Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, how many people who take a multivitamin, OR a sufficient vitamin D suppement, OR are not presently deficient with vitamin D that they'd need to supplement anyway, have contracted Coronavirus?
What percentage of people who've contracted the virus, have been shown to NOT be deficient in vitamin D?
Vitamin D isn't an alt-med. I don't know why it's even in this forum. It's a vitamin supplement, and all the posts with valid links show that - as a supplement - to treat deficiency, it might have some potential of effect on reducing the risk of getting sick.
This is true even if there isn't any Coronavirus. It's a fact. Eliminating a deficiency by supplementing the appropriate vitamins/minerals to increase the amount in your system so it's no longer a deficiency, will contribute to good health.
That has nothing, zilch, nada, to do with alt-meds. It's not a treatment for sickness, other than rickets or other defiency-related illness. It is a vitamin supplement, nothing more or less.
It won't make people not get sick, unless their sickness is caused by a deficiency.
I'm not going to address the Alt-Med or not point, but I will say that there is some disagreement in the medical world about what constitutes vitamin D deficiency, and what adequate blood levels really are.
For example, some believe that a blood level of 20 ng/m is adequate (i.e. non-deficient) and it's unnecessary to aim any higher than that, while other research suggests that one does not approach the optimal level until after 40 or even 50 ng/ml. Therefore it's very possible for someone to get their levels tested and be told, "Your level is 23; you're fine, you don't need supplementation." That advice is questionable at best.
And I would add that "normal" is not necessarily optimal. If 80% of Americans had levels of 30 or below (I made up that statistic), than 30 or below would be "normal," but that does not mean it is good. Most people don't get nearly enough sun or consume nearly enough D-fortified foods.
I'm not going to address the Alt-Med or not point, but I will say that there is some disagreement in the medical world about what constitutes vitamin D deficiency, and what adequate blood levels really are.
I don't even know what the conversation is about but over and over again it is proven that 80% of humanity is deficient in Vitamin D.
So obviously, if 80% of the world was alerted to the benefits -- and they took it -- in sufficient doses -- dark skinned and obese need more than other people... we could assume covid 19 would be knocked back.
But no we have to argue needlessly about if vitamin D will work for non deficient people.
There is no point arguing it. They just want to cast shade on it.
Since the majority of people with COVID have either mild or no symptoms, it suggests that most people are not vitamin D deficient.
All of the studies I have seen for COVID/Vitamin D found that supplementing with D helped patients who were deficient, but it did not make a difference in patients that were not deficient.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the medical establishment has advised everyone to treat COVID as you would a cold, which is also a coronavirus as everyone knows.
This was reported in 2017, long before COVID: Study confirms that Vitamin D helps protect against respiratory infections from colds and flu. Supplementation had the greatest benefit for those with the most significant deficiency (below 10 mg/dl), and reduced their risk of respiratory infection in half.
"Overall, the reduction in risk of acute respiratory infection induced by Vitamin D was on par with the protective effect of injectable flu vaccine against flu-like illnesses."
Taking it is mainly beneficial only if you have vitamin D deficiency, which is what the medical studies on Covid and other conditions have stated.
Right, none of studies suggest taking more than needed if you are deficient, but undoubtedly some will think that more must be better. It isn't. For one, excessive amounts are difficult for the kidneys to process and could damage them. No one wants to end up on dialysis either, or to have symptoms from toxicity that may be attributed to another cause.
Taking it is mainly beneficial only if you have vitamin D deficiency, which is what the medical studies on Covid and other conditions have stated.
You don't have to be THAT careful, if you are moderately aware of what a reasonable dose is. The study found concerning effects in women who were taking 10,000 iu PER DAY for three years. That is a very high dose, not a recommended dose. Just about anything can be dangerous or toxic if you take an unreasonable amount.
What I and others have been trying to say is that there is disagreement about how "vitamin D deficiency" is defined, and many doctors and medical researchers believe the bar is set way too low.
Also, did you notice that the article stated that the study participants who were given 400 iu of vitamin D per day showed no increase in their blood levels? 400 iu/day is not enough to improve the blood levels of people who may be deficient.
"The researchers noted that the benefit of vitamin D supplementation for bone health may be seen only in the treatment of vitamin D deficiency."
They did various levels of supplementation, but only summarized the two extremes. They also found that the manufacturing source greatly affected whether the supplement raised the blood level at all. 4,000 IU is common to be prescribed for elderly women who have osteoporosis/arthritis.
Since the majority of people with COVID have either mild or no symptoms, it suggests that most people are not vitamin D deficient.
All of the studies I have seen for COVID/Vitamin D found that supplementing with D helped patients who were deficient, but it did not make a difference in patients that were not deficient.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, the medical establishment has advised everyone to treat COVID as you would a cold, which is also a coronavirus as everyone knows.
This was reported in 2017, long before COVID: Study confirms that Vitamin D helps protect against respiratory infections from colds and flu. Supplementation had the greatest benefit for those with the most significant deficiency (below 10 mg/dl), and reduced their risk of respiratory infection in half.
"Overall, the reduction in risk of acute respiratory infection induced by Vitamin D was on par with the protective effect of injectable flu vaccine against flu-like illnesses."
If you wish to avoid acute respiratory infection should you contract COVID, you might want to make sure your Vitamin D level is adequate.
Since the majority of people with COVID have either mild or no symptoms, it suggests that most people drink either coffee, tea, juice, or carbonated beverages at least once a week.
Amazing how easy it is to plug in the "ingredient du jour" and make it look like it is the answer to all ills.
I don't even know what the conversation is about but over and over again it is proven that 80% of humanity is deficient in Vitamin D.
So obviously, if 80% of the world was alerted to the benefits -- and they took it -- in sufficient doses -- dark skinned and obese need more than other people... we could assume covid 19 would be knocked back.
But no we have to argue needlessly about if vitamin D will work for non deficient people.
There is no point arguing it. They just want to cast shade on it.
1. Making up numbers off the top your head doesn't PROVE anything...80% of population is deficient in Vitamin D?
Moderator cut: in alt med we do not demand proof, although this is one of those cases where vit D is not really alternative and the % of deficiency is proven.
2. Since 80% of the population is NOT deficient in Vitamin D and since we have no proof that Vitamin D offers ANY protection from COVID 19 why would anyone assume it could be "knocked back"??
3. You are right there is no point in arguing anything related to Vitamin D since you haven't established that there is a problem with Vitamin D or that replenishing it will have any effect on COVID 19...
Last edited by in_newengland; 08-28-2020 at 09:58 AM..
1. Making up numbers off the top your head doesn't PROVE anything...80% of population is deficient in Vitamin D? PROVE IT
2. Since 80% of the population is NOT deficient in Vitamin D and since we have no proof that Vitamin D offers ANY protection from COVID 19 why would anyone assume it could be "knocked back"??
3. You are right there is no point in arguing anything related to Vitamin D since you haven't established that there is a problem with Vitamin D or that replenishing it will have any effect on COVID 19...
Where have you been? Of course it's a big problem. Probably not 80% but pretty high.
A common issue is for the obese to have low blood levels of vitamin D because their excess fat takes it all up, seeing that this is a fat soluble vitamin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
