Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: profound on 04/04/2020 22:38:09
-
The only real defense against COVID-19 is your own immune system, which works best when fed right. While changing your diet is a commonsense solution for the long term, a rapid-response strategy would be to use vitamin C
Vitamin C strengthens your immune system and kills pathogens, including viruses, when taken in high doses.
Other important immune boosting nutrients are vitamin D, magnesium and zinc
A Korean doctor who’s giving patients and hospital staff 100,000 IUs of vitamin D and 20 to 24 grams of vitamin C by IV reports virus-infected patients are getting well in a matter of days
As noted by Dr Saul, much of the information about vitamin C for the coronavirus is currently coming out of China. Meanwhile, in the U.S., a lot of nutritional advice is being censored and tagged as “fake news.' by vested interests.
Vitamin C Boosts Immunity and Reverses Viral Pneumonia?
For now, the only real defense against COVID-19 is your own immune system. There’s no vaccine, and even if one is fast-tracked, there would be cause for caution, as we’d have no proof of effectiveness or safety.
“Your immune system is infinitely adaptable. This is how nature made us,” Saul notes. “However, your immune system works better when it's fed right.” While changing your diet is a more long-term solution, a rapid-response strategy would be to use vitamin C.
“Vitamin C is going to strengthen your immune system. This is in every nutrition textbook ever written, so we start with that,” Dr Saul says. “The RDA in the United States is about 90 milligrams; in Korea and China it's 100 mg; in the United Kingdom it's a miserable 40 mg a day and we are sometimes not even getting that.
Studies have shown that even 200 mg of vitamin C a day will reduce the death rate in elderly people with severe pneumonia by 80%. Studies have shown babies with pneumonia, when they get 200 milligrams of vitamin C — the adult equivalent of about 2,000 to 3,000 mg — they have an improvement in their oxygen levels in less than a day. The mortality goes down and the duration and severity of the illness is less.
Now, it is not coronavirus per se that actually kills people, it is the pneumonia and the SARS, the severe acute respiratory syndrome, that can follow it. Most people that get coronavirus will have a mild case; some will have the virus and not have any symptoms at all. We don't even know how many those people are because they have no symptoms.
Those who get COVID-19 that actually are sick are going to have the flu and it's going to be a nasty flu — it's going to be miserable. People will be sick for a week or two. The people at risk of dying tend to be the elderly and those that are immune-compromised.
The media sort of skirts around this but this is where we have to start because the fear is based on dying. And when we have even a small amount of vitamin C, our risk of dying — even in the most severe cases — goes down.
It is pneumonia and SARS that kills people and vitamin C has been known to be effective against viral pneumonia since the 1940s when Dr. Frederick Robert Klenner published a series of papers and was able to reverse viral pneumonia in 72 hours. Now, Klenner was a board-certified chest physician. He was a specialist and he published over 20 papers on this. The media has been silent on this therapy.”
On Vitamin C Dosing
More recently, Dr. Paul Marik has shown a protocol of intravenous (IV) vitamin C with hydrocortisone and thiamine (vitamin B1) dramatically improves survival rates in patients with sepsis. Since sepsis is one of the reasons people die from COVID-19 infection, Marik’s vitamin C protocol may go a long way toward saving people’s lives in this pandemic.
That protocol calls for 1,500 mg of ascorbic acid every six hours, and appears radically effective. However, I would recommend taking even higher doses using liposomal vitamin C if you’re taking it orally. Liposomal vitamin C will allow you to take much higher dosages without getting loose stools.
You can take up to 100 grams of liposomal vitamin C without problems and get really high blood levels, equivalent to or higher than intravenous vitamin C. I view that as an acute treatment, however.
I discourage people from taking mega doses of vitamin C on a regular basis if they’re not actually sick, because it is essentially a drug — or at least it works like one. Saul adds:
“What I suggest, and have for some 44 years of professional life, is to take enough vitamin C to be symptom free, and when you're well, that isn't very much. I knew one lady who would take 500 mg of vitamin C a day and she was just fine. [Another person] with multiple chemical sensitivity, she needed 35,000 mg a day. Any less and she wasn't fine …
Chinese physicians who are showing tremendous interest in using vitamin C as prevention and cure. It’s been so effective that the government of Shanghai has issued official recommendations that vitamin C should be used for treating COVID-19.
They are testing up to 24,000 mg a day by IV. Some of us think that's a little on the low side for people that are in the ICU. I would like to see 50,000 mg a day and there is a doctor … who has used 50,000 mg [on] quite a few people and we're getting more reports as we go.
They're also doing it in Korea. Right in the center of the outbreak in Korea we're in contact with a doctor who has a small hospital and he has given a single shot of vitamin D — a big shot of about 100,000 units to each patient and every staff member — and also about 20 to 24 grams (24,000 mg) of vitamin C by IV. And he's reporting that these people are getting well in a matter of days.”
Why is the news media blanking out this information and why are doctors failing it to use to save lives?
-
Please don't copy and paste articles from other websites (especially not without citing the source properly).
Do you have any links to reputable sources that support these claims? And by "reputable", I am excluding sources that support ideas like homeopathy, anti-vaxxing, naturopathy, new age concepts, etc.
This link suggests that megavitamin therapy has not been found by scientific studies to provide much, if any, benefit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megavitamin_therapy
-
"Why has high dose Vit C and Vit D treatment been ignored for covid19?"
Because the evidence shows that it didn't work for anything else.
Why do you ask?
-
Linus Pauling (a Nobel-winning chemist) actively promoted Vitamin C as a cure for cold and flu.
- Studies showed that it didn't help.
Vitamin C & D perform important tasks in the body (Vitamin = VITal AMINe)
- Your body is impaired if you don't have enough of them
- But if you have enough for the biochemical tasks done by each vitamin, your body will work fine
- Taking 10x the necessary dose just produces more expensive urine.
virus-infected patients are getting well in a matter of days
Around 80% of COVID-19 patients will get well in a matter of days, with no medical attention at all.
Another 15% of patients will get well in a matter of days, with hospital attention.
So you have to ask:
- Does it make the 15% recover faster, or need less intensive care?
- Does it make outcomes better for the 5% who need more intensive care?
- The way to find out is with a placebo-controlled trial
- You can't really document a trial like this with the 80% of people who are isolated at home
- Has a placebo-controlled trial been done?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo-controlled_study
-
Vitamin C & D perform important tasks in the body (Vitamin = VITal AMINe)
It says something about the state of knowledge when these terms were coined that neither vitamin C nor vitamin D is actually an amine.
Nor are A, E or K.
-
Please don't copy and paste articles from other websites (especially not without citing the source properly).
Sure look:-
https://vitamindwiki.com/VitaminDWiki
Look under Pneumonia, Respiratory, Breathing and Tuberculous..
-
Linus Pauling (a Nobel-winning chemist) actively promoted Vitamin C as a cure for cold and flu.
- Studies showed that it didn't help.
Vitamin C & D perform important tasks in the body (Vitamin = VITal AMINe)
- Your body is impaired if you don't have enough of them
- But if you have enough for the biochemical tasks done by each vitamin, your body will work fine
- Taking 10x the necessary dose just produces more expensive urine.
virus-infected patients are getting well in a matter of days
Around 80% of COVID-19 patients will get well in a matter of days, with no medical attention at all.
Another 15% of patients will get well in a matter of days, with hospital attention.
So you have to ask:
- Does it make the 15% recover faster, or need less intensive care?
- Does it make outcomes better for the 5% who need more intensive care?
- The way to find out is with a placebo-controlled trial
- You can't really document a trial like this with the 80% of people who are isolated at home
- Has a placebo-controlled trial been done?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo-controlled_study
When you are having difficult breathing then remember about placebo controlled trials luxury.
-
Vitamin mega-dosing is like giving a person twenty pistols when they can only carry two at a time. The immune system can only gain so much benefit from extra nutrients.
-
Linus Pauling (a Nobel-winning chemist) actively promoted Vitamin C as a cure for cold and flu.
- Studies showed that it didn't help.
