This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
I’m glad to see fiskys tune has changed from “massive over supplementation would surely have saved lives” to “people shouldn’t be deficient in vitamin d.” I agree.
Meanwhile another character appears in Sub 9’s ensemble cast. A modern day Shakespeare. The Bard had better rhythm and meter though, I’ll say.
Yes, I’m quite the literary figure. It would be Shakespearesque if it weren’t all true. I made up Chris Cuomo too. He’s the latest villain in my novella. I’m trying to see where I can work Dr. Birx in. Not to worry, I’ll find room for her character. She’s more of a redemption story.
Some people (cough:cough Harambro cough:cough) don’t believe in science.
Not taking simply precautions, but instead, waiting around for/relying on the vaccine, cost hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions worldwide. 👎
Yep, Harambe cost hundreds of thousands of lives for constantly railing against “polypharmacy.” He’s pro-death.
True. Slamming hundreds of $ of useless supplements was definitely the way to go! That's what Kory told me. I'm sure he's not biased.
I know people with severe tinnitus and vertigo too that appeared “out of nowhere.” Shall we include them in my novellas too? Or should we just blame it on Covid?
Definitely worth a chapter. Maybe you can get a serialization deal like in Victorian England.
Good bless us, every one, except those who took the mRNA goop.
Some people (cough:cough Harambro cough:cough) don’t believe in science.
Not taking simply precautions, but instead, waiting around for/relying on the vaccine, cost hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions worldwide. 👎
Yep, Harambe cost hundreds of thousands of lives for constantly railing against “polypharmacy.” He’s pro-death.
This is how I rank those responsible for mass deaths:
Vitamin D3 was a net positive unless people started supplementing with like 50,000 IU daily. The problem is, the optimal, "close to 60 ng/ML" level was not touted nor studied. Only <20 ng/ML was considered insufficient. Even now there is disagreement on what constitutes normal and/or optimal levels. So, once again, the data sucks and doesn't exist because 50-60 ng/ML wasn't evaluated.
"Vitamin D deficiency is common in the United States and around the globe. The most common cause of deficiency is insufficient intake (oral or dermal). In a study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2011 to 2014, almost 20% of the US population had serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) values categorized as “at risk for inadequacy” (defined as 30 to 49 nmol/L or 12 to 19 ng/mL), and 5% were categorized as “at risk for deficiency” (< 30 nmol/L or 12 ng/mL).6 These reference ranges may be lower than what most clinicians consider to be deficient. For example, numerous studies have found a recommended threshold of 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) for bone health to be insufficient for fall or fracture risk reduction.7
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent and treat immune-related diseases including COVID-19 was reviewed by Charoenngam et al.8 In an extensive examination of the immunologic effects of vitamin D supplements, the authors described the immunomodulatory hormonal effects of vitamin D, noted significant biologic effects on the innate and adaptive immune systems, cited the immunomodulatory and antiviral effects of the active form of vitamin D (1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D), and suggested that vitamin D supplementation might reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. They concluded that although the optimal level of vitamin D remains unclear, maintaining a serum 25(OH)D level of 100 to 150 nmol/L (40 to 60 ng/mL) is recommended.8"
Vitamin D supplementation is common in the United States, with about one-fifth of the adult population taking a daily supplement in one form or another. Although the detrimental effects of insufficient sun exposure in childho...
And by the way, nobody is touting VitD3 supplementation as a panacea, just simply saying it was a damn good idea to take, in conjunction with some other things, in the days before a three-shot series of vaccine was even available or before a Kory was "grifting," lol. Fisky wasn't grifting, merely trying to help. Like me. It could've mitigated worst outcomes. But all we heard was crickets, or worse from the pro-death crowd on here.
I listened to you my friend, and I was on this early too. Some pretty basic things - taking 5-10,000 IUs vitamin D daily and a nasal spray like Xlear, Vicks First Defense, or Poviodine would’ve helped greatly. Add C, zinc, and, shudder, Chris Cuomo’s favorite cheap drug in Ivermectin and we could’ve saved millions of lives. Remember, all of this stuff was available and affordable before the vaccines were ready. Most people could’ve had access to them for almost a year before eligibility for first injection. There was zero harm in taking a protocol like this.
Here’s what’s funny. I told my doctor I was taking “high dose” vit D (5000 IUs daily) in 2020. He didn’t respond. I went for my annual back in February and my vit D was “only” 49 ng/ML. He told me that was low, and to start taking up to 10,000 IUs daily, that it was a broad spectrum immunity booster and anti-inflammatory. Ok, no problem, but where were you four years ago? Or two years ago? He was a huge vax-pusher, but now he’s silent on the matter. We don’t even talk about Covid anymore. I told him I had a very mild Omicron infection in Oct ‘22, and he didn’t care. Didn’t even respond. He’s moved on from 2021.
