Vitamin D: The truth about an alleged Covid ‘cover-up’ | Hacker News Reader

Vitamin D: The truth about an alleged Covid ‘cover-up’

bbc.com

39 pointsrainhacker59 comments

The pandemic has laid bare the general public’s appalling inability to deal with ambiguity and rapidly changing scientific consensus. So many people expect there to be only One True Truth, and the first person to make a statement about something is expected to deliver that Single True Truth. Then, when the situation on the ground changes, and a new recommendation gets made, these people’s brains explode and they can’t understand facts having to change with new information.

When the very first person said “Vitamin D helps” and “Hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure” and “masks don’t work”, that became the red letter, unchangeable, holy truth to the masses. When new info made the recommendation a change, brains exploded, and half of them said “That first person was a LIAR! Conspiracy!” and the other half said “We can’t trust anyone! They’re always changing the truth!”

Flip flopping is the ultimate sin. If you’re going to be a prophet of science, you need to say one gospel truth and never change your mind.

When they said "masks don't work", that was a lie. It was an obvious lie.

Would you rather a sick person coughs and sneezes on you (a) with a mask; or (b) maybe on their hand or elbow if they react fast enough?

The more important question is would you trust the mask the sick person is wearing is protecting you if you are standing near that person.

Comparing to a sick person who doesn't wear mask?

Yes, a sick person wearing bad mask is still better.

Why is that the most important question? To me, the fact that experts are lying to me is more important.

I like science. I wish I could trust it to be presented honestly and fairly. But I can't, so I have to fill in some gaps, do some sanity checks, and read a few studies. That doesn't make me an expert, but it's the best I can do with limited time in a dishonest environment.

I really don’t care if it was a lie, or if it was incomplete knowledge, or if it was just the best the authorities could offer at the moment. I’m a layman. I know nothing about infectious diseases. I’m gonna follow the guidance from the experts. If that guidance changes 180 degrees tomorrow, then I’ll follow the new guidance. I don’t know what makes sense, I’m a layman! So many people are incapable of just listening to the experts and shutting their pie holes. Everyone with a YouTube account suddenly is an epidemiologist now, and advising their friend list on Facebook.

I am not. Therefore it is good to have clear rules in public indoor places, for example measured lines before counters in the supermarket, limit on visitors inside etc. But I am relaxed when passing people and I do not get anxious when they temporarily get close to me to pick something from the shelves.

Is your mind open to accepting masks weren't that effective slowing covid-19?

I trust science will ultimately give us some answers. But it's going to take some time.

What are you basing that on, the data mostly points the other direction.

So far just the observation that populations that tended to wear masks still saw high rates of infection and other cold viruses didn't seem to have the same drastic drop that flu did https://syndromictrends.com/metric/panel/rp/percent_positivi....

I'm not trying to make any claims. No harm in wearing a mask and everyone should be wearing one.

The truth might be more complicated that this. Masks are good against larger droplets but may be not effective in badly ventilated room. The best effect I have seen in practice is masks + very good ventilation.

This post doesn't seem to be made in good faith.

> Is your mind open to accepting masks weren't that effective slowing covid-19?

There is a wealth of evidence[0] [1] [2] to confirm that masks are effective at reducing the spread of covid. Ignoring evidence does not mean you have an open mind. I would even argue it means the latter.

[0] https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#sec-22

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

[2] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/new-study-highlights-new-...

They may not have slowed covid-19 but they appear to have been effective against numerous other illnesses ( influenza, colds, etc.)

Replying to myself to add, which may have dramatically helped keep other hospitalizations and doctor visits lower allowing providers to focus on Covid-19.

Very true. I see it very often.

But it also applies to the medical community.

Belief "Hydroxychloroquine does not work" is based on WHO Solidarity study where late stage patients were poisoned with high dosage hydroxychloroquine while a lot of research suggests that it may have positive effect on early treatment with low dosages.

The same applies to Ivermectin for example. There was one double-blind study in JAMA journal that was not able to display any effect. It has been also concluded by the medical community that Ivermectin does not help. Nobody appears to have seen the rebuttal that displays serious protocol failures of the study and highly likely placebo unblinding (placebo had different taste and Ivermectin was available over the counter and was advertised heavily as covid-cure in the region).

