public health emergency.
Even at the time the CDC gave its guidance, the published evidence to support the general public wearing masks was quite weak. Here is an extract from a systematic review of the published research from shortly after the CDC gave its guidance.
> There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.
So the CDC was faced with a situation where there was minimal evidence for the efficacy of the general public wearing masks and a severe shortage of PPE among medical personnel. In that context, they held back recommending that the general public wear masks.
It wasn't really till May/June that evidence started mounting in support of the general use of masks amongst the public.
So there was no conspiracy, just hard working people trying to do their best in a difficult situation. The world is much more dull than people like to believe.
I tend to agree that the world generally is more dull than people like to believe. However, I'd say that mostly applies to people trying to make more ordinary events more extraordinary. But in the case of covid, we already have an extraordinary situation.
I don't have any evidence that the CDC was deliberately withholding information (not to say it doesn't exist), but I do have evidence that medical leaders have felt it okay to lie to the public with regards to covid.
> In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent... And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”
> In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
> “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
I think this direct quote (from your article) best sums up his position:
> “We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”
He's not lying, like the rest of us, he doesn't know. Especially, with the advent of the new variants.
Also, it's odd you're pointing out him giving information during an on-the-record interview as evidence that he's lying.
> Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts... partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
> Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
Dr. Fauci believed that the real range was somewhere between 70 to 90 percent as you pointed out; however, he gave lower estimates to the public because he didn't believe the public was "ready to hear what he really thinks". So not only was he failing to correct pre-existing misconceptions, but he was actively spreading misconceptions about how much of the population he believed needed to be vaccinated. As such, he was lying by omission.
I did a bit of googling and from what I can tell, Dr. Fauci has been has been messaging the higher figures since at least 1 December 2020. So starting from the period just before we've had vaccines approved for emergency use, Dr Fauci has been using the higher figures.
When Dr. Fauci was claiming lower figures: no vaccine had completed clinical trials; variants had not yet emerged; and governments were more willing to implement lockdowns, mask orders, and social distancing restrictions.
If he's guilty of anything, it is misleading the public into thinking he knows what the number is. Nobody knows what the real number is, there are so many confounding factors that it'll take years of research to come up with a decent estimate as to the real herd immunity level of Covid-19 immunisation.
This is a general problem in public scientific messaging. Science deals with uncertainty and nuance, but the fearful public seek certainty and simplicity. People in these positions don't always get the balance right (especially in a crisis), but I wouldn't impune somebody's reputation on that basis.
> the published evidence to support the general public wearing masks was quite weak
The physical basis of a face mask is well understood, and engineers have measured filtering efficiencies in labs. What was weak, was randomised controlled trials where you give masks to people and ask them to use them, with a control group to which you don't give masks. This kind of studies also give at best weak evidence that condoms would help preventing sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies.
"Despite the public health importance of increasing condom use there is little reliable evidence on the effectiveness of condom promotion interventions."
According to your criteria, we should maybe stop recommending condoms?
To make the condom metaphor relevant to this discussion we'd have to make a few tweaks to the mechanics of condoms and human physiology:
* Humans would have to require at least some fluids to pass through during sex to survive, so condoms would have to be porous enough to allow these fluids through while trapping sperm
* Condoms capable of this feat would have to be relatively scarce, so the general population would instead use improvised genital coverings
* Women would have to be able to become pregnant by merely touching some dried out sperm on a door handle and then rubbing their genitals some time later
* Men would have to be of the habit of ejaculating on various public surfaces throughout the day
* Women would have to be of the habit of rubbing their genitals throughout the day
* A large segment of the population would have to refuse to wear their genital coverings while ejaculating on public surfaces or rubbing their genitals
* Even those that complied with state genital covering regulations were prone to adjusting them throughout the day and accidentally rubbing their genitalia.
So yes, with those minor tweaks, I'll concede your point.
No, it wasn't novel. History is full of prior examples of large scale outbreaks. Wide scale, highly detailed simulations have been performed over the years. Crisis managers have warned for decades that we were not prepared for the next pandemic.
In addition, crises of different nature have similar structures. The readiness to deal with the structure of crises of different nature can be tested.
IMO the loss of credibility doesn't come from getting things wrong, but by blatant dishonest behavior. Here's two examples off the top of my head.
The US Surgeon General, CDC, WHO, etc. got on national television and said masks don't work when what they appear to have really believed is that masks DO work, but they wanted to reserve them for healthcare workers. The cost of this dishonesty is that when they flipped the script people were less likely to comply/believe them. And any recommendations they give going forward has to go through the "Are they sacrificing me for the greater good" filter.
When the question of whether COVID is lab generated is brought up, the relevant institutions consistently respond in a dishonest manner. They pretend that "lab generated" means gene editing and they vociferously deny the gene editing hypothesis. But that's not what is being asked. What's being asked about is gain of function research.
These things are categorically different than something like "I think if they closed the borders sooner we would've had less impact." That might fall under "not performed perfectly" and I'm willing to grant a lot of leeway for that category of error under emergency circumstances.
> The US Surgeon General, CDC, WHO, etc. got on national television and said masks don't work when what they appear to have really believed is that masks DO work, but they wanted to reserve them for healthcare workers. The cost of this dishonesty is that when they flipped the script people were less likely to comply/believe them. And any recommendations they give going forward has to go through the "Are they sacrificing me for the greater good" filter.
I think this was just a problem of messaging. The science really wasn't there to support the hypothesis that masks could help limit transmission in the community. Even the evidence for their effectiveness in a clinical setting was extremely limited.