One of the problems with vit D studies is that you have to take vit D for about 2 months before D levels begin to plateau. Giving vit D at hospital admission sometimes helps, but it's often too late.
Another problem is that the upper level in these studies is typically 30ng/mL or 50nmol/dL (about 20ng/ml). Most doctors who have worked with patients and vitamin D suggest that D levels be kept over 50. That's why your doctor suggested that you up the dose.
Throughout the Alpha and Delta outbreaks, I kept my D level between 70 and 83. I was taking 12,000 IU daily back then. Now, I'm taking 4,000IU, but I also started taking vitamin K2, which speeds absorption. I'll have to see what my D level is on my next semi-annual blood test.
When I talked with an anti-aging doctor pre-covid, he told me checked D levels on all his patients. He said his typical 65+ patient had a D level of 16-17 ng/ml.
Speaking of ivermectin... where can I get it? Doctors won't prescribe it. Surely, there's a way to order it from a reputable source somewhere.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Vitamin D3 was a net positive unless people started supplementing with like 50,000 IU daily. The problem is, the optimal, "close to 60 ng/ML" level was not touted nor studied. Only <20 ng/ML was considered insufficient. Even now there is disagreement on what constitutes normal and/or optimal levels. So, once again, the data sucks and doesn't exist because 50-60 ng/ML wasn't evaluated.
"Vitamin D deficiency is common in the United States and around the globe. The most common cause of deficiency is insufficient intake (oral or dermal). In a study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2011 to 2014, almost 20% of the US population had serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) values categorized as “at risk for inadequacy” (defined as 30 to 49 nmol/L or 12 to 19 ng/mL), and 5% were categorized as “at risk for deficiency” (< 30 nmol/L or 12 ng/mL).6 These reference ranges may be lower than what most clinicians consider to be deficient. For example, numerous studies have found a recommended threshold of 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) for bone health to be insufficient for fall or fracture risk reduction.7
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent and treat immune-related diseases including COVID-19 was reviewed by Charoenngam et al.8 In an extensive examination of the immunologic effects of vitamin D supplements, the authors described the immunomodulatory hormonal effects of vitamin D, noted significant biologic effects on the innate and adaptive immune systems, cited the immunomodulatory and antiviral effects of the active form of vitamin D (1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D), and suggested that vitamin D supplementation might reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. They concluded that although the optimal level of vitamin D remains unclear, maintaining a serum 25(OH)D level of 100 to 150 nmol/L (40 to 60 ng/mL) is recommended.8"
Vitamin D3 was a net positive unless people started supplementing with like 50,000 IU daily. The problem is, the optimal, "close to 60 ng/ML" level was not touted nor studied. Only <20 ng/ML was considered insufficient. Even now there is disagreement on what constitutes normal and/or optimal levels. So, once again, the data sucks and doesn't exist because 50-60 ng/ML wasn't evaluated.
"Vitamin D deficiency is common in the United States and around the globe. The most common cause of deficiency is insufficient intake (oral or dermal). In a study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2011 to 2014, almost 20% of the US population had serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) values categorized as “at risk for inadequacy” (defined as 30 to 49 nmol/L or 12 to 19 ng/mL), and 5% were categorized as “at risk for deficiency” (< 30 nmol/L or 12 ng/mL).6 These reference ranges may be lower than what most clinicians consider to be deficient. For example, numerous studies have found a recommended threshold of 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) for bone health to be insufficient for fall or fracture risk reduction.7
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent and treat immune-related diseases including COVID-19 was reviewed by Charoenngam et al.8 In an extensive examination of the immunologic effects of vitamin D supplements, the authors described the immunomodulatory hormonal effects of vitamin D, noted significant biologic effects on the innate and adaptive immune systems, cited the immunomodulatory and antiviral effects of the active form of vitamin D (1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D), and suggested that vitamin D supplementation might reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. They concluded that although the optimal level of vitamin D remains unclear, maintaining a serum 25(OH)D level of 100 to 150 nmol/L (40 to 60 ng/mL) is recommended.8"
Yeah, don’t be deficient. Certainly having recommended levels of an essential vitamin is important. Acting like it’s a miracle cure is silly. There were too many null trials and low effect trials for it to be wildly effective. Unlike the vaccine, I’ll add.
Vitamin D3 was a net positive unless people started supplementing with like 50,000 IU daily. The problem is, the optimal, "close to 60 ng/ML" level was not touted nor studied. Only <20 ng/ML was considered insufficient. Even now there is disagreement on what constitutes normal and/or optimal levels. So, once again, the data sucks and doesn't exist because 50-60 ng/ML wasn't evaluated.