Other research (5 double-blind studies, about 400 participants in total) suggests that it has effect against SARS-COV-2 level in the body).

It turns out that Hydroxychloroquine is kind of meh. But that's not the most relevant, most important part to think about. It's how the media covered this issue that needs to be talked about.

When the very first person said “Vitamin D helps” and “Hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure” and “masks don’t work”, that became the red letter, unchangeable, holy truth to the masses.

Facts:

    - Medical professionals are the ones who *started* talking about Hydroxychloroquine.
    - This issue became *highly politicized* with the media taking a very one-sided stance, even using hysterical 
      comparisons to "goat urine" in one case.
    - Efficacy of HCQ was correlated to very early dosing along with zinc. This was seldom covered in the press and
      was never mentioned in mainstream articles and analyses of results.
    - Studies which were widely criticized were mentioned time and again by the press, simply because it fit their chosen narrative

Just go and look at the numbers coming out of HCQ studies. This issue was nowhere near as one-sided as it was portrayed in the mainstream press. Go look at the numbers coming out of HCQ studies and compare them to Remdesivir, then go and compare the coverage of each. (That one goes to the level of WAT!?) Examine articles and coverage for emotional manipulation. The western press looks extremely fishy in this regard.

Again, it turns out that HCQ is kind of meh. Ivermectin does seem to be quite good, however. But of greatest importance, is how did the press acquit themselves in their coverage? It seems clear to me, that they care more about "saying the right thing" and following a narrative, and "it bleeds, it leads" than they care about providing accurate, unbiased information.

Science should not be politicized. Right now, our press is basically at the level of Lysenkoism. Ideologically motivated science coverage is what is preferred.

A few years ago I got sick a lot and even got shingles. A blood test showed I was extremely vitamin D deficient so I've been supplementing ever since.

So like Stuart Smalley, while I'm not a doctor, I have read a lot about it due to my own health problems.

The long and the short of it is that vitamin D is a hormone that takes weeks of supplementation to build up to sufficient levels. This hormone is instrumental in having a functional immune system.

With regards to covid, severity seems to depend on immune system response. So it's not unreasonable to think vitamin D is necessary but not singularly sufficient to prevent severe covid.

This is my understanding as a layperson who has looked into this a bit: If you look into the bradykinin hypothesis of action for Covid-19, you'll find that vitamin D and its metabolites are directly implicated in the network of effects Covid-19 has on your cellular functions. In particular, Covid-19 seems to severely down-regulate expression of certain genes, so that you would seem to be more vitamin D deficient than you would be otherwise!

https://youtu.be/DZuCrwYa80s?t=169

That's from several months ago, so maybe this isn't current research anymore.

Absolutely. Living in Alberta which is very far north, I've seen what can happen if you don't take proper vitamin d supplements regularly. Almost everyone I know is on a very high regular dosage of vitamin d over the winter and a lighter regimen over the summer.

With regards to covis I'd believe that vitamin d deficiency would likely lead to a pathway response that is significantly weaker. However I would not expect someone who OD's on vitamin d pills to be suddenly healthy.

More I'd expect people who don't have a decent vitamin d level to have a weaker immune system and thus naturally succumb to it more.

How people lived for thousands years at the same latitudes?

Certain foods have higher vitamin d concentrations. However those foods are uncommon in the modern diet. For example the marine diet of the Inuit with seal blubber and such.

Ok, but there were also a lot of people without sea access (e.g. caribou herders). How did they live without vitamin D supplements?

There are other foods. But yes rickets was quite common in this area. We learned about it in school.

I think news sources are desperate to downplay the importance of being outside getting sun and vitamin d because it highlights how them locking down everyone was probably one of the worst things that could be done.

Fortunately not every region took lockdowns to include barring going outside. At least here outdoor trails and parks were open, barring gatherings like large picnics and cookouts, for people to walk, run, cycle, or hike pretty early on.

From the mentioned list, latest research (5 independent double-blinded studies) suggests that Ivermectin really has antiviral properties against SARS-COV-2 (in vivo of course).

What has been also suggested to have been neglected is role of Zinc in COVID-19 treatment.

Btw usual dosage I have taken Vitamin D has been 25000 U.I. (625 μg) once in a week but I have also taken 100000 U.I. (2500 μg if I understand the conversion correctly) dosages when my Vitamin D level has been very low. All prescribed by my doctor. You have to consult yours before you start taking anything in large dosages.

