We read, with great interest, the recent article by Radujkovic et al. that reported associations between vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D < 12 ng/mL) or insufficiency (25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL) and death in a cohort of 185 consecutive symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive patients admitted to the Medical University Hospital Heidelberg, who were diagnosed and treated between 18 March and 18 June 2020 [1]. In this cohort, 118 patients (64😵 had vitamin D insufficiency at recruitment (including 41 patients with vitamin D deficiency), and 16 patients died of the infection. With a covariate-adjusted relative risk of death of 11.3, mortality was much higher among vitamin D insufficient patients than among other patients. When translated to the proportion of deaths in the population that is statistically attributable to vitamin D insufficiency (“population attributable risk proportion&rdquo😉, a key measure of public health relevance of risk factors [2], these results imply that 87% of COVID-19 deaths may be statistically attributed to vitamin D insufficiency and could potentially be avoided by eliminating vitamin D insufficiency.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/12/3642/htm
As for safety of high level supplementation
The Endocrine Society has a Clinical Practice Guideline on the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency. This guideline recommends a minimum vitamin D level of 20 ng/mL, but to guarantee sufficiency they recommend between 30 and 50 ng/mL for both children and adults. In contrast, the Vitamin D Council states that even levels between 30 and 40 ng/mL are still not quite sufficient. On the other end of the spectrum, results that fall between 80 and 100 ng/mL are not achievable naturally; that is, they are only reached with some form of vitamin D supplementation. So, while they are not harmful levels, they are instead reflective of supplementation and therefore not what would be detected in a "normal" patient population.
https://www.zrtlab.com/blog/archive/vitamin-d-reference-ranges-optimal/
Even taking 10k D everyday will not get a 200 lb male to 100 ng/ml.
@eladar saidInteresting. You have to be careful with interpreting these studies though, which is observational and retrospective. Certainly this analysis comes no where close to addressing "causes" as your thread title suggests. Indeed, the authors stated this explicitly "...it should also be noted that without randomized controlled trial evidence, no causal association between VitD deficiency and severity/outcome of COVID-19 can be inferred."
We read, with great interest, the recent article by Radujkovic et al. that reported associations between vitamin D deficiency (25(OH)D < 12 ng/mL) or insufficiency (25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL) and death in a cohort of 185 consecutive symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive patients admitted to the Medical University Hospital Heidelberg, who were diagnosed and treated between 18 March and 18 J ...[text shortened]... be avoided by eliminating vitamin D insufficiency.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/12/3642/htm
Most importantly, do authors address any other potential variables? While not a given, a patient with a VitD deficiency often have other nutritional problems as well. Indeed, there are many other known risk factors for COVID severity. One of the big ones (obesity) has a well known correlation to VitD deficiency.
@wildgrass
So, how many people become billionaires making 10 cents a dose vitamin D? Anyone can make it, no patent is possible.
Are you going to ignore the issue that you brought up?
@sonhouse saidMy advice is to follow the advice of your doctor.
@Suzianne
It seems I was very low to zero, so my doc said take 50,000 units for a week or so.
I did that, and later had a blood test which the doc said came out normal.
So maybe I should go down to 5K a day?
From what I do now, 10K/ day.
@eladar saidYou are changing the subject. The issue of pharmaceutical company incentives is quite distinct from the actual findings of the study you posted. When they say explicitly that their results do not infer causality, then why are you stating it in the title of the thread?
@wildgrass
So, how many people become billionaires making 10 cents a dose vitamin D? Anyone can make it, no patent is possible.
Are you going to ignore the issue that you brought up?
@wildgrass saidI am changing the subject by dealing with the financial issie you raised?
You are changing the subject. The issue of pharmaceutical company incentives is quite distinct from the actual findings of the study you posted. When they say explicitly that their results do not infer causality, then why are you stating it in the title of the thread?
Who has the financial stake in covid 19? Will the vitamin D people become billionaires? Or will it be big pharm making billions?
Does big pharm have a conflict of interest when it comes to claiming vitamin D does not greatly lower death rates?
How could they make billions if a 10 cent pill will cut death rates so dramatically?
@eladar saidI think I asked if you had stock in VitD companies, since you bring it up so frequently? That question was unrelated to the financial incentives of the companies themselves.
I am changing the subject by dealing with the financial issie you raised?
Who has the financial stake in covid 19? Will the vitamin D people become billionaires? Or will it be big pharm making billions?
Does big pharm have a conflict of interest when it comes to claiming vitamin D does not greatly lower death rates?
How could they make billions if a 10 cent pill will cut death rates so dramatically?
Where's the evidence that a 10c pill cuts death rates? The study you posted surely does not show it.
@wildgrass saidYou brought up the conflict of interest issue.
I think I asked if you had stock in VitD companies, since you bring it up so frequently? That question was unrelated to the financial incentives of the companies themselves.
Where's the evidence that a 10c pill cuts death rates? The study you posted surely does not show it.
It is a two sided sword.
If I might have a financial reward for bringing it up, the other side is who actually has financial incentive to keep dismissing it.
The real money is keeping vitamin D out of the solution.
@eladar saidI'm pretty sure you just don't want to address the issue of efficacy.
You brought up the conflict of interest issue.
It is a two sided sword.
If I might have a financial reward for bringing it up, the other side is who actually has financial incentive to keep dismissing it.
The real money is keeping vitamin D out of the solution.
@wildgrass saidI am pretty sure I just answered your question.
I'm pretty sure you just don't want to address the issue of efficacy.
Who is going to fund the study you want? All we can have are observational studies because nobody is going to fund a vitamin D covid study, nobody will become a billionaire.
If the study was to be done, big pharm would only miss out on the money.
@eladar saidIs a vitamin supplement the same as getting it in your diet? Is either a good substitute for getting it from direct sunlight?
I am changing the subject by dealing with the financial issie you raised?
Who has the financial stake in covid 19? Will the vitamin D people become billionaires? Or will it be big pharm making billions?
Does big pharm have a conflict of interest when it comes to claiming vitamin D does not greatly lower death rates?
How could they make billions if a 10 cent pill will cut death rates so dramatically?
Vitamin D is a factor, but is it the main factor? Is it any better than getting selenium in your diet? Selenium deficiency causes more C19 deaths as well.
https://www.drdebe.com/blog/2020/3/25/why-do-so-many-weird-nasty-viruses-come-from-china