"Vitamin D deficiency is common in the United States and around the globe. The most common cause of deficiency is insufficient intake (oral or dermal). In a study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2011 to 2014, almost 20% of the US population had serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) values categorized as “at risk for inadequacy” (defined as 30 to 49 nmol/L or 12 to 19 ng/mL), and 5% were categorized as “at risk for deficiency” (< 30 nmol/L or 12 ng/mL).6 These reference ranges may be lower than what most clinicians consider to be deficient. For example, numerous studies have found a recommended threshold of 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) for bone health to be insufficient for fall or fracture risk reduction.7
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent and treat immune-related diseases including COVID-19 was reviewed by Charoenngam et al.8 In an extensive examination of the immunologic effects of vitamin D supplements, the authors described the immunomodulatory hormonal effects of vitamin D, noted significant biologic effects on the innate and adaptive immune systems, cited the immunomodulatory and antiviral effects of the active form of vitamin D (1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D), and suggested that vitamin D supplementation might reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. They concluded that although the optimal level of vitamin D remains unclear, maintaining a serum 25(OH)D level of 100 to 150 nmol/L (40 to 60 ng/mL) is recommended.8"
Yeah, don’t be deficient. Certainly having recommended levels of an essential vitamin is important. Acting like it’s a miracle cure is silly. There were too many null trials and low effect trials for it to be wildly effective. Unlike the vaccine, I’ll add.
Vitamin D3 was a net positive unless people started supplementing with like 50,000 IU daily. The problem is, the optimal, "close to 60 ng/ML" level was not touted nor studied. Only <20 ng/ML was considered insufficient. Even now there is disagreement on what constitutes normal and/or optimal levels. So, once again, the data sucks and doesn't exist because 50-60 ng/ML wasn't evaluated.
"Vitamin D deficiency is common in the United States and around the globe. The most common cause of deficiency is insufficient intake (oral or dermal). In a study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2011 to 2014, almost 20% of the US population had serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) values categorized as “at risk for inadequacy” (defined as 30 to 49 nmol/L or 12 to 19 ng/mL), and 5% were categorized as “at risk for deficiency” (< 30 nmol/L or 12 ng/mL).6 These reference ranges may be lower than what most clinicians consider to be deficient. For example, numerous studies have found a recommended threshold of 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) for bone health to be insufficient for fall or fracture risk reduction.7
Vitamin D supplementation to prevent and treat immune-related diseases including COVID-19 was reviewed by Charoenngam et al.8 In an extensive examination of the immunologic effects of vitamin D supplements, the authors described the immunomodulatory hormonal effects of vitamin D, noted significant biologic effects on the innate and adaptive immune systems, cited the immunomodulatory and antiviral effects of the active form of vitamin D (1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D), and suggested that vitamin D supplementation might reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. They concluded that although the optimal level of vitamin D remains unclear, maintaining a serum 25(OH)D level of 100 to 150 nmol/L (40 to 60 ng/mL) is recommended.8"
Yeah, don’t be deficient. Certainly having recommended levels of an essential vitamin is important. Acting like it’s a miracle cure is silly. There were too many null trials and low effect trials for it to be wildly effective. Unlike the vaccine, I’ll add.
Incoming: just one more trial bro
Yes, but are you talking deficiency in the general allopathic recommendation sense of <20 ng/ML or in the sense of what actually may have been sub-optimal in the setting of primed immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory impacts against Covid, i.e. <50 ng/ML?
One more trial? How about just one trial? Can you provide one controlled trial that attempted to get D up to ~ 60 ng/ML versus Covid morbidity and mortality? Even one? I very much doubt it. Just one? So absence of evidence is evidence of absence...
Yeah, don’t be deficient. Certainly having recommended levels of an essential vitamin is important. Acting like it’s a miracle cure is silly. There were too many null trials and low effect trials for it to be wildly effective. Unlike the vaccine, I’ll add.
Incoming: just one more trial bro
Yes, but are you talking deficiency in the general allopathic recommendation sense of <20 ng/ML or in the sense of what actually may have been sub-optimal in the setting of primed immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory impacts against Covid, i.e. <50 ng/ML?
One more trial? How about just one trial? Can you provide one controlled trial that attempted to get D up to ~ 60 ng/ML versus Covid morbidity and mortality? Even one? I very much doubt it. Just one? So absence of evidence is evidence of absence...
Yes I posted them a while ago. Some small ones were positive. The larger ones was null or weaker. Consistent with a weak positive or null effect.
Yes, but are you talking deficiency in the general allopathic recommendation sense of <20 ng/ML or in the sense of what actually may have been sub-optimal in the setting of primed immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory impacts against Covid, i.e. <50 ng/ML?