There was reason to believe, however, that if they were effective, they'd be more effective in a clinical setting because they'd be used in combination with other PPE, hand washing would be more frequent, and staff were trained on how to wear masks correctly. Clinicians also happened to be putting their necks on the line by knowingly coming into close contact with infected individuals, while the rest of us were hunkered down at home.
Here is an extract from a review of the published literature shortly after the CDC gave its guidance for the community to wear masks:
> There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.
> What's being asked about is gain of function research.
I'm glad that we can (seemly) agree that Covid-19 created using genetic engineering. Are you aware of any evidence to suggest that its evolution was guided by deliberate human action?
The official communication here was that it was unclear whether masks increased or decreased spread.
The fear was two fold. That people would be sloppier with social distancing when wearing masks. That handling masks wrongly would increase the mask wearers risk of getting infected.
So it was not perceived as a zero-cost intervention here at least.
Are those actual, real concerns or just post-rationalizations and coverups for depleted stockpiles which would lead to panic buying? There are many years of prior practice to mask-wearing in many asian countries. And is there any evidence that masks made the Spanish Flu worse in 1913?
Also this seems like worrying about second-order negative effects to the extent that one neglects the first-order positive effect.
I remember the discourse at the time of the discussions in the Netherlands including discussions about that wearing mask = touching face more = increased risk. Not after, but during the discussions.
> wearing mask = touching face more = increased risk
Within 24 hours that question could have been answered.
It would have gone something like this:
* Hour 1:. Health minister directs ministry to urgently answer this question, since it will impact policy.
* Hour 2: health ministry contacts 5 university professors to conduct study.
* Hour 3: university professor decides to invite 50 students in (paying them $50 each) to do a study. Email 1000 people, first 50 to reply get invited in.
* Hour 4, professor and assistants go to shop to buy cameras and sticky blue ink.
* Hour 5, study begins. Participants have ink spread over faces and cameras sit recording around the room. Participants are allowed to do whatever they like (study, call friends, watch TV, etc). Half are instructed to wear masks except when eating and drinking.
* Hour 7, study ends. Turns out the ink dried out and didn't work, but footage from cameras is reviewed.
* Hour 9. Exact counts of face touches for each group are produced.
* Hour 10. Preliminary results forwarded to the health ministry and other universities.
* Hour 11. Other university professors review data and method and say "our best guess is the initial theory of 12 hours ago is likely wrong".
* Hour 12: Health ministry gives advice to wear masks.
Afterwards each person in this chain is paid generously for dropping all work to handle this urgent matter.
I fear this is still using hindsight to overcorrect in the opposite direction. The critical factor is fomite vs droplet transmission, and we didn't have that in day 1. In the alternative world where covid spreads by touch 1000x more than by air, masks would likely do more harm than good.
Not trying to defend the authorities, I still think they were waaay too far from the optimum course. A few weeks in we already had a fair guess that it's more air than touch. But still, it wasn't as trivial to be solved in one afternoon.
The point I was making is no [western] government can get any research to inform an urgent policy decision in 24 hours.
My government would be issuing a request for proposals 6 months later, and the actual study results would cost tens of millions of dollars and only be delivered 3 years later.
I remember it differently here in the Netherlands. While the Dutch CDC was actively downplaying the severity and risk of the virus in Februari, plane-loads of masks and other protective equipment were shipped to China. Many Asians were actively hoarding masks in retail to have them sent to family members as well.
When the RIVM heard of these actions in February, they downplayed the effectivity of masks. Only in March and April, when the crisis hit us (unprepared), reasons had to be given why our supplies of masks were depleted. This is when the media started spinning the story that mask wearing causes increased touching of the face. There is no scientific basis for that claim.
The RIVM is a scientific institute. In addition to that, they provide an advisory service to the Dutch government and to the Dutch population.
You should never believe anyone outright (including oneself). So yes, you get to choose when to believe them.
The RIVM has traditionally had a very good reputation to its level of scientific research. Nevertheless, this does not entail a good consulting role on policy making, especially under duress.
In conversations I have had with governance experts, the relatively weak political position of the RIVM has come up many times. During normal times, this political position is irrelevant, since the RIVM is merely a reflection of scientific insights. During times of crisis and power struggles, the leadership position crumbles.
That, in and of itself, is the sole reason the RIVM has struggled the last year. Power was not balanced. You can see this numerous times:
- RIVM was forced to make a position on the role of COVID-19 on children. Absence of evidence became evidence of absence.
- RIVM was forced to make a position on face masks. Same thing happened. There simply was not enough strong evidence (according to their own strict rules of peer-reviewed, double-blind research).
Similar miscommunications have happened on the topic of aerosols and schools as an important contributing vector.
Please realise how important this is. This is a large scale and continuing failure of governance.
Oh believe me, I do realize. RIVM is a complete failure, it’s a scientific institute that has lent itself to political tricks.
It is completely untrustworthy and has shown time and again it is willing to lie for political purposes.
RIVM by law is independent. It cannot be forced to take positions. It is by its own choice that it bends over backwards and makes false statements for political purposes.
It is a scientific institution that has failed science. It is rotten to the core, it is less than worthless, it must be dismantled and replaced.
On a virology podcast I started listening to after Covid started the hosts were, early on, mocking a woman for wearing a medical mask on a plane. I really think it was mostly cognitive dissonance at the heart of it. If masks worked we would use them, we don't use them, therefore masks don't work. They rationalized reasons why wearing a mask was actually dangerous but you could just hear them making up their justifications in real time and they didn't make much sense.
Also, a huge amount of our day to day behavior is driven by habits and norms which we later rationalize when questioned. Even with good arguments you need early adopters out there being visible to shift norms. Visible success or high status adopters can be important too.
> mocking a woman for wearing a medical mask on a plane.