Vitamin C & D perform important tasks in the body (Vitamin = VITal AMINe)
- Your body is impaired if you don't have enough of them
- But if you have enough for the biochemical tasks done by each vitamin, your body will work fine
- Taking 10x the necessary dose just produces more expensive urine.
virus-infected patients are getting well in a matter of days
Around 80% of COVID-19 patients will get well in a matter of days, with no medical attention at all.
Another 15% of patients will get well in a matter of days, with hospital attention.
So you have to ask:
- Does it make the 15% recover faster, or need less intensive care?
- Does it make outcomes better for the 5% who need more intensive care?
- The way to find out is with a placebo-controlled trial
- You can't really document a trial like this with the 80% of people who are isolated at home
- Has a placebo-controlled trial been done?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo-controlled_study
When you are having difficult breathing then remember about placebo controlled trials luxury.
Did you know that vitamin D is used as a rat poison?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodenticide#Hypercalcemia
-
Linus Pauling (a Nobel-winning chemist) actively promoted Vitamin C as a cure for cold and flu.
- Studies showed that it didn't help.
Vitamin C & D perform important tasks in the body (Vitamin = VITal AMINe)
- Your body is impaired if you don't have enough of them
- But if you have enough for the biochemical tasks done by each vitamin, your body will work fine
- Taking 10x the necessary dose just produces more expensive urine.
virus-infected patients are getting well in a matter of days
Around 80% of COVID-19 patients will get well in a matter of days, with no medical attention at all.
Another 15% of patients will get well in a matter of days, with hospital attention.
So you have to ask:
- Does it make the 15% recover faster, or need less intensive care?
- Does it make outcomes better for the 5% who need more intensive care?
- The way to find out is with a placebo-controlled trial
- You can't really document a trial like this with the 80% of people who are isolated at home
- Has a placebo-controlled trial been done?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo-controlled_study
When you are having difficult breathing then remember about placebo controlled trials luxury.
Did you know that vitamin D is used as a rat poison?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodenticide#Hypercalcemia
People are not rats.
Anyway 3 studies came out in April and May showing that vitamin D prevents DEATH from Covid19 THE HIGHER the level of vitamin D. Big Pharma and their stooges in the media and the government have been actively suppressing this information as it threatens the vast profits from the vaccine/drug a few months away.
Of the 212 (100.0%) cases of Covid-2019, 49 (23.1%) were identified mild, 59 (27.8%) were ordinary, 56 (26.4%) were severe, and 48 (22.6%) were critical (Table 1).
Mean serum (OH)D level was 23.8 ng/ml. Serum (OH)D level of cases with mild outcome was 31.2 ng/ml, 27.4 ng/ml for ordinary, 21.2 ng/ml for severe, and 17.1 ng/ml for critical. Serum (OH)D levels were statistically significant among clinical outcomes (p<0.001).
A total of 55 (25.9%) cases had normal Vitamin D status, majority of which (85.5%) were identified mild. A total of 80 (37.7%) cases had insufficient Vitamin D status, majority of which (43.8%) were ordinary. Cases identified as Vitamin D-deficient were 77 (36.3%), majority of which were severe (40.3%).
Vitamin D status is significantly associated with clinical outcomes (p<0.001).
A multinomial logistic regression analysis reported that the odds of having a mild clinical outcome rather than an ordinary outcome were approximately 1.63 times (OR=0.614, p=0.007) for each standard deviation increase in serum (OH)D (Table 2).
Also, for each standard deviation increase in serum (OH)D, the odds of having a mild clinical outcome rather than a severe outcome were approximately 7.94 times (OR=0.126, p<0.001) while interestingly, the odds of having a mild clinical outcome rather than a critical outcome were approximately more than 19.61 times (OR=0.051, p<0.001).
More generally, the odds of having a mild clinical outcome increase when serum (OH)D level increases. Alternatively, the odds of having a critical outcome increase when serum (OH)D level decreases.
This means that serum (OH)D level in the body could account for the clinical outcomes of the patients infected with Covid-2019. An increase in serum (OH)D level in the body could either improve clinical outcomes or mitigate worst (severe to critical) outcomes. On the other hand, a decrease in serum (OH)D level in the body could worsen clinical outcomes of Covid-2019 patients. In this case, Vitamin D supplementation may play an important role to raise 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)2D], the biologically active form of Vitamin D in the blood.
In conclusion this study provides substantial information to clinicians and health policy-makers. Vitamin D supplementation could possibly improve clinical outcomes of patients infected with Covid-2019 based on increasing odds ratio of having a mild outcome when serum (OH)D level increases. Further research may conduct randomized controlled trials and large population studies to evaluate this recommendation.
References
Sohrabi, C., Alsafi, Z., ONeiU, N., Khan, M., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., ... & Agha, R. (2020). World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVJD-19). International Journal of Surger
Lei, G. S., Zhang, C., Cheng, B. H., & Lee, C. H. (2017). Mechanisms of action of vitamin D as supplemental therapy for Pneumocystis pneumonia. Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 61(10), e01226-17. y.
Rondanelli, M., Miccono, A., Lamburghini, S., Avanzato, I., Riva, A., Allegrini, P., ... & Perna, S. (2018). Self-care for common colds: the pivotal role of vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc, and Echinacea in three main immune interactive clusters (physical barriers, innate and adaptive immunity) involved during an episode of common colds 一Practical advice on dosages and on the time to take these nutrients/botanicals in order to prevent or treat common colds. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2018.
Cantorna, M. T. (2010). Mechanisms underlying the effect of vitamin D on the immune system. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 69(3), 286-289.
Sharifi, A., Vahedi, H., Nedjat, S., Rafiei, H., & Hosseinzadeh-Attar, M. J. (2019). Effect of single-dose injection of vitamin D on immune cytokines in ulcerative colitis patients: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Apmis, 127(10), 681-687.
Wimalawansa, S. J. (2020). Global epidemic of coronavirus--COVID-19: What we can do to minimize risks. European XXXXX, 7(3), 432-438.
Grant, W. B., Lahore, H., McDonnell, S. L., Baggerly, C. A., French, C. B., Aliano, J. L., & Bhattoa, H. P. (2020). Evidence that Vitamin D Supplementation Could Reduce Risk of Influenza and COVID-19 Infections and Deaths.姓/rien/s, 12(4), 988.
Braiman, M. (2020). Latitude Dependence of the COVID-19 Mortality Rate—A Possible Relationship to Vitamin D Deficiency?. Axx mlable at SSRN3561958.
Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, L., Wang, X., Luo, N., & Ling, L. (2020). Clinical outcome of 55 asymptomatic cases at the time of hospital admission infected with SARS-Coronavirus-2 in Shenzhen, China. The Journal of infectious diseases.
Holick, M. F. (2009). Vitamin D status: measurement, interpretation, and clinical application. Annals of epidemiology, 19(2), 73-78.
Think of all the lives that could have been saved if this information had been disseminated widely...
-
So, people who are well fed (as measured by vitamin D status) are more likely to survive Covid.
Did anyone think that would not be true?
Isn't it just very very obvious?
People are not rats.
Close enough...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6158375/
-
Big Pharma and their stooges in the media and the government have been actively suppressing this information as it threatens the vast profits from the vaccine/drug a few months away.
Think of all the lives that could have been saved if this information had been disseminated widely...
It hasn’t been suppressed. Big Pharma and their ‘stooges’ (advertising) make a lot of money selling vitamins, and supplies around the UK have been hard to come by.
Medical teams over here are using all the tools available to fight this virus and comparative clinical trials of various treatments are continuing to find the optimum. Currently vitamin D is not showing a big advantage, this may be to the higher levels of nutrition in the UK compared many other countries.
For many years we have been advised by the health service to ensure adequate intake of vitamin D, but not to overdose as that brings its own risks.
-
Big Pharma and their stooges in the media and the government have been actively suppressing this information as it threatens the vast profits from the vaccine/drug a few months away.
Think of all the lives that could have been saved if this information had been disseminated widely...
It hasn’t been suppressed. Big Pharma and their ‘stooges’ (advertising) make a lot of money selling vitamins, and supplies around the UK have been hard to come by.
Medical teams over here are using all the tools available to fight this virus and comparative clinical trials of various treatments are continuing to find the optimum. Currently vitamin D is not showing a big advantage, this may be to the higher levels of nutrition in the UK compared many other countries.
