Vitamin D unlikely to help against COVID

[TheDao]

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/05/study-vitamin-d-wont-limit-risk-severity-covid-19

Edited May 9, 2021 by TheDao

[aurum]

@TheDao

I’m skeptical of vitamin d supplements in general. So yeah not surprising.

[Tetcher]

Quote

Negative correlations between mean levels of vitamin D (average 56 mmol/L, STDEV 10.61) in each country and the number of COVID-19 cases/1 M (mean 295.95, STDEV 298.7, and mortality/1 M (mean 5.96, STDEV 15.13) were observed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32377965/

Quote

Of the nine studies reviewed, seven (77.8%) showed that COVID-19 infection, prognosis, and mortality were correlated with vitamin D status.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7800698/

Quote

We identified 1542 articles and selected 27. Vitamin D deficiency was not associated with a higher chance of infection by COVID-19 (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 0.80-1.88), but we identified that severe cases of COVID-19 present 64% (OR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.30-2.09) more vitamin D deficiency compared with mild cases. A vitamin D concentration insufficiency increased hospitalization (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.41-2.21) and mortality from COVID-19 (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.06-2.58). We observed a positive association between vitamin D deficiency and the severity of the disease.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33146028/

Quote

Most of the articles reviewed showed that blood vitamin D status can determine the risk of being infected with COVID-19, seriousness of COVID-19, and mortality from COVID-19. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33447107/

Quote

Some studies support a link between vitamin D deficiency and worse COVID-19 outcomes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7657015/

etc

[TheDao]

@Tetcher Old stuff. I only placed this because it is clearly a more thorough study. It debunks the links you send.

 

Correlation is not causation.

Edited May 10, 2021 by TheDao

[Tetcher]

3 hours ago, TheDao said:

@Tetcher Old stuff. I only placed this because it is clearly a more thorough study. It debunks the links you send.

 

Correlation is not causation.

"Debunking" dozen of studies that measured the effective levels of vitamin D with a python script that guesses levels of vitamin D based on genomes. Good one.

[Michael569]

There will often be occasional rogue studies pointing to something and saying "this is wrong". This study does it nicely. Their aim, if you notice, was not to see whether there is any correlation between serum vitamin D and covid complications. 

They were looking at Genetically predicted variation in serum vitamin D status, instrumented by genome-wide significant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with serum vitamin D or risk of vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency. Which basically means looking at the few genes polymorphisms (of which 99% we don't know yet) and seeing if they predispose a person to vitamin D deficiency and covid complications. 

This study is not interpreting the evidence of serum vitamin D and fatal outcomes of covid. The evidence presented by @Tetcher  is actually very decent and good quality and not to be discounted the way you did. One of his links is a large systemic trial (highest quality of hierarchy of evidence) which clearly shows protective effect. 

Just because an observational study looking at genetic snips shows no correlation does not mean there is none. You can't draw a correlation between 2 factors when covid is systemic and multifactorial infection. A multitude of systems and molecules are in play and vitamin D, based on overall evidence, is helpful regardless of what this observation study shows. 

The majority of the human population is largely deficient or borderline deficient and 80/100 people will benefit from vitamin D supplementation because most of us get nowhere near enough sunshine or eat enough dietary D. All this study does is probably create another hysteria in media discounting people from getting their vitamin D in check as they rightfully should 

Also I want point out that nowhere in the Cornell study did they actually make a stratification of : how much vitamin D do ppl have and how much does that impact complications. They simply said: are you deficient? Yes? No? But based on their criteria you could be deficient with 50nmol/l but not be deficient at 76nmol/l and that would already skew the results because we know from larger systemic trials that optimal value of D is between 160-170nmol/L. I would love to see a study looking at the levels and how complications evolve as levels increase. 

You can't just say: deficient or not. You need to show by how much or by how little which they failed to do 

[Amilaer---]

@Michael569 how many IU of vit D do you supplement daily? Any thoughts about absorption? For me, 30 min of sun exposure is muuuch more powerful than taking 2000 IU. I feel almost euphoric. Maybe it's not vit D only, maybe sun gives much more than vit D . 

[Michael569]

@Amilaer--- i agree that sun gives you much more especially on the energetic side side of the body. Vitamin D is like the 10% of the visible iceberg