I feel like these hosts have some combination of poor credentials, ginormous egos, or that toxic desire to play up a take to their audience. attention. I hope they acknowledged how foolish they were.
If by “these hosts” you mean the field of epidemiology then we agree. Pretty sure the podcast in question is hosted by experts with great credentials, in their field.
I'd be curious to know who they are, because their credentials should be in doubt.
Regardless of the effect of masks on COVID, there are some individuals who should wear them for a variety of indications. If they wear the right kind of mask and wear it properly, it can help them. They did it before the pandemic and will continue to do so after the pandemic is over.
So simply observing that somebody was wearing a mask and making assumptions that there was no legitimate reason is simply bad public health. That's not just being wrong about COVID-19 and it's not just a lack of empathy for person who was herself unsure of the details and just doing her best. That's just wrong on the epidemiology.
> Are those actual, real concerns or just post-rationalizations and coverups for depleted stockpiles which would lead to panic buying?
It was a real concern, you could find American scientists quoted in news articles years before Covid criticizing the East Asian public for wearing masks in the face of a MERS resurgence in South Korea, for instance.
The fear of people getting infected by handling the mask was also perfectly fitting in with all the other fears about surface and fomite transmission and the obsession about washing hands and sanitizing, which as we have learned more about the disease seems to be almost entirely wasted effort.
Pretty sure what actually turned American and European opinion around on masks was noticing that South Korea, China, and Japan were all doing a lot better against Covid and were using masks widely not just in the hospital.
Also, at least in the USA a lot of government communications are subject to FOIA and no one came up with any sort of smoking gun email indicating the government knew widespread masking would help in late February/early-to-mid-March and was suppressing the truth. Whereas we got plenty of other emails about the disorganized response (search for “Red Dawn” and “coronavirus” on google).
A cynic might point out our large mask shipments to other nations as proof we knew they work. That cynic might also tell you the focus on fomites and hand washing served a purpose. It detracted from the semi-suppressed news that airborne transmission was possible, and made the virus more or less unavoidable if one is in doors. Washing hands was a coping mechanism or something like it. We (those who were reading preprints from China) knew about the airborne transmission right away but “experts” went tv to “debate” the fact of airborne transmission in the name of fighting disinformation. Most disinformation came directly from the WHO and that continues with the recent “inspections” in China.
Since the topic here was D-vitamins I didn’t want yet another detail to digress over. My point was mainly that what might seem like “zero-cost” at first glance can be a bit more complicated.
FWIW Sweden is famous, I presume worldwide, but certainly here in Australia, for its novel response to COVID-19.
I'm sure there's a wealth of confounding social and political factors everywhere - though some nation states more than others - when looking at correlations with Vit-D and health outcomes.
When people hear the word "free," their bullshit detector gets activated. But if you call it a "zero-cost intervention" you can let your claim go unquestioned. Not to say this was done pervasively, or intentionally.
> Bayesian statistics can inform hypotheses at any level of evidence
This is wrong. You probably can employ bayesian causal inference if you know that two observed variables have a causal relationship and want to know about the direction. But if you already know that, most of the riddle has been solved a priori. Double-blind RCTs are the gold standard.
They are also extremely slow. Appropriate for efficacy testing of new treatments, not as much for public health messaging at the onset of a crisis.
It’s important to have a methodological basis for decision making in those early hours where information is sparse and of dubious quality. Without that, people panic and make short-sighted decisions that may undermine the legitimacy of their organization for years to come.
Yes absolutely. If things have to move fast, people/institutions have to refer to heuristics. But in my understanding this also is pretty much what the article described.
Are you really sure you are not missing some pieces of the puzzle, here? Well, I'm an epidemiologist and I'm quite sure you are missing some pieces. The systematic failure of this crisis is nothing compared to the societal failure caused by overly assertive people like you.
This is both an ad hominem and an appeal to authority, while you could have provided actual arguments that refute his point. Now it just lowered your credibility.
I remember to begin with the messaging was not to use cloth masks as they were essentially useless, so it really was N95 or nothing, and the N95 supply was needed in hospitals. Now we know that a cloth mask is actually better than nothing, and we also have a lot of supply of not-great-not-bad disposable or tightly woven cloth masks.
It is over YouTube, even amongst the more reasoned ones, and if you take a look at the alt-right crazies like Steve Bannon's show or Alex Jones, their primary income seems either to be selling pillows or vitamin pills. In particular Zinc and Vitamin D - to fight the China virus while boosting your testosterone.
I've never gotten my head around that aspect. I understand why celebrity endorsements work and why people would buy "Iron Pack" bodybuilding supplements from Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But isn't it obvious, just by looking at Alex Jones, that "Super Male Vitality" will not work as advertised? Or are there other guys who consider him to be a symbol of Testosterone, health, strength, fertility and sex appeal? Meaning do other guys look at Alex Jones and think "yes those vitality drops work well for him"?
I cannot believe it either, especially when he did a side-by-side of pictures which were (supposedly) before and after taking one of his supplements. Instead of looking stronger, healthier or even just generally better in any way he just seemed slightly ... redder: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/6dhtbb/never_forg...
I think a lot of it is something of a patreon effect. Alex Jones' followers see themselves as fighters in a culture war and buying his merch as supporting "their side". It isn't like he is the only person selling these supplements, yet he charges way more than normal. So I feel that something else has to be happening here besides people wanting "max force" or whatever. Jones is going to attract people who buy into this alpha male nonsense, but converting that into sales has more going on IMO.
Funny enough, when Steve Bannon started his Pandemic podcast back in January and recommended wearing masks and a complete countrywide shutdown, he was regarded as a wacko and Dr Fauci was on John Catsimatidis telling America that everything is fine and they don't need to do anything. Also, Steve was adamant about not calling it the China virus as it had nothing to do with the Chinese people and everything to do with the CCP.