For many years we have been advised by the health service to ensure adequate intake of vitamin D, but not to overdose as that brings its own risks.
I note you totally ignored the research study as it contradicts your established thought patterns.
It has been suppressed. The big money for Big pharma is in patented drugs like remdesvir at $1000 a shot and other crap they trying to flog for covid.
The real reason is of course quite sinister. Here is another study just to upset you.
Vitamin D is associated with a low COVID-19 death rate
New COVID-19 research finds relationships in data from 20 European countries.
By
Amit Malewar
May 9, 2020
Health
Vitamin D is associated with a low COVID-19 death rate
Based on the data from 20 European countries, a new study has discovered low average levels of vitamin D and high numbers of COVID-19 cases and death rates.
Vitamin D regulates the response of white blood cells, preventing them from releasing such a large number of inflammatory cytokines. The COVID-19 virus is known to cause an excess of pro-inflammatory cytokines.
Italy and Spain both countries have reported higher Coronavirus cases. A study reported that patients in both countries had lower vitamin D levels than northern European countries.
The highest average levels of vitamin D are found in northern Europe, due to the consumption of cod liver oil and vitamin D supplements, and possibly less sun avoidance. Scandinavian nations are among the countries with the lowest number of COVID-19 cases and mortality rates per head of population in Europe.
Dr. Lee Smith, Reader in Physical Activity and Public Health at Anglia Ruskin University, said: “We found a significant crude relationship between average vitamin D levels and the number COVID-19 cases, and particularly COVID-19 mortality rates, per head of population across the 20 European countries.”
“Vitamin D has been shown to protect against acute respiratory infections, and older adults, the group most deficient in vitamin D, are also the ones most seriously affected by COVID-19.”
“A previous study found that 75% of people in institutions, such as hospitals and care homes, were severely deficient in vitamin D. We suggest it would be advisable to perform dedicated studies looking at vitamin D levels in COVID-19 patients with different degrees of disease severity.”
Journal Reference:
Petre Cristian Ilie, The role of vitamin D in the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 infection and mortality. DOI: 10.1007/s40520-020-01570-8
-
VitD insufficiency may contribute to the higher COVID death rate of non-whites in the UK, but I thought this problem had been resolved by dietary advice and supplements in the 1980s when we recognised the incidence of rickets in the British Asian population.
Whilst COVID may reduce the number of rabid Trump clones in the USA, it would be a pity if it took the lives of many vegetarians.
-
I note you totally ignored the research study as it contradicts your established thought patterns.
I note that you totally ignored my point.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't understand it.
You need to look at something like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
-
Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
''Correlation_does_not_imply_causation'''
That old chestnut? I was expecting that and sure enough you trotted it out right on cue.
So how much money does the cambridge get in donations?
Well to prove you wrong again:-
Vitamin D Determines Severity in COVID-19: Researchers Urge Government to Change Advice
Trinity College Dublin researchers point to changes in government advice in Wales, England and Scotland. Researchers from Trinity College Dublin are calling ...
SciTechDaily
2 days ago
Does Vitamin D help with coronavirus?
GETTING enough Vitamin D is an important part of keeping bones and muscle healthy - and some believe that it could help against coronavirus as well. At least ...
The Sun
Yesterday
Vitamin D and coronavirus: Sunlight and nutrition could help boost immunity | ABC7
video_youtube
ABC7
4 hours ago
Vitamin D deficiency may be linked to more severe cases of COVID-19, studies suggest
Two recent studies have found an association between vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19 mortality rates, suggesting that not having enough of the ...
CTV News
Yesterday
Coronavirus: How vitamin D could help keep you healthy during pandemic
Staying inside and staying healthy can be difficult as gyms are closed.
Boston 25 News
3 days ago
Could Vitamin D be key in beating coronavirus? Report says new study finds link
Get out get some sunshine or eat some salmon and eggs to help beat COVID-19.
PennLive
Yesterday
Study: Vitamin D deficiency may be linked to COVID-19 mortality — how a common vitamin could become pivotal
A new study from researchers at Trinity College Dublin has hypothesized that vitamin D deficiency may be linked to higher mortality rates from COVID-19.
Yahoo Lifestyle
Yesterday
-
VitD insufficiency may contribute to the higher COVID death rate of non-whites in the UK, but I thought this problem had been resolved by dietary advice and supplements in the 1980s when we recognised the incidence of rickets in the British Asian population.
Whilst COVID may reduce the number of rabid Trump clones in the USA, it would be a pity if it took the lives of many vegetarians.
What you thought is irrelevant.
Vitamin D deficiency is rampant.
The University of Southern California recommends a minumum of 10,000 IU of vitamin D each day and single dose pills are made at that amount, although best to combine with vitamin K2. The Pharmacology of Vitamin D, Including Fortification Strategies states that there is "no evidence of adverse effects from taking 10,000 IU of Vitamin D a day". I take 10,000 IU each day, have for years. Currently, the tolerable upper intake level (UL) in Europe and the US is set at 2000 International Units (IU), equivalent to 50 micrograms per day. However, recent research, particularly from clinical trials, suggests that this should be raised. The CRN scientists state that this could be raised to 10,000 IU (250 micrograms per day).
The reviewers, from the CRN, Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and Crieghton University in Nebraska, pooled data from 21 clinical trials using doses ranging from 10 to 2500 micrograms (100,000 IU). The risk assessment also included data from animal studies, some of which used “extraordinarily high doses of vitamin D3”.
“The lack of adverse effects in clinical trials that used intake up to 1250 micrograms [50,000 IU] vitamin D per day and the lack of adverse effects at lower doses inspires a high level of confidence in the data from the strongly designed clinical trials that used 250 micrograms [10,000 IU] vitamin D per day,” said the reviewers.
-
So how much money does the cambridge get in donations?
I think BC is an alumnus of the other place. But as you say, what I think is indeed irrelevant as it seems the non-white UK population may still be VitD deficient, so the problem clearly hasn't been solved.
Do let us know if you live for ever, or don't succumb to COVID-19 after a significant exposure.
-
So how much money does the cambridge get in donations?
Who cares?
-
That old chestnut? I was expecting that and sure enough you trotted it out right on cue.
You forgot to address it.
Do you accept that if I plotted incidence/ severity of covid vs household income (In any given age bracket), I would find that richer people are less affected?
Do you accept that , if I plotted Vitamin D levels against income I would also find a correlation?
And, if those correlations exist, how would there not be a correlation between covid and vitamin D?
-
There's still some anomaly in the mortality of NHS staff. It is clear that British Asians are overrepresented in the medical profession and "British Other" in nursing and ancillary roles, but COVID deaths are still somewhat skewed against nonwhites. Whilst ancillaries tend to be poorly paid (and increasingly of European origin) that's hardly the case for doctors and few nurses are at starvation level
-
Vitamin D deficiency is rampant.
If that's true, then that in itself could explain why people who take more vitamin D do better when dealing with COVID-19. People who have normal vitamin D levels would be expected to have less severe symptoms than those who have low vitamin D levels. What needs to be demonstrated is that vitamin D mega-dosing produces a significant effect in alleviating symptoms/shortening recovery time/preventing death versus simply having "sufficient" vitamin D levels. And any such study needs to be replicated by independent groups in order to demonstrate that the effect is real and not some fluke or other error.
-
That old chestnut? I was expecting that and sure enough you trotted it out right on cue.
You forgot to address it.
Do you accept that if I plotted incidence/ severity of covid vs household income (In any given age bracket), I would find that richer people are less affected?
Do you accept that , if I plotted Vitamin D levels against income I would also find a correlation?
And, if those correlations exist, how would there not be a correlation between covid and vitamin D?
The Internet Blowhard’s Favorite Phrase
Why do people love to say that correlation does not imply causation?
By Daniel Engber
Oct 02, 20128:33 AM
Karl Pearson.
Depressed people send more email. They spend more time on Gchat. Researchers at the Missouri University of Science and Technology recently assessed some college students for signs of melancholia then tracked their behavior online. “We identified several features of Internet usage that correlated with depression,” they said. Sad people use IM and file-share. They play video games. They surf the Web in their own, sad way.
