The study did not actually measure Vitamin D levels.
"
But further investigation was needed because observational studies couldn’t establish a causal link between blood vitamin D levels and COVID-19. The challenge in establishing a causal link arises because blood vitamin D levels are influenced by multiple factors including genetics, exposure to sunlight, diet and supplements, and are associated with other risk factors for COVID-19, the researchers said.
“We were trying to get at the part of the variation in vitamin D that’s genetic and leave aside the rest to see whether or not there’s an association with the risk of getting COVID-19,” Cassano said. “And when we do it that way, we find no association, and that’s telling.”"
Yeah, as I was reading this, I couldn't help but wonder if genetic markers are sufficient to estimate vitamin D levels alone. Honestly the title of the article should be something like "Genetic markers of increased vitamin D levels do not correlate to lower severity of Covid-19"
> Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of serum vitamin D levels identified genetic variants that are robustly associated with serum vitamin D status in different populations and ancestries.
Edit: thanks for both the replies below. I just wanted to answer the question about whether genetic markers are predictive, but I see now that leaving it at just that would be misleading.
"This study was not designed to evaluate the effect of acute changes in vitamin D status (ie, from supplementation) on prevention or treatment of COVID-19. One randomised trial and one quasi-experimental trial have provided evidence for a positive effect of vitamin D supplementation around time of diagnosis on COVID-19 prognosis in infected individuals. The doses of vitamin D administered in these studies could result in an acute change in the availability of vitamin D, which may support the immune system’s response to the virus, mitigate acute lung injury and contribute to improved prognosis. Our results, which pertain to long-term vitamin D status, do not preclude the possibility that therapeutic doses of vitamin D may be effective in preventing or treating COVID-19 infection. Larger randomised trials using diverse sample populations are needed to investigate the potential use of therapeutic doses of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 prevention and treatment."
>These results do not exclude the possibility of low-magnitude causal effects or causal effects of acute responses to therapeutic doses of vitamin D.
Further from the study it seems that they evaluated genetically dependent serum levels, not acute deficiencies from, say, lack of exposure to sunlight. This headline and article are misleading.
I've said this since the beginning. Instead of focusing on miracle drugs, vaccines, social distancing, governments should have just given everyone a Peloton or similar exercise bike. There would probably be zero deaths. Alas no one wants to put in work anymore, they just want a quick fix
Sorry 84% of deaths. I'm also convinced if this virus happened in the 60's we would have way less deaths (per 100,000) even with the lack of medical advancements. People with a reasonable weight and exercised once a month were never in any danger. Sure there are outliers. Healthy people can have complications. That's with any virus though.
You said that there would be no deaths if everyone got a Peloton. That's one of the most out-of-touch COVID opinion I've ever heard. I really don't get your point.
Healthy people get COVID too, and you can't cure a lot of health problems with exercise.
> I've said this since the beginning. Instead of focusing on miracle drugs, vaccines, social distancing, governments should have just given everyone a Peloton or similar exercise bike. There would probably be zero deaths.
Claim: Exercise and taking care of yourself makes you healthier, more resilient.
HN: First, prove your existence by citing sources I find agreeable. Otherwise I'm entitled to assert that this is all imaginary, without citing sources!
It's the entire problem. I also used to say things like that. But at a certain point, the population is what it is. It will refuse to exercise (otherwise it would already be doing so).
Sure if it was widely distributed that it prevents it 100% there would probably be a 5-10% spike in gym memberships or peloton ordering, but no. But even that spike would probably die off in 1 or 2 months. It will go back to it's "settled" behavior.
This research was conducted by people lacking way more brain cells than Joe Rogan. If you took 3rd grade science class and conducted this experiment it would have better results.
If you want a more full scope of the body of studies around cv19 and vitD I suggest checking out this site [0].
I'll honestly never understand how studies like this make front page or top headlines in mainstream news. Even if vitamin D didn't make a difference with covid outcomes, it's still a vitamin many countries are widely deficient in and can only serve to improve many peoples health.