I think the reason he didn't pick up the China virus cue from Donald Trump was that he is being sponsored by Chinese exile groups (Falun Gong and Miles Guo) and that trope was too much even for them.
Edit: am I wrong? Ingesting too much fat will be bad for one's health, ingesting too much carbohydrates, minerals, protein will be too. The same goes for any vitamins. There's no _efficient way to store anything_ if you ingest too much of it.
Can't say about them all, but Vitamin A could be stored in the body for like half a year after taking high dosage supplements. Of course, there is a limit, much higher dosage are harmful (the widely known polar bear liver toxicity as example).
Yea, I know. It bioaccumulates. I was telling you that's the mechanism of action for vitamin retention, not whatever you thought about your body saving some for later.
>> I'd suggest people check their values every other month or so to make sure their values aren't too high.
I recently spoke to my GP about this and was told they don't usually bother testing people for Vitamin D levels in the UK because most of us would be deficient. She recommended supplementing (I believe 4000 IU) all Winter and suggested possibly continuing throughout the entire year.
It's the serum level of activated vitamin D that matters, not your intake which may not even be absorbed properly. (You need to have sufficient magnesium for instance).
That there will be large variations in outcome is indicated by this conclusion from Nutrients 2020, 12, 1268
In 238 healthy adults (18-64; 50% male,female) screened for serum 25-OH-VitD concentration "two months of treatment with 25 µg (1000 IU) daily was not sufficient to assure recommended serum 25-OH-vitD levels in all subjects"
Since covid hit I wasn't really going outside that much.
I was taking 2500 IU daily since September. Got tested in December and had 102 nmol/l. The conservative reference is > 75 nmol/l and newer ones are 100-150 (https://www.grassrootshealth.net/document/vitamin-d-dose-res...).
So even with 4+ months of taking 2500 IU I was on the lower end of the reference.
Hypervitaminosis D is hard to achieve _by sitting in the sun_ because then your body makes as much as it needs and then stops making any more.
It is not hard to achieve when taking supplements, because you can always stuff yourself with way more supplemental vitamin D than your body can clear up before it starts causing problems.
Source: I was prescribed vitamin D3 by my endocrinologist (it's actually officially a hormone, cholecalciferol). I had regular blood tests for a year or so (for reasons) that were monitored by my endocrinologist, then at some point she told me to stop taking the D3 vitamin supplements because the amount of D3 in my blood was reaching the upper limit of a healthy person's. I too live in the UK.
"The danger, Prof Van der Linden explains, is when people suggest the supplement is a miracle cure and should be substituted for vaccines, masks and social distancing"
I honestly have not come across a single instance of this claim. Now I am in no doubt that given the extend of lunatic fringe the internet exposes us to that these people will exist, but then again, if it wasn't vit.D those same people would have some other 'substitute'. To me it is the same reasoning as "we shouldn't recommend seat-belts as some people might see that as a substitution for not speeding".
(O.T. How does a 'public service' company justify using all those dark patterns in there privacy 'consent' dialog?)
IIRC, HCQ was promoted as an early treatment, not a replacement for the vaccine.
This original article is about vitamin D and I agree with GP that I never saw claims that vitamin d alone can sort this out. I’m sure you can find any bunch of freaks on the internet, I was mainly following medical practitioners and select elected officials in this.
For me vit d was about improving general levels of immunity with the methods easily available at the time to minimise the death toll, not completely eradicate the virus.
Yeah, the only thing that I've seen pushed as a vaccine substitute without evidence is masks, by the mainstream American press - there was this narrative for a while that mask-wearing was more effective than vaccination would be, despite there being at best no evidence and at worst evidence suggesting they were likely to be much less effective than any vaccine even meeting the bare minimum criteria to be approved for use. And if anything, this seemed to be inspired by the fact that Trump didn't support mask wearing.
(Now, there did seem to be this idea over in South Korea that untested, in-development treatments could make an effective substitute for vaccination. I haven't seen the same in the US or other western countries though.)
March 2021, Cambodia has its actual first death from the virus.
Why?
They didn't listen to all the establishment people when they said "The OTC drug you've been taking your whole life to keep from being a brain-damaged malaria case is too dangerous to be used to treat Covid 19, Orange Man Bad pulled that out of his ass and also told people to drink bleach!"
Notice that noone in the Establishment is having to answer any questions as to why they banned HCQ based on a fraudulent study. Or why someone went and had a fraudulent study created in the first place. Or was able to get it into The Lancet.
It would be nice if someone asked Fauci these questions at a White House press conference.
I differentiate between preventions and cures (not at all qualified in medicine - feel free to correct me).
If Bolsonaro called it a cure, this still falls in my bucket of (early) "treatment". I don't participate in Brasilian society, but that still sounds to me that Bolsonaro was promoting HCQ as a _cure_. I can conceive that he was (erroneously) promoting cures, while still signing contracts for vaccines (preventions).
There's been a campaign of misinformation on social media persuading people not to wear masks, or engage in social distancing, or to take the virus seriously at all.
It's been quite evident.
I haven't seen anyone encouraging Vitamin D. But I have seen plenty of kooks and trolls claim that mask wearing is virtually guaranteed to suffocate you with CO2, and taking walks in the fresh air will magically boost your immune system to the point where Covid won't affect you.
And of course this is all a government plot to take away your freedom, etc, etc.
It's simple really. Have your doctor take a blood sample, get it tested for vitamin D deficiency and regulate your intake accordingly.