Not everyone found the news believable. “Facepalm. Correlation doesn’t imply causation,” wrote one unhappy Internet user. “That’s pretty much how I read this too… correlation is NOT causation,” agreed a Huffington Post superuser, seemingly distraught. “I was surprised not to find a discussion of correlation vs. causation,” cried someone at Hacker News. “Correlation does not mean causation,” a reader moaned at Slashdot. “There are so many variables here that it isn’t funny.”
And thus a deeper correlation was revealed, a link more telling than any that the Missouri team had shown. I mean the affinity between the online commenter and his favorite phrase—the statistical cliché that closes threads and ends debates, the freshman platitude turned final shutdown. “Repeat after me,” a poster types into his window, and then he sighs, and then he types out his sigh, s-i-g-h, into the comment for good measure. Does he have to write it on the blackboard? Correlation does not imply causation. Your hype is busted. Your study debunked. End of conversation. Thank you and good night.
The correlation phrase has become so common and so irritating that a minor backlash has now ensued against the rhetoric if not the concept. No, correlation does not imply causation, but it sure as hell provides a hint. Does email make a man depressed? Does sadness make a man send email? Or is something else again to blame for both? A correlation can’t tell one from the other; in that sense it’s inadequate. Still, if it can frame the question, then our observation sets us down the path toward thinking through the workings of reality, so we might learn new ways to tweak them. It helps us go from seeing things to changing them.
So how did a stats-class admonition become so misused and so widespread? What made this simple caveat—a warning not to fall too hard for correlation coefficients—into a coup de grace for second-rate debates? A survey shows the slogan to be a computer-age phenomenon, one that spread through print culture starting in the 1960s and then redoubled its frequency with the advent of the Internet. The graph below plots three common versions of the phrase going back to 1880 as they turn up in Google Books. It’s that right-most rise that interests me—the explosion of correlations that don’t imply causation in the 1990s and 2000s. Beware of spurious correlations, I know! But it is tempting to say the warning spread in the squall of data on the Web, as a means of warding off the cheap associations that ride a stormy sea of numbers. If now we’re quick to say that correlation is not causation, it’s because the correlations are all around us.
Courtesy Google.
Let’s go back a little further, though, to the origins of the phrase itself. Those first, modest peaks of “correlation is not causation” show up in print in the 1890s—a date that happens to coincide with the discovery of correlation itself. That’s when the British statistician Karl Pearson introduced a powerful idea in math: that a relationship between two variables could be characterized according to its strength and expressed in numbers. Francis Galton had futzed around with correlations some years before, and a French naval officer named Auguste Bravais sketched out some relevant equations. But it was Pearson who gave the correlation its modern form and mathematics. He defined its role in science.
Philosophers had spent centuries, by that point, on the question of how the mere association of events might reveal their causal links and what it means to say that one thing can ever cause another. The ambiguity of correlations was well-known. Victorian logician Alexander Bain wasn’t breaking new ground in 1870 when he warned his readers of the “fallacy of causation,” whereby we might assume that, say, “the healthy effect of residence at a medicinal spa is attributed exclusively to the operation of the waters,” as opposed to being caused by “the whole circumstances and situation.” The confusion between correlation and causation, he said (not quite using the famous phrase), “prevails in all the complicated sciences, as Politics and Medicine.”
With the arrival of Pearson’s coefficients and the transformation of statistics, that “fallacy” became more central to debate. Should scientists even bother with a slippery concept like causation, which can’t truly be measured in the lab and doesn’t have a proper definition? Maybe not. Pearson’s work suggested that causation might be irrelevant to science and that it could in certain ways be indistinguishable from perfect correlation. “The higher the correlation, the more certainly we can predict from one member what the value of the associated member will be,” he wrote in one of his major works, The Grammar of Science. “This is the transition of correlation into causation.”
Slate is now hosting virtual events. Be the first to find out when and how to join.
But Pearson’s language on the matter was inconsistent and confusing. The father of correlation did worry about its overuse, says Theodore Porter, a historian of science at UCLA and a Pearson specialist. A footnote to the second edition of The Grammar of Science, published in 1900, lays out a critique of spurious relationships in terms that would not look out of place on an Internet message board:
All causation as we have defined it is correlation, but the converse is not necessarily true, i.e. where we find correlation we cannot always predict causation. In a mixed African population of Kaffirs and Europeans, the former may be more subject to smallpox, yet it would be useless to assert darkness of skin (and not absence of vaccination) as a cause.
Pearson’s critics expressed the same concern. That year in Science, a reviewer called out the book’s “transition of correlation into causation” as one that is “scarcely allowable” and went on to note (emphasis mine) that, “correlation does not imply causation, though the converse is no doubt true enough.”
So it seems the fear of correlations was formalized—made into a turn of phrase, I mean—at around the time that correlations came into formal being. One might say (citing another correlation) that Pearson’s work marks the transition from an age of causal links to one of mere relationships—from anecdotal science to applied statistics. As correlations split and multiplied, we needed to remind ourselves of what they meant and what they didn’t. The graph below, again from Google Books, shows the shift in language that marked this change in spirit: Up until the early 1900s, causation showed up more often than correlation in the corpus; then the concepts flip. (I’ll let someone else explain why correlations have been trending downward since 1976.)
In the decades to come, the phrase correlation does not imply causation made its way into textbooks and academic journals, while the social sciences were made over with newfangled statistics. By the 1940s, economists had devised a name for the insufficiency of correlations: They called it the “identification problem.” A flood of numbers in the postwar years may have made the anxiety more acute until its apotheosis in the present day, when Google, Amazon, and the other data juggernauts belch smoggy clouds of information and spit out correlations by the ton. “That may be as deep a sense of causation as they care about,” Porter says. “To them, perhaps, automated number-crunching stands for the highest form of knowledge that civilization has ever produced.” In that sense, the admonitory slogan about correlation and causation isn’t so much a comment posted on the Internet as a comment posted about the Internet. It’s a tiny fist raised in protest against Big Data.
But there’s still another puzzle in the phrase. To say that correlation does not imply causation makes an important point about the limits of statistics, but there are other limits, too, and ones that scientists ignore with far more frequency. In The Cult of Statistical Significance, the economists Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak cite one of these and make an impassioned, book-length argument against the arbitrary cutoff that decides which experimental findings count and which ones don’t. By convention, we call an effect “significant” if the chances of its deriving from a twist of fate—as opposed to some more genuine relationship—are less than 5 percent. But as McCloskey and Ziliak (and many others) point out, there’s nothing special about that number and no reason to invest it with our faith.
It’s easy to imagine how this point might be infused into the wisdom of the Web: “Facepalm. How many times do I have to remind you? Don’t confuse statistical and substantive significance!” That comment-ready slogan would be just as much a conversation-stopper as correlation does not imply causation, yet people rarely say it. The spurious correlation stands apart from all the other foibles of statistics. It’s the only one that’s gone mainstream. Why?
I wonder if it has to do with what the foible represents. When we mistake correlation for causation, we find a cause that isn’t there. Once upon a time, perhaps, these sorts of errors—false positives—were not so bad at all. If you ate a berry and got sick, you’d have been wise to imbue your data with some meaning. (Better safe than sorry.) Same goes for a red-hot coal: one touch and you’ve got all the correlations that you need. When the world is strange and scary, when nature bullies and confounds us, it’s far worse to miss a link than it is to make one up. A false negative yields the greatest risk.
-
No, correlation does not imply causation, but it sure as hell provides a hint.
Not always.
-
No, correlation does not imply causation, but it sure as hell provides a hint.
Not always.
You would say that even if a 100 people got shot in from of you. ''Correlation_does_not_imply_causation" despite the bullet holes.
The real reason everyone is denying that vitamin D decreases mortality is that they don't want Big Pharma to lose the TRILLION dollars they expect to make from the side effect laded untested vaccine/drug coming in the next few months
and most have a stake in the this huge cash cow.
Here is more proof that low vitamin D levels cause DEATH.
COVID-19, Diabetes and Vitamin D deficiency.
Vitamin D Insufficiency in ICU patients less than 75 years old 100.0% !!
Vitamin D deficiency < 20 ng/ml 98,9% patients died, 1.1% recovered.