I feel like I've seen more social media posts claiming to show vitamin D isn't effective vs cv19 than the opposite, which is alarming to me. The body of evidence that shows vitamin D working is substantially larger than the studies showing the opposite - and honestly this is a vital vitamin either way! Get your vitamin D levels up people*! It feels like this shouldn't be controversial, but deficiency in first-world countries and posts like these make me wonder.
* obviously it's possible to overdose but that window is incredibly large - you're far more likely to be hurting from too little vitD than too much
What I find frustrating is that the levels hypothesised to have an effect on reducing the incidence of respiratory illness is way higher than the current very low 'recommended' limit.
Yet when you see studies of Vitamin D they never seem to use the higher level. They seem to stick rigidly to the lower bone health level. Unsurprisingly they see no effect. My own little test[0] showed that inadequacy very easily creeps up on you.
Where is the Randomised Control Test on incidence of respiratory diseases with those people held above the 75-100 nmol/L hypothesis level?
It's deeply frustrating at the lack of actual solid science experiments that goes on in this area. It appears to be a heavy dose of inferred statistics topped off with a heavy layer of credentials, and hope that nobody asks the awkward questions.
In the context of covid-19, it's important to establish causal benefits of Vitamin-D.
Drinking water is good for health, breathing clean air is good, taking Vitamin-D is good but none of these have evidence as a cure for covid-19 specifically.
Sure, I've not seen any claims that vitD cures covid (although I can imagine they exist somewhere) - but the full body of science leans heavily towards it being a strong preventative measure against the worst clinical outcomes of a covid attack.
I imagine your other points could be preventative as well and I would also highly recommend breathing clean air when possible and staying hydrated. I know that might sound silly to read, but simple measures to boost your own immune system really are far more powerful than society seems to give them credit for.
I suspect that Vitamin D was collateral damage of the politicization that happened a year ago. People heard "Here's something that may improve outcomes" and lumped it in with all the medicines with questionable efficacy that were touted early in the pandemic.
What has been especially odd to me is the grotesque pleasure certain people (even a few on HN) have taken when studies have appeared to show limited efficacy. Why would you be happy that a treatment doesn't work, especially one that's so affordable and readily available?
I don't get it either. If something is generally harmless and there is reason to believe it may help, the obvious thing is to try it. But then all these studies come out that suggest not doing anything - like Vitamine D supplementation doesnt help people who have sufficient levels (but most people don't in winter but shhhh).
The common theme seems to be "you can't treat yourself".
>I'll honestly never understand how studies like this make front page or top headlines in mainstream news.
The reason this rises to the top is because this is just one more way otherize the outgroup. As can be seen in a number of the other comments in this HN thread.
“ study does not directly address whether an acute treatment with vitamin D could be helpful for infected individuals, Patchen said, nor does it imply that one shouldn’t take vitamin D supplements”
Nutrition research is junk science so I expect this sort of thing by now.
41 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] thread" But further investigation was needed because observational studies couldn’t establish a causal link between blood vitamin D levels and COVID-19. The challenge in establishing a causal link arises because blood vitamin D levels are influenced by multiple factors including genetics, exposure to sunlight, diet and supplements, and are associated with other risk factors for COVID-19, the researchers said.
“We were trying to get at the part of the variation in vitamin D that’s genetic and leave aside the rest to see whether or not there’s an association with the risk of getting COVID-19,” Cassano said. “And when we do it that way, we find no association, and that’s telling.”"
This was covered in early access here: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/kzy3bb/no_evidence...
> Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of serum vitamin D levels identified genetic variants that are robustly associated with serum vitamin D status in different populations and ancestries.
Edit: thanks for both the replies below. I just wanted to answer the question about whether genetic markers are predictive, but I see now that leaving it at just that would be misleading.
from
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02662-2
>These results do not exclude the possibility of low-magnitude causal effects or causal effects of acute responses to therapeutic doses of vitamin D.
