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

301–310 of 401 posts

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

#301

Post by devdas »

NicolasGorden wrote: post #291
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

I haven't been tested for Vitamin D deficiency. But... and I'm very easily wrong here, but... wouldn't taking a multi vitamin make this testing unnecessary for the most part? I mean, don't get me wrong, it's always best to test, but diminishing returns and all, wouldn't most people most of the time be fine with just taking one?

No. Dosage requirement vary by skin colour and latitude.

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

#302

Post by icelancer »

organsnyder wrote: post #268
icelancer wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using online labs it's super cheap to get it done yourself for less than $50/test. Not worth dealing with insurance BS and your doctor's likely nonsensical ravings about it, just do it and reimburse using your HSA if you have one.

$50/test is a significant cost for many people (many of whom don't have HSAs).

Cost of doctor visit + cost of inflated test (likely not covered or runs up against your deductible) > paying for it yourself.

If you want to argue that the American healthcare system is messed up and that they don't believe in agency for individuals to order their own tests and do their own research, I'm with you. But we live in the reality we got, so... just kinda is how it is.

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

#303

Post by gridlockd »

hannob wrote: post #142
zamfi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, all patients received these supplemental drugs, as at the time they were considered the best standard of care. (Also to be clear: they're not anti-virals.) Of the 75 patients in the trial, 50 people received additionally Vitamin D3 supplementation (in the form of calcifediol), and 25 did not. Notably, though, diabetes and high blood pressure were substantially more frequent in the control group, which ar…

Hydroxychloroquine was never the "best standard of care". It's a quack treatment that was pushed by some bad studies. Reading Hydroxychloroquine mentioned in this study should make one very suspicious.

The "HCQ doesn't work"-narrative is entirely political, not scientific.

The original "quack treatment", which is prophylactic zinc+HCQ (as an ionophore) for at-risk groups, has never been shown to be ineffective in an RCT. It is still being studied.

Of course the studies that show it to be effective aren't of the best quality, but they aren't entirely meaningless either.

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

#304

Post by sbelskie »

doublekill wrote: post #300

Experts and health authorities were adament to tell us that vitamins have zero effect against COVID. Not: we don't know and taking a Vitamin C can't hurt, unless you count an upset stomach. But: stop sharing fake health information, this is an infodemic! Just wash your hands. So to add to the infodemic: selenium and iodine deficiency also increases severity. Take some iodized salt and Brazil nuts now, or wait 5 month…

Any examples of the CDC, FDA, or NIH statements telling us that vitamins have zero effect on COVID? I’d also be interested in statements from the WHO, but that one I wouldn’t be at all surprised by.

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

#305

Post by rsynnott »

hannob wrote: post #142
zamfi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, all patients received these supplemental drugs, as at the time they were considered the best standard of care. (Also to be clear: they're not anti-virals.) Of the 75 patients in the trial, 50 people received additionally Vitamin D3 supplementation (in the form of calcifediol), and 25 did not. Notably, though, diabetes and high blood pressure were substantially more frequent in the control group, which ar…

Hydroxychloroquine was never the "best standard of care". It's a quack treatment that was pushed by some bad studies. Reading Hydroxychloroquine mentioned in this study should make one very suspicious.

This was presumably done a while ago, when hospitals were trying all sorts of weird things.

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

#306

Post by mixmastamyk »

ravenstine wrote: post #274
JshWright wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is a lot of observational evidence that people with low vitamin D have the worst C19 outcomes. Obviously, correlation by itself doesn't mean causation. But it is a hint. It's a pretty useless one in this case. Old people are much more likely to have vitamin D deficiency. They are also more likely to die of COVID. The low vitamin D is a marker of frailty, not a cause.

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to separate the elderly who aren't vitamin D deficient from the ones who are? Sounds like a basic measure that could be taken.

All are because the skin loses its ability to generate it in old age. Supplements are the only way.

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

#307

Post by rsynnott »

burfog wrote: post #163
jogundas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pretty reliable for math, old computer hardware, and other dry technical subjects. This is not one. This is a political subject. Wikipedia is a complete disaster for anything that even remotely touches upon modern politics. There are teams of people paid to impose an opinion on Wikipedia, relentlessly wearing down any neutral editor with 24x7 edits and every kind of bureaucratic fight. The people who edi…

> Last year, the drug was handed out freely, with very little worry, to anybody claiming that they would visit a country with malaria.

Well, for a start, no it wasn't (many if not most malarial areas mostly have resistant strains, and other drugs are more appropriate there). But anyone who was given it was warned beforehand (or at least should have been). It's not a safe drug. It is, however, safer than getting malaria, so you should probably take it if you're going to an area where it will be effective.

What you should probably not do is take it because a weird French doctor and some people on the internet said to.

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

#308

Post by rsynnott »

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?

No proper trial has shown any positive effect. At this point "don't know but probably not, and it's not risk-free" is probably a reasonable description.

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

#309

Post by doublekill »

sbelskie wrote: post #304
doublekill wrote: post #300

Experts and health authorities were adament to tell us that vitamins have zero effect against COVID. Not: we don't know and taking a Vitamin C can't hurt, unless you count an upset stomach. But: stop sharing fake health information, this is an infodemic! Just wash your hands. So to add to the infodemic: selenium and iodine deficiency also increases severity. Take some iodized salt and Brazil nuts now, or wait 5 month…

Any examples of the CDC, FDA, or NIH statements telling us that vitamins have zero effect on COVID? I’d also be interested in statements from the WHO, but that one I wouldn’t be at all surprised by.

Vitamin C is listed as fake news on WHO. Fact checker sites listed vitamin D as false, then switched to correct after research. Doctors, journalists, and health experts in Brazil and the Netherlands chided social media for not removing "fake" info on vitamin supplements.

I'll check some CDC sources later to contextualize these claims to the US.

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

#310

Post by rsynnott »

tboyd47 wrote: post #118

Good on you, Spain. A study like this could never take place in the USA :( Too many powerful people are heavily invested in the belief that there is no treatment for it.

Huge numbers of trials have been done in the US, including some showing promising results (for steroids at least).
Post reply on HN