[alancalverd]

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
 

[Kryptid]

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.

[profound (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

No, correlation does not imply causation, but it sure as hell provides a hint.

Not always.

[profound (OP)]

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

[alancalverd]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[alancalverd]

My mother would never patronise a "health food" shop. "The staff always look so pale and sick."

[Bored chemist]

As you might guess, I'm quite happy to patronise almost anything...

[alancalverd]

Funny how the same word means "buy from" or "give to", depending on the prejudice of the audience.

[profound (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[profound (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.