The conclusion appears to be right. Anti-vaxxer and anti-mask people tend to have considerable overlap. Many of them also believe in some PCR tests related conspiracy.

I think you probably mean IU not mg

Yes. Can somebody explain why IU units are being used for vitamin D and why they are to be preferred over standard units like mg and mcg?

Or mcg (microgram, 40 IU) at the very outside.

You are right. I remembered that it was mg. I edited my post and did the conversion according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_unit

Vitamin D: The biological activity of 40 IU is equal to 1 μg[9]

Isn't it better to take Vitamin D pills every day as a cure in winter for example instead of big boost with 100 000 UI?

I don't recall exactly where I read this but I remember that the level of Vitamin D quickly decrease after this kind of takes.

In my case, I try to eat lunch with the sun on me for at least 15 minutes and I take a 5mg pill when I can't. I don't know if it's enough.

I think so: >Isn't it better to take Vitamin D pills every day as a cure in winter for example instead of big boost with 100 000 UI?

That large dose is often referred to a vitamin D "hammer" and I have heard of them trying those doses with newly arrived covid patients to an ER. Unsure of how effective they were.

Related post by Scott Alexander: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/covidvitamin-d-much-mo...

This quote from the article you linked to sums up my viewpoint well:

> If it does prevent or cure coronavirus, great. If not, the worst that will happen is you'll have slightly better bone health.

Taking Vitamin D daily is like taking Vitamin C daily. Who knows if it actually helps, but we know it doesn’t hurt, so why not.

Edit: (as mentioned by commenters below, obviously don’t swallow more than the recommended dose on the bottle)

There is a doctor on HN who frequently writes about how bad overdosing Vitamin D can be. So I’d be careful on the dosage at least.

I get extreme migraines if I take it every day for more than a week. For me, eating Vitamin D fortified foods and sunlight seems to be more than enough.

Vitamin C is water soluble, excess is excreted in your urine. Vitamin D is fat soluble. If you take more than your body can use it builds up inside you. It can cause problems if too much accumulates.

What kind of problems, in what kind of circumstances ?

Nausea, vomiting, weakness, frequent urination, kidney stones. It's really hard to get too much Vitamin D from food (doesn't have enough) and sun exposure (the body usually regulates itself well enough) so it's primarily supplements that cause Vitamin D toxicity unless you have other medical issues going on. It's definitely a supplement that's better taken under guidance of a physician who can order labs to monitor serum levels.

EDIT: It's worth noting that it takes a very high and frequent dose (60,000 IU daily, for instance, can cause it which is about 100x the recommended daily allowance of 600 IU).

Thanks. Couple friends got diagnosed with vitamin D deficiency after going through Covid, both got 1-2k i.u, a day. But 60K? Good god. That really seems like overdoing it !!!

NP. Yeah, I was recently tested and found very deficient and even my doctor didn't prescribe anything close to that level. I'm at ~14k/day (50k twice a week) for 12 weeks. Talking with my colleagues, it seems most are on a prescribed Vitamin D supplement (or an encouraged supplement), but no one else was even close to my level. One has a 10,000 IU daily dose for 8 weeks, the rest have 1k-2k (like your friends) indefinite daily dose or just for the winter to carry them through.

The problem is this: if you ask a doctor, they will tell you "of course you shouldn't be deficient; get tested and supplement if necessary".

But lots of people are deficient because of modern lifestyles and won't bother with the test. So the better advice is that most people should supplement based on a few simple criteria.

Why aren't public health officials saying that? It's ridiculous to go through a pandemic with the same old useless advice. And if you push vitamin D, now you're a conspiracy theorist.

Just take vitamin D in reasonable and get tested occasionally. Stop if you are on the high side.

A list of vitamin D/Covid studies - https://vdmeta.com/

I feel like you can be in both camps(not anti vax, but pro vitamin D) and still be right, I am. I am about to get the 2nd pfizer vaccine shot and supplement daily with vitamin D. I have had lower levels years ago and would get extremely sick during the winter/spring. I started taking 3000IU daily and it has had a dramatic affect on my health. Colds are less severe and the duration is shorter.