Vitamin D sufficient level > 30 ng/ml 4,1% died, 95,9% alive or recovered
These are some figures from studies about COVID-19 and Vitamin D
COVID-19 is only the top of a much bigger global pandemic.
More than 1 billion people are obese or have Diabetes.
More than 1 billion people have vitamin D deficiency.
Both groups have the highest risk to die from COVID-19
A sufficient vitamin D level > 30 ng/ml is the best prevention
as we can see in many clinical studies worldwide.
Blood tests for Vitamin D levels & COVID-19 might be helpful,
especially in care homes, for sick people with darker skin,
immune disorder and everybody who is already infected,
who does not get enough sunlight to produce sufficient Vitamin D levels.
"Vitamin D Insufficiency is Prevalent in Severe COVID-19"
published in medRxiv April 24th 2020
Vitamin D Insufficiency in ICU patients less than 75 years old 100.0%
Vitamin D Insufficiency in Intense Care Unit (ICU) patients 84.6%
Vitamin D Insufficiency in floor patients in hospitals 57.1%
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075838v1
"Patterns of COVID-19 Mortality and Vitamin D: An Indonesian Study"
780 cases with laboratory-confirmed infection of SARS-CoV-2 in Indonesia.
179 patients with Vitamin D deficiency < 20 ng/ml 98,9% died, 1.1% active
213 patients with insufficient Vitamin D 20-30 ng/ml 87,8% died, 12.2% active
388 patients with sufficient Vitamin D > 30 ng/ml 4,1% died, 95,9% active
A retrospective cohort study which included two cohorts (active and expired)
from Prabowo Raharusuna and others published on 6 May 2020 in SSRN
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3585561
"COVID-19 ’ICU’ risk – 20-fold greater in the Vitamin D Deficient. BAME,
African Americans, the Older, Institutionalized and Obese, are at greatest risk"
published in British Medical Journal (BMJ) 20 April 2020
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1548/rr-6
-
Why do people love to say that correlation does not imply causation?
Because it doesn't.
The more breaths you take, the more likely it is that your next breath will be your last. So breathing kills you. Likewise heartbeats, sexual intercourse, and cups of tea.
The converse is however true: causation implies correlation, so absence of correlation denies causation.
-
The converse is however true: causation implies correlation, so absence of correlation denies causation.
Unless there's something else going on- which is possible.
https://xkcd.com/552/
No, correlation does not imply causation, but it sure as hell provides a hint.
Yes, very often it provides a hint that you need to look for a confounding variable- Poverty is a good one to check in healthcare.
Time is also a good one.
Now, to get back to what once looked like a point.
How do you rule out the idea that the covid vs Vit D thing is just that better fed people shake off the virus?
I remind you that providing some hypothetical drug to treat covid makes money out of about 250,000 sick people in the UK (and each one gets pills for maybe a month)
Providing everybody with vit D pills makes money out of 66,000,000 people in the UK. (forever)
And Big pharma likes big numbers.
-
The real reason everyone is denying that vitamin D decreases mortality is that they don't want Big Pharma to lose the TRILLION dollars
That's about $125 for every person on Earth, and most of them simply do not have that much money.
It would be equivalent to them suddenly making a profit which is roughly the same as their current turnover.
The pharmaceutical industry sucks but it's not able to be that bad.
-
You would say that even if a 100 people got shot in from of you.
Notwithstanding that "shot in from of you" doesn't parse, I'd have to ask you how you derived that from what I said? Bullets causing death is something that is so profoundly well-studied and understood that all you have done is straw-man what I said. I did not say that correlation never hints at causation. To get a handle on what I was actually saying, consider this: if people are more likely to eat ice cream in the Summer and are also more likely to get heat stroke in the Summer, does that hint that ice cream causes heat stroke? No, it doesn't. Hence why I said that correlation does not always hint at causation.
The real reason everyone is denying that vitamin D decreases mortality is that they don't want Big Pharma to lose the TRILLION dollars they expect to make from the side effect laded untested vaccine/drug coming in the next few months
How about supplying evidence for this conspiracy theory? Are you implying that everyone here who is questioning your claims works for "Big Pharma"? That's the kind of reasoning that a crank uses.
COVID-19, Diabetes and Vitamin D deficiency.
Vitamin D Insufficiency in ICU patients less than 75 years old 100.0% !!
Vitamin D deficiency < 20 ng/ml 98,9% patients died, 1.1% recovered.
Vitamin D sufficient level > 30 ng/ml 4,1% died, 95,9% alive or recovered
So when people have a sufficient level of vitamin D they are less likely to die from illness than those people who don't? That's common sense. I don't think anyone here is denying that vitamin D deficiency makes you more vulnerable to illness. What is being question (at least by me) is whether an excess of vitamin D has any significantly beneficial impact on recovery than merely having a sufficient amount of it.
-
You would say that even if a 100 people got shot in from of you. ''Correlation_does_not_imply_causation" despite the bullet holes.
I guess you meant "in front of"
No a bullet hole, and death does imply causation. (not least, because there is a mechanism and also there's no obvious alternative explanation)
It's a pity you don't (or won't) understand the difference.
-
Providing everybody with vit D pills makes money out of 66,000,000 people in the UK. (forever)
On the one hand, there is no requirement for a clinical trial because the stuff already exists in normal diet, so the cost of production will be negligible.
On the other hand it isn't patentable, so there's very little profit in it unless you add something novel and active to the formulation, in which case you have to do the clinical trial and (at least for FDA approval) prove that it actually works.
Meanwhile the dastardly socialist government will tell people that the traditional north European diet of dairy products, meat and oily fish, contains all the vitamin D you need because the evolution of agriculture has made it so, and you should get out in the sun a bit, particularly if you have dark skin.
-
n the other hand it isn't patentable, so there's very little profit in it
They are already selling vitamin D; this latest scam (pretend it's a defence against corona) just increases the markets + the profit.
It doesn't cost them anything. The pharma companies just rely on a few people like Profound to do their advertising, and he doesn't even spot the irony.
-
My mother would never patronise a "health food" shop. "The staff always look so pale and sick."
-
As you might guess, I'm quite happy to patronise almost anything...
-
Funny how the same word means "buy from" or "give to", depending on the prejudice of the audience.
-
You would say that even if a 100 people got shot in from of you.
Notwithstanding that "shot in from of you" doesn't parse, I'd have to ask you how you derived that from what I said? Bullets causing death is something that is so profoundly well-studied and understood that all you have done is straw-man what I said. I did not say that correlation never hints at causation. To get a handle on what I was actually saying, consider this: if people are more likely to eat ice cream in the Summer and are also more likely to get heat stroke in the Summer, does that hint that ice cream causes heat stroke? No, it doesn't. Hence why I said that correlation does not always hint at causation.
The real reason everyone is denying that vitamin D decreases mortality is that they don't want Big Pharma to lose the TRILLION dollars they expect to make from the side effect laded untested vaccine/drug coming in the next few months
How about supplying evidence for this conspiracy theory? Are you implying that everyone here who is questioning your claims works for "Big Pharma"? That's the kind of reasoning that a crank uses.
COVID-19, Diabetes and Vitamin D deficiency.
Vitamin D Insufficiency in ICU patients less than 75 years old 100.0% !!
Vitamin D deficiency < 20 ng/ml 98,9% patients died, 1.1% recovered.
Vitamin D sufficient level > 30 ng/ml 4,1% died, 95,9% alive or recovered
So when people have a sufficient level of vitamin D they are less likely to die from illness than those people who don't? That's common sense. I don't think anyone here is denying that vitamin D deficiency makes you more vulnerable to illness. What is being question (at least by me) is whether an excess of vitamin D has any significantly beneficial impact on recovery than merely having a sufficient amount of it.
D3 is dirt cheap. I can get 365 softgels 10000 i.o for under $10.
So is HCQ which only costs a dollar. But large scale corruption caused big pharma to recommend which REMDESVIR which costs $4000 and get W.H.O to ban HCQ.
All the research indicates most people are very low in D3 and the greater the risk of death.
Here is another new study:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99 percent of the 380 Indonesians who died of COVID-19 had low vitamin D - May 2020
COVID-19 Death vs Vitamin D VDW11788
Covid-19: More deaths? More lockdown? More suffering?
