Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 401 posts

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#31

Post by dcolkitt »

autokad wrote: post #22

when i was doing the covid19 kaggle competitions in march and april, someone asked me what I learned. I was like I dont know, the data is messy but the sun seems to have something to do with reducing fatalities. (I used weather data as additional covariates)

In general, the segment of the population that avoids sun exposure has twice as high an all-cause mortality rate as the segment that actively seeks sun exposure.[1] To put that in context that's on par with the health difference found between smokers and non-smokers.

[1]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12251

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#32

Post by LinuxBender »

jogundas wrote: post #23
LinuxBender wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore which helps zinc get into the cells in your lungs and slows the viral replication. It was not designed to be used this way, it just happens to work. This is mostly useful before your viral load is high. Same goes for Quercetin, also a zinc ionophore. They are good proactive measures to slow down the viral transcription before you reach a critical stage. It won't help everyone, e…

Wiki says that "Hydroxychloroquine is being studied to prevent and treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19), but all clinical trials conducted during 2020 found it is ineffective and may cause dangerous side effects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine

That is mostly correct based on the studies I have been following. In most cases, by the time people are admitted to the hospital, the viral load is too high and their immune system has not been able to keep up. There is a whole lot more going on, all the way from interactions with ACE to VWF to clotting, that administering zinc ionophores late in the game may be a bit too late.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#33

Post by rtkwe »

vorpalhex wrote: post #8
AlanSE wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the parks have people in them not wearing masks?

You don't need masks if you are maintaining distance of 6 feet. Masks are for situations where distance can not be maintained such as trains and stores.

We know the virus can transmit much further than that indoors, there was a string of infections from someone sitting in a restaurant and the HVAC vent they were sitting near blew it down the row and infected a couple people sitting down wind of them. The same rough thing can happen outside just with shorter distances because the wind is more randomized and will spread out the virus faster.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#34

Post by eholk »

DenisM wrote: post #10
bdamm wrote: post #2

Noteworthy that this is in combination with anti-viral drugs at hospital admission: hydroxychloroquine (400 mg every 12 hours on the first day, and 200 mg every 12 hours for the following 5 days), azithromycin (500 mg orally for 5 days). Regardless, I'm going to assume this means being outside and getting sun is good for me.

Except for all the skin cancer, right? FWIW, I was told that when the Sun is above 45 degrees over the horizon you will accrue DNA damage, and it stacks up over your entire lifetime. There is no "reset" or "heal", it just adds up. For that reason I'm doing my darnest best to stay in the shade between 9am and 3pm. Or covering clothing.

I'd be really interested to see a comparison of the relative risks between skin cancer and vitamin D deficiency.

A lot of what I've read lately suggests we're discovering a lot of benefits of vitamin D that were previously unknown, and some evidence that the recommended vitamin D levels should be higher than they are.

For a generation or so we've told people the sun is dangerous because of skin cancer, and obviously skin cancer is really bad. But I wonder if we have a case of need to weight risks that are high cost, low probability (skin cancer) compared with low cost, high probability (low vitamins D complications). What is the overall effect of these two things?

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#35

Post by gojomo »

nicholasjarnold wrote: post #5
bdamm wrote: post #2

Noteworthy that this is in combination with anti-viral drugs at hospital admission: hydroxychloroquine (400 mg every 12 hours on the first day, and 200 mg every 12 hours for the following 5 days), azithromycin (500 mg orally for 5 days). Regardless, I'm going to assume this means being outside and getting sun is good for me.

Azithromycin is a common antibiotic, not an anti-viral drug. This is an important distinction. Also hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malarial drug, which is also not an anti-viral.

While neither azithromycin nor hydroxychloroquine are primarily thought of as anti-virals, both are hypothesized by some to have some anti-viral effect, and it's still unclear whether any potential effects they have on Covid-19 are via such anti-viral effects, or other effects.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#36

Post by ReflectedImage »

schoolornot wrote: post #13
mortehu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All patients received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, i.e. the control group also, meaning the difference in outcome between the intervention and control groups is not due to these drugs.

The American media would have you believe that hydroxychloroquine and Z-packs are completely ineffective. Are we still in the "we don't know" stage? Is there any conclusive data to show that it helps/hurts/or does nothing in the beginning/middle/end stages of infection?

There are other drugs now that both work and have a large effect (20%). Hydroxychloroquine possible 5% increase in survival rate pales in comparsion. Given it's also poisonous I don't see why you would want to use it.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#37

Post by schoolornot »

mortehu wrote: post #27
schoolornot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American media would have you believe that hydroxychloroquine and Z-packs are completely ineffective. Are we still in the "we don't know" stage? Is there any conclusive data to show that it helps/hurts/or does nothing in the beginning/middle/end stages of infection?

This experiment compares vitamin D to no vitamin D, and doesn't say anything about those drugs statistically.

Then why introduce two unknown variables into the study?

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#38

Post by gojomo »

woeirua wrote: post #26

Looks promising, but I would want to see a true double blinded RCT on a few thousand people before we say that Vitamin D is an effective treatment. Also, there's going to be a confounding question based on this study: is it just Vitamin D, or is it Vitamin D in combination with HCQ / Azithromyacin? That said, it probably wouldn't hurt you to supplement with Vitamin D this winter, even if it doesn't treat Covid.

In combo with other observational studies correlating Vitamin-D-deficiencies with the worst Covid-19 outcomes, the case is growing.

Vitamin-D in moderate amounts is pretty safe, so for those not already getting adequate sun exposure, it's a low-risk, high-potential-reward supplement.

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#39

Post by viggity »

jogundas wrote: post #23
LinuxBender wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore which helps zinc get into the cells in your lungs and slows the viral replication. It was not designed to be used this way, it just happens to work. This is mostly useful before your viral load is high. Same goes for Quercetin, also a zinc ionophore. They are good proactive measures to slow down the viral transcription before you reach a critical stage. It won't help everyone, e…

Wiki says that "Hydroxychloroquine is being studied to prevent and treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19), but all clinical trials conducted during 2020 found it is ineffective and may cause dangerous side effects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine

millions of people take HCQ on a daily basis for their lupus. Ask any rheumatologist, the danger of Torsades de Points is only a concern for HCQ if the patient already has a serious heart condition, or if the patient has been taking HCQ for years.

Millions more take HCQ as a malaria treatment. It is generally recognized as safe, if you do not have a heart condition (and even then a short course is unlikely to yield adverse outcomes).

Re: The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19

#40

Post by arkitaip »

ReflectedImage wrote: post #12

And that's why I've been taking Vitamin D pills for the past 6 months. (It's been suspected for some time to have an effect) This doesn't mean go outside and get covid.

I've been taking Vitamin D3 5000 IU and Vitamin K2 MK-7 100 mcg daily since February to boost my immune system, and I've noticed a radical difference in my colds.

I used to get a major cold every 2-3 month and they were really bad lasting two weeks with fever, fatigue, coughs, colds, really stuffy nose, etc. Now? The two colds I've had were over in a week and the symptoms were so incredibly mild - mostly a light runny nose - that I'm legit grateful when I get a cold.

Regardless of vitamin D's effect on covid-19, the supplement has already paid off big time as far as I'm concerned. I've started to take 1g of vitamin C for the same reason, i.e. to boost my immune system. I should add that I live in a Nordic country with long dark winters and that I can't/don't go outside as much as I should.

Post reply on HN