I had my vit. D levels tested and was still a bit off optimal, this after running in the middle of the day during winter, eating meat almost daily and my previously mentioned vit. D doses. The reality is most everyone is probably not getting enough vitamin D and only a visit and a blood test from your Dr. will tell you for sure.

My problem with vitamins and supplements is that the vast majority of people who take them are self-diagnosing a deficiency or listening to random people on the internet who think they're able to parse studies on their own.

For anything: go to your doctor, get blood work done, and listen to their advice. Don't just go to CVS and pick up some pills and go to town after reading about Vitamin D on HN.

When corporations censor people expressing skepticism of corporate profit motives, are they not helping to reinforce those beliefs?

People need adequate sunlight. Sometimes people can't make Vitamin-D from the sun, and need a Vitamin-D supplement instead. I think it's rather dishonest to treat those who are Vitamin-D deficient as if their Vitamin-D deficiency isn't actually a core aspect of their health problem.

> But governments have taken up other cheap, effective treatments like dexamethasone, once proven.

There seems to be a lack of interest in finding non-vaccine treatments by the medical Gatekeepers. The gist I get from many people is that 'none of the repurposed drugs that've been looked at actually help, vaccines are the only way out of this mess.'

But what if a "cheap, effective treatment" was out there, but was not widely deployed on account of good experiences with repurposed drugs/etc not receiving coverage from the medical hierarchy?

I've read that the core problem of finding a cheap, effective treatment for COVID-19 is that the emergency use authorization for the vaccines would have to be pulled:

  During a public health emergency, the FDA 
  can use its Emergency Use Authorization 
  (EUA) authority to allow the use of unapproved 
  medical products, or unapproved uses of 
  approved medical products, to diagnose, treat, 
  or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases 
  when certain criteria are met, including that 
  there are no adequate, approved, and available 
  alternatives.

- https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019...

Remdesivir is also being used for COVID-19 on an EUA: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2020/EUA%... (Remdesivir is not an approved drug for any other condition, it's a failed ebola drug. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir#Medical_uses )

Some doctors have found that the anti-serotonin drug Cyproheptadine (approved and in use everywhere as an antihistamine) is almost a magic bullet for severe cases of COVID-19. One of these is Farid Jalali, M.D., who makes the case that severe COVID-19 is a serotonin syndrome without the usual drug trigger. "An ideal scenario to prevent the hyperserotonergic multi-organ failure that is inherent to severe COVID19 would be a combination of reducing pool of bioavailable serotonin (early SSRI) combined with, if severe disease occurs, a direct serotonin antagonist (cyproheptadine)" [0] https://twitter.com/farid__jalali/status/1350149930954878976

"I can personally attest to the gatekeeping being fueled by greed (pharma) and arrogance (“thought leaders”). We barely squeezed heparin and steroids in there due to sheer brute force against above gatekeeping." [1] https://twitter.com/farid__jalali/status/1377669778794418176

"The more I see how things go, the more I feel like the whole "RCT-only-science" is a gatekeeping attempt, truly reflecting "we-are-the-only-ones-who-can-get-FDA/NHS/HealthCanada-to-let-us-run-the-RCT" The whole fucking game is rigged folks. That's why we are where we are." [2] https://twitter.com/farid__jalali/status/1379107965060276228

I don't think Dr. Jalali is doing anything especially revolutionary, he's just trying his best to practice good conventional medicine, and he's fed up with "gatekeeping" keeping effective and cheap treatments from being widely used to pull COVID-19 patients out of their death spirals.

I think the self-appointed gatekeepers to Science (TM) can't allow effective non-vaccine treatments to gain foothold, as that would cancel most people's motivation to get vaccinated. If the vaccines' EUA was pulled because acceptable treatments with drugs already approved for other uses became known, COVID-19 vaccines could only be re-deployed after full safety studies have been completed. This would be a disaster for the medical gatekeepers.

Maybe some of you don't believe there's any dishonesty in Humanity's COVID-19 experience. I'd appreciate a comment, rather than a downvote. Thanks.

The silence of the corporate media on Ivermectin is so deafening.

Dear BBC how about a mention of Ivermectin from you. We await with bated breath.

Maybe because the FDA says taking it is a bad idea https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

They're just saying they have not approved it for that use, which doesn't mean much because they also haven't considered it. They also say don't take animal ivermectin, which should really go without saying, but people are doing it anyway.