I've had myself tested december last year, mostly out of curiosity. Turns out I was severly deficient. Not really surprising, being a vegetarian locked inside. Started taking the highest available dosage (20000) via prescription twice per week and now feel much more energetic and "awake" I think.
I've had another test a few weeks ago, and while there's no acute deficiency anymore, doc suggested keeping up the current intake for another few months.
If your goal is to prove that Vitamin D isn't some miracle cure for COVID-19, well good job. It isn't. If you are trying to show that there isn't a decent amount of quality science supporting Vitamin D as a beneficial supplement to reduce the negative outcomes of the disease then you have a LOT more work to do than is done in this BBC article.
There is no need for anyone to lie about the results of published science one way or the other.
This article barely touches on the meat of the subject. Vitamin D levels can be measured. There are a broad range of ways to increase Vitamin D levels. Because Vitamin D is involved in so much physiology making sure to get enough sleep and avoid or handle stress tends to increase Vitamin D levels. Vitamin D is present in eggs, oily fish, and organ meats. The most recommended way to increase Vitamin D levels most of the year is to get some sun exposure at mid day. Vitamin D pills are not necessarily part of an active approach to raising Vitamin D levels.
Also, much as "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" has changed our understanding of sugar by presenting detailed analysis of the biology so there is also a great deal of specific research about exactly what Vitamin D does and what happens when one becomes deficient. All of this is much more robust than the studies of populations claiming to take pills just as the studies of diet consistently had a range of problems that detailed understanding of the biology did not have.
109 comments
[ 0.79 ms ] story [ 167 ms ] threadRelevant discussion with the lead researcher of the Queen Mary CORONAVIT study[0] (due to report in June).
[0] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04579640
It also predates the COVID craze.
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583
So many words and FUD in continued denial that there is more to science than “gold standard” double-blind randomised controlled trials. Bayesian statistics can inform hypotheses at any level of evidence, and zero-cost interventions like “wear a mask” and “take Vitamin D” require just a tiny bit of evidence. And even without any evidence they’re still better than the reverse (“don’t wear a mask”, “don’t take Vitamin D”) which are also without evidence.
In a novel crisis, you have to act without firm evidence (I cal this “executive ability”). Most Western governments and medical organisations failed to do that, so now they’re continuing to gaslight the public to conceal their failure.
https://a.pomf.cat/efwzku.png https://a.pomf.cat/kgzdak.png
You don't want to give people a sense of false hope because it discourages compliance with interventions with known effectiveness, like social distancing.
It's been very disheartening watching so many of our essential institutions toss aside their credibility this last year. I wish I had to words to express how dangerous this is moving forward.
I don't know who else was involved but it certainly wasn't just von der Leyen, this was complete institutional failure.
Probably as well the most effective Brexit propaganda you can imagine.
Of those suppliers, only AstraZeneca acted with bad faith to excuse non-delivery. The other suppliers - having the sense to understand Covid is a global problem, not a national one - didn't.
The UK then used its gamble on an untested schedule - the gap was originally supposed to be weeks, not months - to turn vaccination into a propaganda exercise.
Meanwhile the British variant, which appeared because the UK failed to lock down properly in the first place, is still causing tens of thousands of deaths across the EU.
Institutional failure you say? Indeed it is - on the British side. If the UK had acted rationally and responsibly a year ago, there would have been no need for vaccine nationalism.
> to turn vaccination into a propaganda exercise.
This is an absurd claim.
Changing the vaccination schedule in the UK, on the other hand, was an informed gamble that - based on what was known about the vaccine at the time - would likely result in much fewer people dying and being hospitalized than sticking to the original, basically arbitrary, vaccination schedule.
Also, blaming AstraZeneca for the EU falling behind the UK in vaccination is 100% pure propaganda. As far as I can tell, at this point their vaccine deliveries to the UK are about as far behind schedule as the ones to the EU, and the UK is a lot more reliant on AZ vaccinations than the EU. The EU just didn't order enough - their initial AZ order was about the same size as the UK one, for a much larger population, meaning they ended up with less production capacity relative to their population than the UK. The reason it seems like the UK vaccination scheme is going to plan is because the UK contract had contractual clauses with teeth requiring AZ to promptly notify them of how much they were actually going to deliver once they had their plants up and running, and the UK's plan was based on the actual delivery schedule. The EU... didn't. At all. I don't think they understand this even now, judging from all the conspiracy theories about how the yield problems are an excuse and AZ are really just sneaking off doses to the UK.
1) What do we want people to do?
2) How do we get them to do it?
The answer to 2 should always be simply explaining the reasoning for 1, even if it would be a little less effective than making up some lie. In the long run this builds trust in the government, instead of reducing it leading to a total breakdown of compliance because they lie all the time.
The most dangerous and insidious thing about this dynamic, IMHO, is that a certain type of smart or self-identified elite person will go along with it, because they, too, believe that you can't just tell the truth to the general public (of which they don't consider themselves a part of course).
Even at the time the CDC gave its guidance, the published evidence to support the general public wearing masks was quite weak. Here is an extract from a systematic review of the published research from shortly after the CDC gave its guidance.
> There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
So the CDC was faced with a situation where there was minimal evidence for the efficacy of the general public wearing masks and a severe shortage of PPE among medical personnel. In that context, they held back recommending that the general public wear masks.
It wasn't really till May/June that evidence started mounting in support of the general use of masks amongst the public.
So there was no conspiracy, just hard working people trying to do their best in a difficult situation. The world is much more dull than people like to believe.
I don't have any evidence that the CDC was deliberately withholding information (not to say it doesn't exist), but I do have evidence that medical leaders have felt it okay to lie to the public with regards to covid.
> In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent... And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”
> In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
> “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
> “We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”
He's not lying, like the rest of us, he doesn't know. Especially, with the advent of the new variants.
