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

191–200 of 401 posts

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

#191

Post by amluto »

ReflectedImage wrote: post #115
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…

The issue is it stops viral transcription at levels that also happen to be lethal to humans :p

My recollection is that it stops viral replication in vitro in monkey cells but does not stop viral replication in vitro in human cells.

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

#192

Post by pscsbs »

kardos wrote: post #190
IAmNotBatman_ wrote: post #185

Yeah we wear too much sunscreen, a significant number of people are vitamin D deficient. From the UltraMind Solution book, you need the active form cholecalciferol in your supplements. You can safely take 5000-10000 IU a day for 3 months to get up to the optimal levels, then 2000 IU a day for maintenance. The Ideal range is 50 to 80 ng/ml in your blood tests. Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to…

> Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to get it, no sunscreen. 15 minutes if you're light skinned, 35 if you're really dark. These prescriptions seem to always lack the amount of exposed skin. Is exposed hands enough or should one be naked?

The guidance is usually given for exposed arms and legs.

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

#193

Post by ghaff »

erentz wrote: post #178
mypalmike wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I had to pay something like $100 out of pocket for my recent vitamin D test (unsurprisingly it was low).

I suspect his doctor just knew to code it properly as low vitamin D for monitoring of replacement therapy. Since he legitimately has low D and is on replacement therapy there’s no issue. For first timers not sure if they are or not an experienced doctor will just label it this way anyway and tell you 9/10 it’ll work. 1/10 you’ll have to pay the fee. It’s just another example of our nonsensical health system at work.

I really have no idea although I'm very skeptical that my former primary care doctor would have done anything more sophisticated than checking a bunch of boxes on the blood work sheet and faxed it to the hospital lab. It certainly wasn't in response to any symptoms about anything; it just came in low in the lab results at some point.

Of course, may be a function of particular insurance provider policies.

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

#195

Post by liability »

IAmNotBatman_ wrote: post #185

Yeah we wear too much sunscreen, a significant number of people are vitamin D deficient. From the UltraMind Solution book, you need the active form cholecalciferol in your supplements. You can safely take 5000-10000 IU a day for 3 months to get up to the optimal levels, then 2000 IU a day for maintenance. The Ideal range is 50 to 80 ng/ml in your blood tests. Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to…

If you search "sunburn [location]" on wolfram alpha, you can get sun exposure guidance for that particular date and location, factoring in weather and your skin tone.

Since I began using this a few months ago I have not been burnt.

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

IAmNotBatman_ wrote: post #185

Yeah we wear too much sunscreen, a significant number of people are vitamin D deficient. From the UltraMind Solution book, you need the active form cholecalciferol in your supplements. You can safely take 5000-10000 IU a day for 3 months to get up to the optimal levels, then 2000 IU a day for maintenance. The Ideal range is 50 to 80 ng/ml in your blood tests. Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to…

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by IAmNotBatman_ »

kardos wrote: post #190
IAmNotBatman_ wrote: post #185

Yeah we wear too much sunscreen, a significant number of people are vitamin D deficient. From the UltraMind Solution book, you need the active form cholecalciferol in your supplements. You can safely take 5000-10000 IU a day for 3 months to get up to the optimal levels, then 2000 IU a day for maintenance. The Ideal range is 50 to 80 ng/ml in your blood tests. Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to…

> Also just minimal outdoor sun exposure is the best way to get it, no sunscreen. 15 minutes if you're light skinned, 35 if you're really dark. These prescriptions seem to always lack the amount of exposed skin. Is exposed hands enough or should one be naked?

Yeah the time is dependent, I just try to think of like our evolutionary history, pre clothes and where your ancestors are from. So I try to sunbathe by the pool during the summer. But if you work indoors, cholecalciferol is useful and you can get the blood tests for your levels.

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

#198

Post by [deleted] »

amelius wrote: post #121
dcolkitt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe also because staying inside makes it easier for the virus to spread.

[deleted]

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

#199

Post by azinman2 »

jschwartzi wrote: post #148
azinman2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It really depends on what the potential hazards are for the claim being correct versus the claim being incorrect. If the claim is that you can't get it from sharing an elevator, I would say the hazards if that claim is wrong are much greater than if that claim is correct. So, from a risk-management perspective, without any evidence, it's much better to assume that you can get COVID-19 from sharing an elevator until e…

If I live in a high-rise, then there are large problems in avoiding elevators that could be worse. If all residents were to use stairs, aside from cardiac difficulties of some, mobility issues, risks of falling when carrying large loads, etc, there’s also going to be great amounts of aerosols generated by the huffing and puffing of many people using the stairs all day long (possibly in close proximity for multiple people going up at the same time). This could be a far larger vector as you’d be in the stairwell longer than you’d be in an elevator (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/public-health-... suggests 15 minutes of exposure needed).

It’s not clear that “avoid elevators” is universally less harmful. Also given the 15 minutes suggested it’s not clear that elevators by default pose a risk, and the large numbers in use in the world make it surprising if they are indeed a major vector but are otherwise undocumented or not part of suggested guidelines thus far.

I’m asking for evidence which shows they are indeed a risk factor, which should also hopefully take into consideration mask usage and number of stories. This would be extremely useful for people to factor in if they need to move, for example.

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

#200

Post by amluto »

outworlder wrote: post #90
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.

There's a major difference between daylight and getting baked under direct solar irradiation. If the UV doesn't kill the virus the heat will. But even then, it's not immediate. If droplets containing viruses successfully land in your respiratory system (which is constantly sucking air), it doesn't matter how much sun there is outside, the virus is now cozy. A beach could be perfect, except that there may be strong wi…

Strong winds seem likely to be a good thing to me. Any exhalations from my neighbor are going to be quite dilute by the time they get to me in the wind.
Post reply on HN