https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-... https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at...
So can the conclusion be that vitamin D does not work as expected? Or is the conclusion that still not enough people are taking vitamin D, and its usefulness should be better communicated?
Vitamin D has shown signs that it slows down / makes covid less deadly.
Because we don't understand: who is taking it, in what amounts, local weather, what the numbers would be without it we can't assume anything from them struggling.
Another thing that is tricky is that it really depends how much you need to take on what your levels are personally. We know that the amounts they recommend are completely long term safe for everyone and long term good enough to avoid severe deficiency. But for most people there will still be insuficiency - the necessary average is actually around 2000 IU (for some people it should be up to 4000 IU, others less)
Are you saying the NHS is struggling with their doctors publishing dangerous recommendations? I’m not sure what you’re implying.
> Just over two-thirds of Canadians (68%) had blood concentrations of vitamin D over 50 nmol/L -- a level that is sufficient for healthy bones for most people. About 32% of Canadians were below the cut-off. About 10% of Canadians were below the cut-off of 30 nmol/L -- a level that is considered a deficiency.
In Canada, everyone is advised to discuss it with their doctors in relation to the winter season. My doctor tests it with my routine blood work. Many people take a supplement over the winter, especially those with darker skin. And people over 50 have a blanket recommendation to take a 400 IU dose daily year-round.
Deficiency of vitamin D is immune system dysfunction.
There's no single answer. Vitamin D is basically a panacea, but for some reason most medical professionals don't know. Modern western medicine is on the whole ignorant of the role of vitamin deficiencies in disease.