Also, it's odd you're pointing out him giving information during an on-the-record interview as evidence that he's lying.
> Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts... partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie):
> Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
Dr. Fauci believed that the real range was somewhere between 70 to 90 percent as you pointed out; however, he gave lower estimates to the public because he didn't believe the public was "ready to hear what he really thinks". So not only was he failing to correct pre-existing misconceptions, but he was actively spreading misconceptions about how much of the population he believed needed to be vaccinated. As such, he was lying by omission.
When Dr. Fauci was claiming lower figures: no vaccine had completed clinical trials; variants had not yet emerged; and governments were more willing to implement lockdowns, mask orders, and social distancing restrictions.
If he's guilty of anything, it is misleading the public into thinking he knows what the number is. Nobody knows what the real number is, there are so many confounding factors that it'll take years of research to come up with a decent estimate as to the real herd immunity level of Covid-19 immunisation.
This is a general problem in public scientific messaging. Science deals with uncertainty and nuance, but the fearful public seek certainty and simplicity. People in these positions don't always get the balance right (especially in a crisis), but I wouldn't impune somebody's reputation on that basis.
The physical basis of a face mask is well understood, and engineers have measured filtering efficiencies in labs. What was weak, was randomised controlled trials where you give masks to people and ask them to use them, with a control group to which you don't give masks. This kind of studies also give at best weak evidence that condoms would help preventing sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009845/
"Despite the public health importance of increasing condom use there is little reliable evidence on the effectiveness of condom promotion interventions."
According to your criteria, we should maybe stop recommending condoms?
* Humans would have to require at least some fluids to pass through during sex to survive, so condoms would have to be porous enough to allow these fluids through while trapping sperm
* Condoms capable of this feat would have to be relatively scarce, so the general population would instead use improvised genital coverings
* Women would have to be able to become pregnant by merely touching some dried out sperm on a door handle and then rubbing their genitals some time later
* Men would have to be of the habit of ejaculating on various public surfaces throughout the day
* Women would have to be of the habit of rubbing their genitals throughout the day
* A large segment of the population would have to refuse to wear their genital coverings while ejaculating on public surfaces or rubbing their genitals
* Even those that complied with state genital covering regulations were prone to adjusting them throughout the day and accidentally rubbing their genitalia.
So yes, with those minor tweaks, I'll concede your point.
In addition, crises of different nature have similar structures. The readiness to deal with the structure of crises of different nature can be tested.
The US Surgeon General, CDC, WHO, etc. got on national television and said masks don't work when what they appear to have really believed is that masks DO work, but they wanted to reserve them for healthcare workers. The cost of this dishonesty is that when they flipped the script people were less likely to comply/believe them. And any recommendations they give going forward has to go through the "Are they sacrificing me for the greater good" filter.
When the question of whether COVID is lab generated is brought up, the relevant institutions consistently respond in a dishonest manner. They pretend that "lab generated" means gene editing and they vociferously deny the gene editing hypothesis. But that's not what is being asked. What's being asked about is gain of function research.
These things are categorically different than something like "I think if they closed the borders sooner we would've had less impact." That might fall under "not performed perfectly" and I'm willing to grant a lot of leeway for that category of error under emergency circumstances.
I think this was just a problem of messaging. The science really wasn't there to support the hypothesis that masks could help limit transmission in the community. Even the evidence for their effectiveness in a clinical setting was extremely limited.
There was reason to believe, however, that if they were effective, they'd be more effective in a clinical setting because they'd be used in combination with other PPE, hand washing would be more frequent, and staff were trained on how to wear masks correctly. Clinicians also happened to be putting their necks on the line by knowingly coming into close contact with infected individuals, while the rest of us were hunkered down at home.
Here is an extract from a review of the published literature shortly after the CDC gave its guidance for the community to wear masks:
> There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
> What's being asked about is gain of function research.
I'm glad that we can (seemly) agree that Covid-19 created using genetic engineering. Are you aware of any evidence to suggest that its evolution was guided by deliberate human action?
The fear was two fold. That people would be sloppier with social distancing when wearing masks. That handling masks wrongly would increase the mask wearers risk of getting infected.
So it was not perceived as a zero-cost intervention here at least.
Also this seems like worrying about second-order negative effects to the extent that one neglects the first-order positive effect.
Within 24 hours that question could have been answered.
It would have gone something like this:
* Hour 1:. Health minister directs ministry to urgently answer this question, since it will impact policy.
* Hour 2: health ministry contacts 5 university professors to conduct study.
* Hour 3: university professor decides to invite 50 students in (paying them $50 each) to do a study. Email 1000 people, first 50 to reply get invited in.
* Hour 4, professor and assistants go to shop to buy cameras and sticky blue ink.
* Hour 5, study begins. Participants have ink spread over faces and cameras sit recording around the room. Participants are allowed to do whatever they like (study, call friends, watch TV, etc). Half are instructed to wear masks except when eating and drinking.
* Hour 7, study ends. Turns out the ink dried out and didn't work, but footage from cameras is reviewed.
* Hour 9. Exact counts of face touches for each group are produced.
* Hour 10. Preliminary results forwarded to the health ministry and other universities.
* Hour 11. Other university professors review data and method and say "our best guess is the initial theory of 12 hours ago is likely wrong".
* Hour 12: Health ministry gives advice to wear masks.
Afterwards each person in this chain is paid generously for dropping all work to handle this urgent matter.
Not trying to defend the authorities, I still think they were waaay too far from the optimum course. A few weeks in we already had a fair guess that it's more air than touch. But still, it wasn't as trivial to be solved in one afternoon.