Vitamin D deficiency causes a 10 times higher death rate in Covid-19 patients according to recent studies.
What we can do to get the Covid-19 pandemic under control and avoid another lockdown
Lorenz Borsche / Dr. Bernd Glauner
PDF extracted to this page - from authors in Germany
Extraction of tables wad poor - please see PDF
Original Indonesia preprint Does vitamin D (and C) help with Covid-19 - May 2020
Introduction
The authors see sufficient scientific plausibility that with a good vitamin D level many corona deaths could still be alive today.The studies listed wrt the course of the disease and the death rate in Covid-19 infections dependant on vitamin D level are evident, among others a study with 780 participants. That may be a factor of 12 smaller than a placebo-controlled double-blind study with 10,000 participants. The study is still significant because it shows that infections in groups with deficient vitamin D levels are 10 times more likely to end in death.With a vitamin D supplementation to levels known from nature (East Africa: Massai/Hadza, Central Africa: wild chimpanzees) of 45 ng/ml, there is a good chance that Covid-19 would not have any worse effects than a severe wave of influenza.
A lockdown would then be just as unnecessary as the justified fear of our elderly fellow citizens and the risk groups, which imposes an abnormal life on all of us.Quite independently of corona, it has been known and published for many years that vitamin D deficiency promotes the development of pneumonia - technically correct from ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Symptom) - as a result of viral infections. In addition, vitamin D stimulates the body's own synthesis of antiviral substances which specifically block the spike protein necessary for the docking mechanism of covid-19 to the receptor protein ACE2. All this is well-researched, published information that clearly shows us that vitamin D deficiency patients are at high risk of getting pneumonia.
In today's society, a large part of the population suffers from a massive vitamin D deficiency - especially in winter (see chapter: What else you should know WHO vs. D-A- CH limits).Statistics often assume that blood values of 20ng/ml are sufficient for vitamin D function. But these limits date back to the time when vitamin D was only studied for its effect on bone metabolism. The fact is - and studies in many European countries show this - that depending on the country, 20-40% of people do not even reach this value (20 ng/ml) even in summer.
One reason for this is the recommendations for vitamin D substitution. It has been published for years that the official recommendations of 400-800 units of vitamin D per day are based on a calculation error by a factor of 10. Unfortunately, this has still not been included in the official recommendations, as they should be in the range of 5,000 international units per day. Necessary for a stable immune system are blood values of 40- 50ng/ml. But only a few people to reach this level.
The data presented in this article show that up to 90% of deaths could be avoided. This means that the current situation could also be symbolically described as a "vitamin D deficiency pandemic". Unfortunately, in Germany neither the family doctor nor hospitalised patients routinely measure the blood level of vitamin D, even though all relevant organisations, such as the DGE, BfR, RKI and WHO, repeatedly report that our population suffers from a vitamin D deficiency that also causes other health problems.The present study from Indonesia shows exactly the result that must be expected based on the scientific background described above.
At vitamin D concentrations below 20 ng/ml, a very large number of patients succumb to the pneumonia triggered by Covid-19, whereas at vitamin D concentrations >30 ng/ml, the majority of patients survive and this with a statistically very good correlation.Large medical studies are very expensive. Someone has to raise the necessary funds in the hope that if the results are positive that tehre will be a revenue.
Given the low market price of vitamin D, this simple economic constraint explains why there are relatively few studies on vitamin D. Lorenz Borsche has been trying for a few weeks now to find partners in the medical field in Germany who, with his financial support, carry out purely observational ex-post studies (vitamin D testing of infected persons / course of disease), unfortunately without any success so far. The three studies presented here were initiated by ordinary doctors (MD/GP) and financed from their own resources and with considerable personal commitment(1}.
One must therefore not apply the same standard as in large- scale double-blind studies. Nevertheless, the results are so overwhelmingly clear that they should be examined.The rapid increase of vitamin D levels in covid-19 infected patients with vitamin D deficiency (< 30ng/ml), as well as vitamin D supplementation in doctors, nursing staff and risk patients to a healthy blood level of 40-50ng/ml, is - in the authors' view - the only conceivable solution to effectively contain the corona pandemic. One then could most likely allow the SARS-CoV-2 virus to spread and people could survive the infection like a wave of influenza. Apart from the social and economic benefits, this would also be much cmore economic than any other measure and might cost a fraction of what the lockdown has cost and will cost us - in money and in human lives.#000000:__''
The latest studies on Covid-19 and vitamin D
2 May the authors received a publication from Indonesia. Prabowo Raharusuna and his team had examined 780 covid-19 patients for their vitamin D levels. This study is neutral and independent, it was neither sponsored nor are there any other conflicts of interest. depressingly clear!
After correction for age, sex and previous illnesses, the risk of death is 10 times higher for people with vitamin D deficiency. For insufficient vitamin D status still 7 times higher than for sufficient, good vitamin D level.In order to make the evaluation transparent and easy to interpret even for non-scientists, Sadiah Priambada, a statistician in the team, prepared the data in such a way that the three comparison groups with vitamin D levels of <20, 20-30 and >30 ng/ml can be assessed on the basis of an equal age average and an equal number of cases.
This more easily readable evaluation leads to practically the same results as the original data, which proves not only the stability of the data, but also the correctness of the previously chosen statistical approach to the calculation of the influencing factors age, sex and previous fluctuations.
1 Vitamin D < 20 ng/ml (18.2 ± 0.6) Vitamin D 20-30 ng/ml(26.6 ± 1.4) Vitamin D > 30 ng/ml(32.1 ± 1.3)
Overall, N 60 60 60
Mean age 61.5 ±4.9 61.2 ±3.5 61.3 ± 1.6
Comorbidity, % 85.0 76.7 10.0
Death, % 100.0 88.3 3.3
Active,, % 0.0 11.7 96.7
https://vitamindwiki.com/99+percent+of+the+380+Indonesians+who+died+of+COVID-19+had+low+vitamin+D+-+May+2020
-
get W.H.O to ban HCQ.
Were you born stupid, or did you work at it?
Because, posting something which is that obviously wrong, on a science page is pretty stupid, isn't it?
"Hydroxychloroquine was approved for medical use in the United States in 1955.[2] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system.[8]"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine
Also, why do you keep posting the same thing?
Nobody is saying that people with low vitamin D levels are not more susceptible to Covid.
We all agree that's the case.
You can stop banging on about it now.
OK, have you got that?
Right, now answer the real question.
How do you know that low vitamin levels are not just a proxy measure of poverty?
-
So is HCQ which only costs a dollar. But large scale corruption caused big pharma to recommend which REMDESVIR which costs $4000 and get W.H.O to ban HCQ.
Evidence?
All the research indicates most people are very low in D3 and the greater the risk of death.
Please stop repeating something that we already agree on.
-
get W.H.O to ban HCQ.
Were you born stupid, or did you work at it?
Because, posting something which is that obviously wrong, on a science page is pretty stupid, isn't it?
"Hydroxychloroquine was approved for medical use in the United States in 1955.[2] It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system.[8]"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine
Also, why do you keep posting the same thing?
Nobody is saying that people with low vitamin D levels are not more susceptible to Covid.
We all agree that's the case.
You can stop banging on about it now.
OK, have you got that?
Right, now answer the real question.
How do you know that low vitamin levels are not just a proxy measure of poverty?
WHO banned it from test trials for covid not altogether.
poverty is irrelevant. i am very poor. i have a black and white tv. dampness on the walls. i eat fast food and travel on crowded buses and trains and i have still not got covid19 because i take vitamin d.
-
i have still not got covid19 because i take vitamin d.
Or maybe you're just lucky and haven't been exposed to it yet.
-
i have still not got covid19 because i take vitamin d.
Or maybe you're just lucky and haven't been exposed to it yet.
i take 20000 iu plus vit k magnesium and 30 mg zinc.
went to a doctor in 2005.
i have been exposed as i felt vaguely ill/weak for a few hours and nothing happened afterwards
-
i have been exposed as i felt vaguely ill/weak for a few hours and nothing happened afterwards
Then how do you know it was COVID-19 and not some other illness? Were you ever tested?