A dose that's good for a horse is not necessarily a good idea for a human.

Unless maybe you're Eddie the Beast.

Are you sure it isn't down to regulatory capture by the US pharmaceutical industry?

You can see how nonsensical their comments are in relation to using horse formulations, forgetting that in many countries around the world it is so safe that it is available over the counter. It surely can't be be more dangerous than Advil or cough syrup.

Have they forgotten doctors in the US actually prescribe it for Covid?

Apparently many people in the US and the UK haven't cottoned on to why their death rates are so high. They seem too stupid to realize that if the cure for an illness is to stay at home without treatment until the symptoms become bad enough to warrant admission to hospital more people will suffer injury and may possibly die as a result.

FWIW it is primarily the UK and US where that notion persists. Go elsewhere around the world and tell the people that the "treatment" for Covid is staying at home without treatment until symptoms become too hard to bear, and they will look at you as though you are fool, which indeed you are if that is what you believe.

If you think I'm insulting the British and Americans, listen to this from an American doctor - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM

After watching it take the time to consider how many Americans and British have died needlessly as a result of unthinking acceptance of statements made by the countries health authorities.

> Vitamin D is relatively safe (although few medical interventions are entirely risk-free, especially at high doses) so it may not appear to be the most harmful of misinformation.

it's shocking that journalists are calling anything which isnt proven fully proven or universally accepted 'misinformation', when it very likely could have a beneficial effect with basically 0 downside.

this is extremely dangerous and highly Orwellian.

But this article isn't doing that. It's pointing out that early research with extraordinary results get shared widely (especially when the results line up with an existing preconception, outlook, or agenda), and then when the claims are investigated in more detail and start to fall apart under rigorous scrutiny, the counterfactual doesn't get shared as widely because it goes against those preconceptions, outlooks, or agendas.

Also, vitamin D isn't 0 downside. Elevated levels can cause calcium buildup and kidney stones.

Can confirm. Doctor recommended that I start taking Vitamin D daily after a physical a few years back. On their advice, I purchased a bottle at the doctor's recommend dosage level and started taking pills daily.

Within a week I stopped because I could already feel pain in my kidneys. Having had a kidney stone before, and having had to pass one (thankfully small) one, I immediately stopped taking the Vitamin D since that the only lifestyle change I had made. Things subsided after that.

Should I need to take Vitamin D in the future I will be starting at a VERY SMALL dose and slowly working up. Kidney stones suck.

Just curious what size was your daily dose?

It has been several years, but I think I was prescribed 5000 IU daily. As I recall I didn't have any troubling purchasing a bottle immediately at the store so it wasn't an uncommon dosage.

Elevated levels can cause calcium buildup and kidney stones.

Yes, but what does that mean in terms of dosage? I'm typing from memory, so look this stuff up yourself, but IIRC, one study found that 5000 IU daily resulted in about 50 ng/mL blood serum levels in average weight people, and 10000 IU daily resulted in a bit over 100 ng/mL. Harmful effects are seen just over 200 ng/mL.

I am not a doctor, and this isn't medical advice.

I currently take 70,000 to 90,000 IU's per day. I had to build up to that and I take 2-4mg of K2 MK-7 and about 1.2g of magnesium per day. If I started at that level, it would have been brutal. In the past few years, I have intentionally stayed just below the level required to induce hypercalcemia. Anyway, the reason people are confused about this topic and why doctors warn about it is because they assume people will jump to high levels all at once and yes for sure, it will break up massive amounts of stored calcium in the gut and vascular system. I started at 2K IU's per day, then per meal, then worked my way up at 1-2K per week or so. I could tell when I was just below hypercalcemia as my vision would blur for a few hours. It has taken me a few years to reach the 90K limit. There are many other molecules involved in my efforts, such as natto, tocopherols and tocotrienols, many more than I could name here. I am not suggesting anyone do this unless they have a reason to and this is of course not medical or nutritional advise. Jumping to this level all at once for a prolonged period of time is at least as risky as taking a tissue plasminogen activator. That said, some hospitals will decide to do this.

That was the next to last paragraph of the article. It is not meant as a standalone paragraph. It goes with the last paragraph, which is:

> The danger, Prof Van der Linden explains, is when people suggest the supplement is a miracle cure and should be substituted for vaccines, masks and social distancing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com