My government would be issuing a request for proposals 6 months later, and the actual study results would cost tens of millions of dollars and only be delivered 3 years later.
* week 3-10 wait for research program to open for submission
* week 11 submit
* week 12-20 wait for outcome
* week 21: actually a surprise, it is fundes
* week 22: since this is involving human test subjects: submit to ethic commitee of university
* week 23- 30 wait for reply, approved
* week 30-38: term break (so no students around to ask)
* week 39-80 conduct the study (you need to have billable hours!)
* week 81: result is inconclusive further investigations in a new study needed
They could have bombared us through TV, billboards, online. But nope.
When the RIVM heard of these actions in February, they downplayed the effectivity of masks. Only in March and April, when the crisis hit us (unprepared), reasons had to be given why our supplies of masks were depleted. This is when the media started spinning the story that mask wearing causes increased touching of the face. There is no scientific basis for that claim.
You should never believe anyone outright (including oneself). So yes, you get to choose when to believe them.
The RIVM has traditionally had a very good reputation to its level of scientific research. Nevertheless, this does not entail a good consulting role on policy making, especially under duress.
In conversations I have had with governance experts, the relatively weak political position of the RIVM has come up many times. During normal times, this political position is irrelevant, since the RIVM is merely a reflection of scientific insights. During times of crisis and power struggles, the leadership position crumbles.
That, in and of itself, is the sole reason the RIVM has struggled the last year. Power was not balanced. You can see this numerous times:
- RIVM was forced to make a position on the role of COVID-19 on children. Absence of evidence became evidence of absence.
- RIVM was forced to make a position on face masks. Same thing happened. There simply was not enough strong evidence (according to their own strict rules of peer-reviewed, double-blind research).
Similar miscommunications have happened on the topic of aerosols and schools as an important contributing vector.
Please realise how important this is. This is a large scale and continuing failure of governance.
It is completely untrustworthy and has shown time and again it is willing to lie for political purposes.
RIVM by law is independent. It cannot be forced to take positions. It is by its own choice that it bends over backwards and makes false statements for political purposes.
It is a scientific institution that has failed science. It is rotten to the core, it is less than worthless, it must be dismantled and replaced.
Also, a huge amount of our day to day behavior is driven by habits and norms which we later rationalize when questioned. Even with good arguments you need early adopters out there being visible to shift norms. Visible success or high status adopters can be important too.
> mocking a woman for wearing a medical mask on a plane.
I feel like these hosts have some combination of poor credentials, ginormous egos, or that toxic desire to play up a take to their audience. attention. I hope they acknowledged how foolish they were.
Regardless of the effect of masks on COVID, there are some individuals who should wear them for a variety of indications. If they wear the right kind of mask and wear it properly, it can help them. They did it before the pandemic and will continue to do so after the pandemic is over.
So simply observing that somebody was wearing a mask and making assumptions that there was no legitimate reason is simply bad public health. That's not just being wrong about COVID-19 and it's not just a lack of empathy for person who was herself unsure of the details and just doing her best. That's just wrong on the epidemiology.
It was a real concern, you could find American scientists quoted in news articles years before Covid criticizing the East Asian public for wearing masks in the face of a MERS resurgence in South Korea, for instance.
The fear of people getting infected by handling the mask was also perfectly fitting in with all the other fears about surface and fomite transmission and the obsession about washing hands and sanitizing, which as we have learned more about the disease seems to be almost entirely wasted effort.
Pretty sure what actually turned American and European opinion around on masks was noticing that South Korea, China, and Japan were all doing a lot better against Covid and were using masks widely not just in the hospital.
Also, at least in the USA a lot of government communications are subject to FOIA and no one came up with any sort of smoking gun email indicating the government knew widespread masking would help in late February/early-to-mid-March and was suppressing the truth. Whereas we got plenty of other emails about the disorganized response (search for “Red Dawn” and “coronavirus” on google).
(But “here” in this case would be Sweden)
FWIW Sweden is famous, I presume worldwide, but certainly here in Australia, for its novel response to COVID-19.
I'm sure there's a wealth of confounding social and political factors everywhere - though some nation states more than others - when looking at correlations with Vit-D and health outcomes.
I understand we are quite extreme in our ways https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/photos/EV000190.JPG
> zero-cost intervention
When people hear the word "free," their bullshit detector gets activated. But if you call it a "zero-cost intervention" you can let your claim go unquestioned. Not to say this was done pervasively, or intentionally.
This is wrong. You probably can employ bayesian causal inference if you know that two observed variables have a causal relationship and want to know about the direction. But if you already know that, most of the riddle has been solved a priori. Double-blind RCTs are the gold standard.
They are also extremely slow. Appropriate for efficacy testing of new treatments, not as much for public health messaging at the onset of a crisis.
It’s important to have a methodological basis for decision making in those early hours where information is sparse and of dubious quality. Without that, people panic and make short-sighted decisions that may undermine the legitimacy of their organization for years to come.
People who told me banning plastic straws was helpful are now calling billions of disposable masks per week a "zero-cost intervention"?
At the beginning of the pandemic (and even now), many countries were PPE-constrained, particularly on masks.
The messaging was "no need to wear a mask", but the reasoning was that the supply we did have should go to front-line healthcare workers.
In other words, the Opportunity Cost was high.
I remember to begin with the messaging was not to use cloth masks as they were essentially useless, so it really was N95 or nothing, and the N95 supply was needed in hospitals. Now we know that a cloth mask is actually better than nothing, and we also have a lot of supply of not-great-not-bad disposable or tightly woven cloth masks.
N95s are also somewhat available.