-
i have been exposed as i felt vaguely ill/weak for a few hours and nothing happened afterwards
Then how do you know it was COVID-19 and not some other illness? Were you ever tested?
yes they i said i had it and that i was 'lucky'.
i take 20000 iu plus vit k magnesium and 30 mg zinc.
went to a doctor in 2005.
-
yes they i said i had it and that i was 'lucky'.
i take 20000 iu plus vit k magnesium and 30 mg zinc.
went to a doctor in 2005.
Perhaps you were, indeed, lucky. Some people have only mild symptoms.
-
yes they i said i had it and that i was 'lucky'.
i take 20000 iu plus vit k magnesium and 30 mg zinc.
went to a doctor in 2005.
Perhaps you were, indeed, lucky. Some people have only mild symptoms.
the ones with high levels of D3 will escape as the cytokine storm is prevented by d3.
-
the ones with high levels of D3 will escape as the cytokine storm is prevented by d3.
Do you mean normal levels or mega-dose levels?
-
i have been exposed as i felt vaguely ill/weak for a few hours and nothing happened afterwards
Then how do you know it was COVID-19 and not some other illness? Were you ever tested?
yes they i said i had it and that i was 'lucky'.
i take 20000 iu plus vit k magnesium and 30 mg zinc.
went to a doctor in 2005.
So, you went to a doctor in 2005 for a disease that only emerged in 2019?
Are you being very unclear or very irrational?
-
are vitamin D, magnesium and zinc
i saw the doctor for a sore throat in 2005 and never since due to my high levels of vit D3
-
i saw the doctor for a sore throat in 2005 and never since due to my high levels of vit D3
Wait, so were you tested for COVID-19 or not?
-
i saw the doctor for a sore throat in 2005 and never since due to my high levels of vit D3
Wait, so were you tested for COVID-19 or not?
i was.
-
.
the ones with high levels of D3 will escape as the cytokine storm is prevented by d3.
Do you mean normal levels or mega-dose levels?
i take 20000 iu plus vit k magnesium and 30 mg zinc.
also 500 mg vit c
i aint gonna wait for some stinky corrupt authority figure.
I TAKE DECISIVE ACTION TO PROTECT MYSELF and my family.
-
WHO banned it from test trials
Well, do you understand why?
IT DIDN:T WORK.
Is that a complicated idea somehow?
There weas no sensble basis for assuming it would work.
Someone took a punt on it.
It failed.
That's common sense, not a conspiracy.
-
i take 20000 iu plus vit k magnesium and 30 mg zinc.
also 500 mg vit c
That's not what I asked. I asked if mega-dose levels are required to stop the cytokine storm or if normal levels are enough.
-
i aint gonna wait for some stinky corrupt authority figure.
Who told you to take those pills?
Who is profiting from them.
Who has played you for a fool?
-
i take 20000 iu plus vit k magnesium and 30 mg zinc.
also 500 mg vit c
That's not what I asked. I asked if mega-dose levels are required to stop the cytokine storm or if normal levels are enough.
The consensus from recent and previous studies indicate at least 1000 to 10000 are required. The range is wide as d3 blood levels vary with the amount of vit k2 and magnesium which helps absorption.
This i could take 10000 i.u but be low on the co-factors and my blood levels be still low and conversely I might take 1000 and have adequate levels if k2 and mg is adequate
the magic figure seems to be over 45 in the blood for virtual immunity from covid19.
-
The consensus
Among whom?
-
i aint gonna wait for some stinky corrupt authority figure.
Who told you to take those pills?
Who is profiting from them.
Who has played you for a fool?
i did my research
i am profiting from it.
my brain has played me for a fool by safeguarding my health. i am so glad to be a fool.
-
The consensus
Among whom?
Research studies.
-
i eat fast food and travel on crowded buses and trains
Are there other people on them too?
Have they all died?
Do they all take lots of vitamin D?
Or does the evidence of your own eyes show that many people who don't take the pills are still not dying from the virus?
Many people are just lucky.
So, because you might simply be one of the lucky ones, the fact that you haven't got it isn't really evidence of anything is it?
But you don't see that- because you refuse to consider the actual evidence properly- even when it's the evidence which you present.
-
The consensus
Among whom?
Research studies.
I don't recall research studies saying that vitamin D will avert a cytokine storm in Covid patients.
There's a whole lot which shows that better fed patients are healthier or something.
-
i did my research
Did that involve actually you doing clinical testing on a group of people exposed to covid?
Or did you just choose authorities who agreed with your preconceptions?
-
i am profiting from it.
The value of your loss is the cost of the pills.
That's nota profit, is it- well it is for the authority figure who sells vitamin pills- but not for you.
-
I'm off to bed, so I think this is as good a place as any to stop.
i am so glad to be a fool.
-
Research studies.
That's awfully broad. There have been many research studies throughout history that weren't scientific, couldn't be replicated, etc.
-
The consensus
Among whom?
Research studies.
I don't recall research studies saying that vitamin D will avert a cytokine storm in Covid patients.
There's a whole lot which shows that better fed patients are healthier or something.
how conveniently convenient.
maybe you have a poor memory recall or keep yourself in ignorance or pretending .
i already gave you the studies and here you are denying them.
whats going on?
-
Research studies.
That's awfully broad. There have been many research studies throughout history that weren't scientific, couldn't be replicated, etc.
you are correct but remember correlation does not prove causation.
Maybe they hurt somebody's bottom line?
-
i already gave you the studies and here you are denying them.
whats going on?
What's going on is that I'm clarifying things.
You posted lots of studies that say that Vit D levels are correlated to survival rates.
But that's not the same as showing that vit D cures covid.
You always ignore that point when I ask about it, don't you?
You didn't answer it here
Right, now answer the real question.
How do you know that low vitamin levels are not just a proxy measure of poverty?
Or here
Do you accept that if I plotted incidence/ severity of covid vs household income (In any given age bracket), I would find that richer people are less affected?
Do you accept that , if I plotted Vitamin D levels against income I would also find a correlation?
And, if those correlations exist, how would there not be a correlation between covid and vitamin D?
Why do you keep ignoring the most iimportant question in this line of research?
-
On a related note, what's your take on my question here?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79698.msg604225#msg604225
We know that obesity is a factor in covid mortality.
Fat people are more liekly to die.
Do you think liposuction is a cure for covid?
-
On a related note, what's your take on my question here?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79698.msg604225#msg604225
We know that obesity is a factor in covid mortality.
Fat people are more liekly to die.
Remember correlation is not proof of causation that fat people die from covid.
-
On a related note, what's your take on my question here?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79698.msg604225#msg604225
We know that obesity is a factor in covid mortality.
Fat people are more liekly to die.
Remember correlation is not proof of causation that fat people die from covid.
Great!
Now do you understand why it's also not proof of causation in the case of Vit D?
-
On a related note, what's your take on my question here?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79698.msg604225#msg604225
We know that obesity is a factor in covid mortality.
Fat people are more liekly to die.
Remember correlation is not proof of causation that fat people die from covid.
Great!
Now do you understand why it's also not proof of causation in the case of Vit D?
Incorrect. there is no proof covid causes death. Remember correlation is not proof of causation
-
So according to reply #49 we have the extraordinary example of someone who was tested 15 years before there were any demonstrably effective tests, for a disease that was unknown in humans until 14 years after the test.
Given such a psychic doctor, who needs vitamins?
-
Incorrect. there is no proof covid causes death. Remember correlation is not proof of causation
Do you understand that not everything is correlation?
Nobody is using correlation to demonstrate the link between covid and death, they are (more or less) using Koch's postulates.
But the ONLY link between Vit D and Covid Is correlation, so there is no proof there.
So, there really is a difference.
-
who needs vitamins?
Big pharma needs them; they make a lot of money from them.
-
WHO banned it from test trials
Well, do you understand why?
IT DIDN:T WORK.
Is that a complicated idea somehow?
There weas no sensble basis for assuming it would work.
Someone took a punt on it.
It failed.
That's common sense, not a conspiracy.
Oh look!
Science happened.
https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/news/hydroxychloroquine-revived-by-who-as-doubt-cast-on-lancet-nejm-studies-335713?utm_content=131021367&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-272776442828550&fbclid=IwAR3iqQPZWq05RFP29Ov89rDTHLk9NdLsRIE4n_uywhx99NyyiaXGjLLIYJk
that's not possible if Profoundly's conspiracies are true.
