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

Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

vitamindforall.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#71

Post by jupiter90000 »

incrudible wrote: post #21
jupiter90000 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is stopping anyone from doing what they think makes sense to them -- scientific studies should still be just that though, following sound principles to be able to draw realistic conclusions. If we use flawed studies to convince others that something is true, that doesn't seem fine to me.

Most studies are flawed. We don't know that Vitamin D works. We also don't know that it doesn't work. Therefore, we need to consider either possibilities. Given that it is such a low-risk intervention, even a 99% chance that Vitamin D doesn't work would make supplementing worthwhile.

No offense, but this logic makes no sense to me. It's like, most studies are flawed so let's try random things I saw on the internet in hopes they might help. I don't get it. Don't really care if someone takes Vitamin D but don't get this argument/logic. That's ok, I'll move on.

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#72

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #70
incrudible wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was tested severely deficient. Didn't have any obvious symptoms either.

The main problem of a vitamin D deficiency is poor bone and muscle health, not something that would usually cause obvious symptoms.

One of the hallmarks is lower back pain. If you get this frequently for no explicable reason you should be looking to get your levels tested.

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#73

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

dasudasu wrote: post #53
shitgoose wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recommendation is 5,000 to 10,000 iu. 1,000 is what the label on the bottle says.

According to whom? NIH says 600 IU for a normal adult ( https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessiona... ) and recommends a maximum daily intake of 4000 IU ( https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-Consumer/ ).

My doctor specifically prescribes 5000 IU as a maintenance dose and 15000 IU to people severely deficient. These are numbers he got from treating hundreds of deficient patients and testing his patients blood levels every 6 months. I imagine a lot less is needed if you are in the sun for a good portion of the day every day but for most of us who spend a decent amount of time inside it seems to be what’s necessary.

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#74

Post by throwaway201103 »

dasudasu wrote: post #47
shock wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sleeping well? Were you waking up refreshed in the morning?

I have done 1000 IU for a few months with no impact on chronic insomnia.

I've been doing 4,000 iu/day of Vitamin D since March, also supplementing Zinc and C, and taking a standard multivitamin. My entire household got COVID in November and I never became symptomatic.

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#75

Post by throwaway201103 »

bagacrap wrote: post #62
bandana wrote: post #59

Anybody from the "stay the f * at home" crowd want to chime in ? How do I make vitamin D when it is illegal/frowned at to be outside ?

order supplements on Amazon? The uv index is very low this time of year anyway, so sun exposure doesn't do much.

Yeah I wouln't trust Amazon for supplements. Your local pharmacy or grocery store can probably deliver it or have it available for contact-less pickup.

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#76

Post by masonic »

jiofih wrote: post #28
irq11 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The open letter for face masks is a great example for why this kind of thing is dubious. All prior high-quality evidence disputed the claim: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/specia... The subsequent evidence of real-world effectiveness isn’t great: cases are skyrocketing around the northern hemisphere, and mask mandates aren’t making a difference. The only randomized controlled trial ever conduct…

> cases are skyrocketing And comments like yours are one of the reasons. The study shows that masks do little to protect the wearer - which is kind of obvious as it’s not going to filter incoming air very efficiently, that has never been the purpose of surgical masks. They don’t protect against airborne pathogens and every medical professional knows it. You need a crítica mass for masks to start reducing transmission…

Can you point me to any data showing that random quality cloth masks even reduce coronavirus transmission?

The recent Kaiser San Jose case[0] where one worker infected 44+ fellow staff, all of whom were wearing masks, ... from inside a tree costume would seem to be a great counterexample.

[0] https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/07/kaiser-san-jose-fined...

Essentially everyone I see in the wild has been wearing masks for months, with almost perfect compliance since the Fall surge, including myself. But it seems to be mostly theater. It's like stopping BBs with a volleyball net.

It also ignores the fact that the eyes are a bigger attack surface than the nose or a closed mouth.

If we had stressed the importance of not touching one's face combined with aggressive sanitization of hands, faces, and surfaces, Covid-19 might have waned into a quiet death even without a vaccine, like SARS and MERS before it.

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#77

Post by esyir »

irq11 wrote: post #44
AshWolfy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is built on consensus Also the fact that mask mandates are poorly enforced, or that masks arent a replacement for other forms of prevention, or that some materials dont offer the same level of prevention dont change the fact that masks work

It is not. Science is “built on” evidence. I am a professional scientist. Nobody has ever given me a pass on publication simply because they want to believe me. That said, science is a human institution, and all humans have cognitive biases that can be exploited - particularly in large groups.

That's a terribly optimistic view of science, speaking as someone who was also in the same boat. They might not just accept anything, but it'll be much easier if they want to believe you. This goes quintuple for social science.

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#78

Post by joshuamorton »

masonic wrote: post #76
jiofih wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cases are skyrocketing And comments like yours are one of the reasons. The study shows that masks do little to protect the wearer - which is kind of obvious as it’s not going to filter incoming air very efficiently, that has never been the purpose of surgical masks. They don’t protect against airborne pathogens and every medical professional knows it. You need a crítica mass for masks to start reducing transmission…

Can you point me to any data showing that random quality cloth masks even reduce coronavirus transmission ? The recent Kaiser San Jose case[0] where one worker infected 44+ fellow staff, all of whom were wearing masks, ... from inside a tree costume would seem to be a great counterexample. [0] https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/07/kaiser-san-jose-fined... Essentially everyone I see in the wild has been wearing masks…

> If we had stressed the importance of not touching one's face combined with aggressive sanitization of hands, faces, and surfaces, Covid-19

This...was stressed, significantly. Do you not remember that?

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#79

Post by joshuamorton »

irq11 wrote: post #65
jiofih wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the first link you mention: > we conclude that 20 d after becoming mandatory face masks have reduced the number of new infections by around 45% A later increase in infections does not invalidate statistical significance for earlier studies. It’s just math, not “an excuse”. You’ll never see the data for how many cases would have been recorded without the measures in place. You can see the full paper here: http://…

> A later increase in infections does not invalidate statistical significance for earlier studies. It’s just math, not “an excuse”. So your theory is that masks worked then , but stopped working now ? Convenient! > You’ll never see the data for how many cases would have been recorded without the measures in place. Well, yes, exactly...these are uncontrolled studies. Which is why they’re such garbage. You can see that…

> So your theory is that masks worked then, but stopped working now?

This doesn't follow. It's completely believable that masks have continued to be effective at curbing spread by 40% continuously. However increased holiday travel, as well as colder weather and people hanging out more in doors caused an increase in spread that wasn't present in the summer.

Re: Over 100 Scientists and Doctors Call for Increased Vitamin D to Combat Covid-19

#80

Post by fareesh »

kpfleger wrote: post #56
fareesh wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there a similarly sized letter asking for the regulator to look into their findings for Ivermectin?

The FLCCC has been pushing Ivermectin, but I am not aware of an open letter analogous to this one or the similar one for masks that is signed by 100+ doctors & scientists. I have not personally read the Ivermectin literature, but I think the FLCCC's methodology is good. (Paul Marik of FLCCC is a signatory on this vitamin D letter, BTW.) But it's notable that no one has Ivermectin deficiency, whereas more than half of…

Not an open letter - but a manuscript of 30ish studies - I assumed there were probably ~3 doctors on each study.
Post reply on HN