But isn't it obvious, just by looking at Alex Jones, that "Super Male Vitality" will not work as advertised? Or are there other guys who consider him to be a symbol of Testosterone, health, strength, fertility and sex appeal? Meaning do other guys look at Alex Jones and think "yes those vitality drops work well for him"?
I can certainly see how to his audience those are signs of a strong man.
From what I've read hypervitaminosis D is quite hard to achieve, so I don't see the harm in taking it.
I'd suggest people check their values every other month or so to make sure their values aren't too high.
Especially those taking higher grade units, some pills are >5000iu.
Edit: am I wrong? Ingesting too much fat will be bad for one's health, ingesting too much carbohydrates, minerals, protein will be too. The same goes for any vitamins. There's no _efficient way to store anything_ if you ingest too much of it.
I recently spoke to my GP about this and was told they don't usually bother testing people for Vitamin D levels in the UK because most of us would be deficient. She recommended supplementing (I believe 4000 IU) all Winter and suggested possibly continuing throughout the entire year.
That there will be large variations in outcome is indicated by this conclusion from Nutrients 2020, 12, 1268
In 238 healthy adults (18-64; 50% male,female) screened for serum 25-OH-VitD concentration "two months of treatment with 25 µg (1000 IU) daily was not sufficient to assure recommended serum 25-OH-vitD levels in all subjects"
I was taking 2500 IU daily since September. Got tested in December and had 102 nmol/l. The conservative reference is > 75 nmol/l and newer ones are 100-150 (https://www.grassrootshealth.net/document/vitamin-d-dose-res...). So even with 4+ months of taking 2500 IU I was on the lower end of the reference.
It is not hard to achieve when taking supplements, because you can always stuff yourself with way more supplemental vitamin D than your body can clear up before it starts causing problems.
Source: I was prescribed vitamin D3 by my endocrinologist (it's actually officially a hormone, cholecalciferol). I had regular blood tests for a year or so (for reasons) that were monitored by my endocrinologist, then at some point she told me to stop taking the D3 vitamin supplements because the amount of D3 in my blood was reaching the upper limit of a healthy person's. I too live in the UK.
I honestly have not come across a single instance of this claim. Now I am in no doubt that given the extend of lunatic fringe the internet exposes us to that these people will exist, but then again, if it wasn't vit.D those same people would have some other 'substitute'. To me it is the same reasoning as "we shouldn't recommend seat-belts as some people might see that as a substitution for not speeding".
(O.T. How does a 'public service' company justify using all those dark patterns in there privacy 'consent' dialog?)
This original article is about vitamin D and I agree with GP that I never saw claims that vitamin d alone can sort this out. I’m sure you can find any bunch of freaks on the internet, I was mainly following medical practitioners and select elected officials in this.
For me vit d was about improving general levels of immunity with the methods easily available at the time to minimise the death toll, not completely eradicate the virus.
(Now, there did seem to be this idea over in South Korea that untested, in-development treatments could make an effective substitute for vaccination. I haven't seen the same in the US or other western countries though.)
Yeah I misread GP as a supplement, not the supplement, but sadly can't edit the post anymore.
> IIRC, HCQ was promoted as an early treatment, not a replacement for the vaccine.
It was explicitly called a cure by Bolsonaro: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/world/americas/virus-braz...
edit: Trump saying it works in the early stages of Covid, and is extremely succesful when coupled with zinc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZYiS05FmiQ
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23403754
Meanwhile, you have stuff like this going on in the wider world:
https://apnews.com/article/pandemics-phnom-penh-coronavirus-...
March 2021, Cambodia has its actual first death from the virus.
Why?
They didn't listen to all the establishment people when they said "The OTC drug you've been taking your whole life to keep from being a brain-damaged malaria case is too dangerous to be used to treat Covid 19, Orange Man Bad pulled that out of his ass and also told people to drink bleach!"
Notice that noone in the Establishment is having to answer any questions as to why they banned HCQ based on a fraudulent study. Or why someone went and had a fraudulent study created in the first place. Or was able to get it into The Lancet.
It would be nice if someone asked Fauci these questions at a White House press conference.
PPS: Worldofmeters Laos Coronavirus statistics:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/laos/
If Bolsonaro called it a cure, this still falls in my bucket of (early) "treatment". I don't participate in Brasilian society, but that still sounds to me that Bolsonaro was promoting HCQ as a _cure_. I can conceive that he was (erroneously) promoting cures, while still signing contracts for vaccines (preventions).
It's been quite evident.
I haven't seen anyone encouraging Vitamin D. But I have seen plenty of kooks and trolls claim that mask wearing is virtually guaranteed to suffocate you with CO2, and taking walks in the fresh air will magically boost your immune system to the point where Covid won't affect you.
And of course this is all a government plot to take away your freedom, etc, etc.
I've had myself tested december last year, mostly out of curiosity. Turns out I was severly deficient. Not really surprising, being a vegetarian locked inside. Started taking the highest available dosage (20000) via prescription twice per week and now feel much more energetic and "awake" I think. I've had another test a few weeks ago, and while there's no acute deficiency anymore, doc suggested keeping up the current intake for another few months.
If your goal is to prove that Vitamin D isn't some miracle cure for COVID-19, well good job. It isn't. If you are trying to show that there isn't a decent amount of quality science supporting Vitamin D as a beneficial supplement to reduce the negative outcomes of the disease then you have a LOT more work to do than is done in this BBC article.
There is no need for anyone to lie about the results of published science one way or the other.
Also, much as "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" has changed our understanding of sugar by presenting detailed analysis of the biology so there is also a great deal of specific research about exactly what Vitamin D does and what happens when one becomes deficient. All of this is much more robust than the studies of populations claiming to take pills just as the studies of diet consistently had a range of problems that detailed understanding of the biology did not have.