So... they aren't.
-
Remember correlation is not proof of causation that fat people die from covid.
Good, I’m glad you understand that, however, we do have direct evidence that factors accompanying obesity do cause death from covid.
You however are making accusations against Big Pharma for which you have presented no evidence. You have 24hrs to either present such evidence or retract your accusations.
-
you are correct but remember correlation does not prove causation.
Which is exactly why we can't trust just any research study. The details are important.
Maybe they hurt somebody's bottom line?
Until you can provide some actual evidence for claims like that, please cut it out with the conspiracy theory junk.
-
who needs vitamins?
Big pharma needs them; they make a lot of money from them.
not as much remdisvar at $4000 per treatment...
-
WHO banned it from test trials
Well, do you understand why?
IT DIDN:T WORK.
Is that a complicated idea somehow?
There weas no sensble basis for assuming it would work.
Someone took a punt on it.
It failed.
That's common sense, not a conspiracy.
Oh look!
Science happened.
https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/news/hydroxychloroquine-revived-by-who-as-doubt-cast-on-lancet-nejm-studies-335713?utm_content=131021367&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-272776442828550&fbclid=IwAR3iqQPZWq05RFP29Ov89rDTHLk9NdLsRIE4n_uywhx99NyyiaXGjLLIYJk
that's not possible if Profoundly's conspiracies are true.
So... they aren't.
i knew all along that HCQ was being discredited by big pharma with fake studies.
$1 treatment versus $4000 for remdisver.
just proves conspiracy theories get proved right in due course.
-
Remember correlation is not proof of causation that fat people die from covid.
Good, I’m glad you understand that, however, we do have direct evidence that factors accompanying obesity do cause death from covid.
You however are making accusations against Big Pharma for which you have presented no evidence. You have 24hrs to either present such evidence or retract your accusations.
my accusations of the huge criminality by BIG PHARMA is listed here.
Let us hear you excuses now.
<<<SPAM REMOVED >>>
-
Incorrect. there is no proof covid causes death. Remember correlation is not proof of causation
Do you understand that not everything is correlation?
Nobody is using correlation to demonstrate the link between covid and death, they are (more or less) using Koch's postulates.
But the ONLY link between Vit D and Covid Is correlation, so there is no proof there.
So, there really is a difference.
Remember that when you get covid and they intubate you with 90% death rate.
The real reason is Cambridge gets 'donations' from big pharma. A form of control.
The contract states Cambridge must not promote ,endorse, support anything that effects the bottom line of the donator.
So this is the main reason this gang of three uses sophistry to cast doubt anything like vitamin D .
If i was talking about Remdisvir they would be singing it's praises because that is a huge moneyspinner.
-
The real reason is Cambridge gets 'donations' from big pharma. A form of control.
The contract states Cambridge must not promote ,endorse, support anything that effects the bottom line of the donator.
Please produce a copy of this mythical ‘contract’
-
not as much remdisvar at $4000 per treatment...
We already addressed that; please try to keep up
I remind you that providing some hypothetical drug to treat covid makes money out of about 250,000 sick people in the UK (and each one gets pills for maybe a month)
Providing everybody with vit D pills makes money out of 66,000,000 people in the UK. (forever)
And Big pharma likes big numbers.
just proves conspiracy theories get proved right in due course.
If there was a conspiaracy then WHO would have kept teh ban in place.
But there isn't one, so they didn't.
You just tried to pretend the exact opposite of what really happened
-
The real reason is Cambridge gets 'donations' from big pharma. A form of control.
Why would I give a damn what Cambridge does, or doesn't get?
I'm the one posting here, not Cambridge (and I'm not getting paid for it).
-
If i was talking about Remdisvir they would be singing it's praises because that is a huge moneyspinner.
Let's see what "The establishment" are actually saying about t stuff.
The Lancet is probably as prestigious a journal as any, and they have a report on it here.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext
And what they say is this
"In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits."
That's journal-speak for "It does not work"
OK, so, if there really was a conspiracy to big up this stuff, it's a piss poor one.
-
Incorrect. there is no proof covid causes death. Remember correlation is not proof of causation
Do you understand that not everything is correlation?
Nobody is using correlation to demonstrate the link between covid and death, they are (more or less) using Koch's postulates.
But the ONLY link between Vit D and Covid Is correlation, so there is no proof there.
So, there really is a difference.
Remember that when you get covid and they intubate you with 90% death rate.
You didn't actually address the point, did you.
Try again.
-
So this is the main reason this gang of three uses sophistry to cast doubt anything like vitamin D .
I'm an American. I have no connection with the University of Cambridge whatsoever. Neither "Big Pharma" nor Cambridge are paying me a cent.
So now I have to ask you: why did you just lie about me?
Secondly, you never presented any evidence that vitamin D is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The studies that you have posted merely showed that people who have sufficient levels of vitamin D are less likely to die from the virus than are people who are deficient in vitamin D. That is just plain common sense. Of course people with nutrient deficiencies are more likely to die from disease than people without deficiencies! In order for you demonstrate that vitamin D is an effective treatment, you would need to start off with people who already have sufficient vitamin D as the control group. They are the baseline against which you measure everything else. If you can show that giving additional vitamin D on top of that has a beneficial effect, then you'd have a point. Until then, please stop posting false information.
Thirdly, unless you can support your claim that Cambridge accepts bribes in exchange for suppressing effective medical treatments with actual, verifiable evidence, then I would consider those statements to be slander.
-
It looks like Vitamin D has reached The Lancet...
So if you have low Vitamin D levels, popping a daily Vitamin D pill probably won't break the bank.
See: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(20)30268-0/fulltext
-
i saw the doctor for a sore throat in 2005 and never since due to my high levels of vit D3
Or possibly lack of infection. I don't recall ever bothering my GP with a sore throat., or taking any vitamin supplements at all.
-
Another line of evidence in favor of Vitamin-D therapy...
- A team of genomics researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in USA have been investigating the impact of COVID-19 infection on gene expression pathways in multiple body tissues.
- One of their findings was that the enzymatic pathway that synthesizes Vitamin-D in the body is downregulated during COVID-19 infection
- And the paths which break down Vitamin-D are upregulated
- This suggests that COVID-19 infection causes a Vitamin-D deficiency (in addition to any Vitamin-D deficiency we may have from our modern indoor lifestyle)
Listen to this interview from about 1 hour 48 minutes; the Vitamin D segment runs about 3 minutes:
https://omegataupodcast.net/355-supercomputing-for-covid-19/
PS: I see lots of advertisements for cosmetics containing hyaluronic acid. The same researchers mentioned above found that COVID-19 upregulates production of this carbohydrate polymer, which builds up as a hydrogel in the lungs of severe COVID-19 sufferers, contributing to the breathing difficulties that eventually prove fatal.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyaluronic_acid
-
Hyaluronic acid seems to have replaced lead oxide and arsenic trioxide in modern female warpaint. However since "going out" and "coming in" are actually code for "wax on, wax off" and the latter process now involves "micellar water" (very weak anionic detergent), it's likely that most of the skin recovers overnight and the only damage is to the bank balance.
Seriously, even if VitD is no more use than chicken soup, it likewise fulfils the principal criterion of Hippocrates: First, do no harm.
-
First, do no harm.
Three problems; one is that, while you have to work at it, Vit D is used as a rat poison.
Secondly, if people are wasting their money on snake oil, they can't spend it on things that might help (or, if you insist, might help more) like a decent diet.
Third, if you teach people to believe hogwash, they believe hogwash.
The "it won't do any harm" lie is used far too often by the pushers of quackery, and they should be discouraged.
-
I can't say I've heard of or found any proof either that Vitamin C or Vitamin D or any other supplement has a direct effect on Covid-19 or any similar viruses. I think the best it can do is generally help your immune system and support your health in that there is enough of those vitamins in your body to keep it going (which you can read a bit about here, for example: https://www.fitforbeach.de/vitamin-c-test/ (https://www.fitforbeach.de/vitamin-c-test/), which is a site written in German but is easily translatable via google translate or similar). But to claim it actually helps prevent infection or cures anything seems almost dangerous.