The First Randomized Controlled Trial on Vitamin D and Covid-19 • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by cactus2093 » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

arkitaip wrote: post #40

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 runn…

Just some random suggestions from someone on the internet, but colds don't usually cause fevers, so if you've been getting sick with a fever every 2-3 months you may want to get that checked out.

It's also surprising that you've gotten 2 colds in the past few months when it sounds like you have been taking precautions due to covid-19. Seems like any exposure where you could catch a cold could easily have been Covid-19 instead, so you may want to re-evaluate your mask use, physical distancing, and hygiene practices.

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

#92

Post by agarden » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

eholk wrote: post #34

DenisM wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This article gets into that: https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...

Short excerpt: People don’t realize this because several different diseases are lumped together under the term “skin cancer.” The most common by far are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, which are almost never fatal. In fact, says Weller, “When I diagnose a basal-cell skin cancer in a patient, the first thing I say is congratulations, because you’re walking out of my office with a longer life expectancy than when you walked in.” That’s probably because people who get carcinomas, which are strongly linked to sun exposure, tend to be healthy types that are outside getting plenty of exercise and sunlight.

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

#93

Post by JabavuAdams » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

extremeMath wrote: post #17

nautilus12 wrote: post #4

"Don't go outside, you'll get COVID", sounds more and more like horrible advice. Before knowing the virus died in sunlight, I still couldn't fathom why people were avoiding going out to parks and stuff. It was totally non sequitor.

I got one that is still in effect in Michigan- "Gyms are closed" (but bars and casinos are open) A virus that kills old and _obese_ people, and you are shutting down the gym? If anything I hope Coronavirus shifts politicians from business leaders to scientists.

Anyone can spread it, though. Kids seem to spread it less. Also, the longer this hangs around the more chances it will have to evolve into a form that can harm more demographics. We should want to get rid of Covid-19 as fast as possible. Finally, although many people get asymptomatic infections, this isn't all about death rate. Many many people are suffering brutal damage even if they do survive. This thing targets multiple organ systems and can leave permanent damage.

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

#94

Post by outworlder » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

JabavuAdams wrote: post #86

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidence suggests that aerosols can remain in the air for minutes after being placed there by another non-masked individual. You could pass through the aerosol and inhale. Masks make sense outside too, at least in some circumstances.

Considering that the risk of transmission seems to depend on how long you are inhaling shared air from an infected person, and their viral load, I don't think it makes sense to worry about intermittently going through someone else's exhaust plume. I use a mask outside if I'm on a narrow sidewalk, but otherwise, I don't think there's much point. My favourite thing is the people who wear a mask over the mouth, but not…

> Considering that the risk of transmission seems to depend on how long you are inhaling shared air from an infected person, and their viral load

You have a lot of faith in your immune system. Absent more data, it's just that, faith.

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

#95

Post by philsnow » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

kyleee wrote: post #81

asah wrote: post #30

Non-white skinned people: sunlight may not be enough to increase your vitamin D. https://www.google.com/search?q=dark+skin+vitamin+d+minutes

Is there a scientific classification system for evaluating how light vs. dark a person's skin is? I'd like to know how much my relatively darker skin is preventing vit D uptake / creation in the body

There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale which I learned about from the apple health app, no idea how widespread it is or how useful it is as a model.

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

#96

Post by azinman2 » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #72

azinman2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that it hasn’t been shown for elevators. I think this is because of the required time to breathe in a minimal viral load. Do you have evidence otherwise?

> My understanding is that it hasn’t been shown for elevators. I think ... Where are you getting this understanding? You are asking for evidence while providing none yourself...

Well the absence of anything is the default, so the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I had read that somewhere in studying transmissions in NYC where elevators are common. I don’t remember where, it was a while ago.

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

#97

Post by notadoc » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

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

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything, let alone medical information or studies

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

#98

Post by hellofunk » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

scott_paul wrote: post #89

Anyone else notice that Calcifediol is the most expensive vitamin-D analogue on the market? What a huge surprise that the study chose that form of vitamin-D specifically.

Correlation is not causation.

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

#99

Post by extremeMath » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

JabavuAdams wrote: post #93

extremeMath wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got one that is still in effect in Michigan- "Gyms are closed" (but bars and casinos are open) A virus that kills old and _obese_ people, and you are shutting down the gym? If anything I hope Coronavirus shifts politicians from business leaders to scientists.

Anyone can spread it, though. Kids seem to spread it less. Also, the longer this hangs around the more chances it will have to evolve into a form that can harm more demographics. We should want to get rid of Covid-19 as fast as possible. Finally, although many people get asymptomatic infections, this isn't all about death rate. Many many people are suffering brutal damage even if they do survive. This thing targets m…

But bars and casinos are open.

If you want to get rid of the virus we need to shut down everything.

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

#100

Post by legerdemain » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

natcombs wrote: post #25

> parallel pilot randomized open label, double-masked clinical trial. Dumb questions: What is a parallel pilot | what is open label? And Is double-masked the same as double-blind?

"Parallel" generally means that different groups of patients receive different treatments. The opposite is a within-patient study, where all patients get all treatments over time (possibly varying the order to prevent order effects).

"Open-label" generally means "not blind at all." Basically, the patient knows what treatment is being administered.

"Double-masked" is usually synonymous with "double-blind," because "masking" sounds less violent than "blinding."

What did they actually do in the study? Well, §2.2.1 says the following:

  > 2.2.1. Randomization and Masking
  > 
  > An electronically generated randomization 2:1 list was prepared by
  > independent statisticians. The list was accessible only to nonmasked
  > specialists in the study in an attempt to minimize observation bias.
  > The patients' data were recorded in the hospital's electronic
  > medical record, with blind access by the technical data collectors
  > and the statistician who carried out the study.

My takeaway is that... the authors don't do a great job of describing who had access to what information.

It sounds like those who analyzed the data didn't know which group was which, but in the case of unequal 2:1 group allocation it is typical for the larger group to be the treatment group. Why was unequal assignment used in the first place?

The descriptor "open-label" suggests that someone knew which patients were in which groups: was it the people who administered the treatment, or the patients, or both? Unclear.

The authors themselves write: "This pilot study has several limitations as it is not double-blind placebo controlled."