Further from the study it seems that they evaluated genetically dependent serum levels, not acute deficiencies from, say, lack of exposure to sunlight. This headline and article are misleading.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/obesity-...
I'm sure you have evidence for this in the populations effected most.
> Sure there are outliers. Healthy people can have complications. That's with any virus though.
That's a neat way to exclude any contradictory data from affecting your assumption.
"Is she using the Peloton I sent her?"
"She's lying face-down in bed, trying to get her SpO2 levels up"
"Oh, so she just wants a quick fix. Got it. SMH"
Healthy people get COVID too, and you can't cure a lot of health problems with exercise.
Now that has to be tongue and cheek.
Exercise is widely accepted as preventing health problems.
You're straw-manning here.
It's recognized that obesity is a major risk factor for severe COVID illness.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm
> and you can't cure a lot of health problems with exercise
Exercise prevents lots of chronic health problems that are common in the US and elsewhere. This is common knowledge.
I mean, that's literally what they said.
Claim: Exercise and taking care of yourself makes you healthier, more resilient.
HN: First, prove your existence by citing sources I find agreeable. Otherwise I'm entitled to assert that this is all imaginary, without citing sources!
Sure if it was widely distributed that it prevents it 100% there would probably be a 5-10% spike in gym memberships or peloton ordering, but no. But even that spike would probably die off in 1 or 2 months. It will go back to it's "settled" behavior.
brb gonna eat some elk meat and take a sauna to protect me against covid.
I'll honestly never understand how studies like this make front page or top headlines in mainstream news. Even if vitamin D didn't make a difference with covid outcomes, it's still a vitamin many countries are widely deficient in and can only serve to improve many peoples health.
I feel like I've seen more social media posts claiming to show vitamin D isn't effective vs cv19 than the opposite, which is alarming to me. The body of evidence that shows vitamin D working is substantially larger than the studies showing the opposite - and honestly this is a vital vitamin either way! Get your vitamin D levels up people*! It feels like this shouldn't be controversial, but deficiency in first-world countries and posts like these make me wonder.
* obviously it's possible to overdose but that window is incredibly large - you're far more likely to be hurting from too little vitD than too much
[0]https://c19vitamind.com/
this image summarizes the intent of my post pretty cleanly https://i.imgur.com/ySVX5y0.png for a nice tl;dr;
Yet when you see studies of Vitamin D they never seem to use the higher level. They seem to stick rigidly to the lower bone health level. Unsurprisingly they see no effect. My own little test[0] showed that inadequacy very easily creeps up on you.
Where is the Randomised Control Test on incidence of respiratory diseases with those people held above the 75-100 nmol/L hypothesis level?
It's deeply frustrating at the lack of actual solid science experiments that goes on in this area. It appears to be a heavy dose of inferred statistics topped off with a heavy layer of credentials, and hope that nobody asks the awkward questions.
[0] https://new-wayland.com/blog/onward-to-100-nmol-update-2/
Yes. See
'Why the IOM recommendations for vitamin D are deficient' authored by two of the committee members who drafted the first IOM recommendation in 1997 @ https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr....
Drinking water is good for health, breathing clean air is good, taking Vitamin-D is good but none of these have evidence as a cure for covid-19 specifically.
I imagine your other points could be preventative as well and I would also highly recommend breathing clean air when possible and staying hydrated. I know that might sound silly to read, but simple measures to boost your own immune system really are far more powerful than society seems to give them credit for.
What has been especially odd to me is the grotesque pleasure certain people (even a few on HN) have taken when studies have appeared to show limited efficacy. Why would you be happy that a treatment doesn't work, especially one that's so affordable and readily available?
The common theme seems to be "you can't treat yourself".
The reason this rises to the top is because this is just one more way otherize the outgroup. As can be seen in a number of the other comments in this HN thread.
Nutrition research is junk science so I expect this sort of thing by now.