One more trial? How about just one trial? Can you provide one controlled trial that attempted to get D up to ~ 60 ng/ML versus Covid morbidity and mortality? Even one? I very much doubt it. Just one? So absence of evidence is evidence of absence...
Yes I posted them a while ago. Some small ones were positive. The larger ones was null or weaker. Consistent with a weak positive or null effect.
Net-positive. 👍
You're starting to come around. You’re a bit slow, but you’ll get there eventually. Keep letting others educate you.
Yes, but are you talking deficiency in the general allopathic recommendation sense of <20 ng/ML or in the sense of what actually may have been sub-optimal in the setting of primed immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory impacts against Covid, i.e. <50 ng/ML?
One more trial? How about just one trial? Can you provide one controlled trial that attempted to get D up to ~ 60 ng/ML versus Covid morbidity and mortality? Even one? I very much doubt it. Just one? So absence of evidence is evidence of absence...
Yes I posted them a while ago. Some small ones were positive. The larger ones was null or weaker. Consistent with a weak positive or null effect.
Can you please repost the controlled study where they raised it to >/= 60 ng/mL versus morbidity/mortality? Because I would be really interested in that study. I'm not interested in a study where they corrected a deficiency or merely raised it above 40. Thank you.
Yes I posted them a while ago. Some small ones were positive. The larger ones was null or weaker. Consistent with a weak positive or null effect.
Can you please repost the controlled study where they raised it to >/= 60 ng/mL versus morbidity/mortality? Because I would be really interested in that study. I'm not interested in a study where they corrected a deficiency or merely raised it above 40. Thank you.
Suddenly Harambro has turned anti-net-positive. I thought he said net-positive was a good thing. A day later we find that he’s against it. Hmmmmm. Something’s afoot. 😂
Yes I posted them a while ago. Some small ones were positive. The larger ones was null or weaker. Consistent with a weak positive or null effect.
Can you please repost the controlled study where they raised it to >/= 60 ng/mL versus morbidity/mortality? Because I would be really interested in that study. I'm not interested in a study where they corrected a deficiency or merely raised it above 40. Thank you.
The largest observational analysis study to date which investigated health outcomes following Covid vaccination confirmed a causal link between the shots and myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and more.
The study analyzed health data from 99 MILLION patients and encompassed eight countries.
This multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Other potential safety signals that require further investigat...
Can you please repost the controlled study where they raised it to >/= 60 ng/mL versus morbidity/mortality? Because I would be really interested in that study. I'm not interested in a study where they corrected a deficiency or merely raised it above 40. Thank you.
Just one more trial bro. Just one more trial
The thing is... we didn't even need a study on vit D.
We had overwhelming evidence that...
- COVID hit the elderly, obese, African Americans, and D deficient harder than other groups.
- 3 in 4 of the above groups are vit D deficient
- 4 in 10 US adults are D deficient
- vit D reduces the risk of colon and bladder cancer, heart disease, and viral infections (influenza)
- vit D is extremely safe, extremely inexpensive, and easily available. It's only 10 cents a day for 10,000 IU, for goodness sakes! The government could have given them away
I didn't need a study to show me the cost benefit and risk/reward ratio strongly supported taking vitamin D. My annual cost was... doing the math on a napkin... about $60.
I was appalled that during the first year of COVID that our public health spokespersons RECOMMENDED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve the public's resistance to viral infections. Instead, they ignored vitamin D, weight loss, and repurposed drugs that doctors in the field were using with successful results.
The thing is... we didn't even need a study on vit D.
We had overwhelming evidence that...
- COVID hit the elderly, obese, African Americans, and D deficient harder than other groups.
- 3 in 4 of the above groups are vit D deficient
- 4 in 10 US adults are D deficient
- vit D reduces the risk of colon and bladder cancer, heart disease, and viral infections (influenza)
- vit D is extremely safe, extremely inexpensive, and easily available. It's only 10 cents a day for 10,000 IU, for goodness sakes! The government could have given them away
I didn't need a study to show me the cost benefit and risk/reward ratio strongly supported taking vitamin D. My annual cost was... doing the math on a napkin... about $60.
I was appalled that during the first year of COVID that our public health spokespersons RECOMMENDED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve the public's resistance to viral infections. Instead, they ignored vitamin D, weight loss, and repurposed drugs that doctors in the field were using with successful results.
The question which to my knowledge is inconclusive in the literature, is whether there is a significant benefit to maintaining serum vitamin D levels above the NIH "sufficient" threshold of 70 nmol/L (30 ng/mL). No one here has ever argued against the probable or demonstrable benefit of supplementation to address deficient levels.
