It's amazing how, dozens/hundreds of studies and months into the research of COVID-19 and Vitamin D and given the quality of the research it's STILL impossible to know the answer to the only important question (does supplementation do anything?) with any certainty
-
-
Good trial: > “Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50%)”. Even if not proven; a year's supply of D at 5000IU/day only costs $13. https://www.amazon.com/NatureWise-Vitamin-Function-Cold-Pressed-Gluten-Free/dp/B00GB85JR4/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=vitamin+d+5000+iu&qid=1601176958&sr=8-6 …https://covid.us.org/2020/09/03/new-study-vitamin-d-reduces-risk-of-icu-admission-97/ …
-
Nope, that was a pretty terrible trial! Poor blinding, allocation concealment totally absent, any number of other issues. Also very small
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes.
. Would be nice if stuff like this very preliminary research would stimulate more robust research and provide some definitive answers. I _really_ dislike treating based on press release and preprinthttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076020302764 …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Another issue is the ethics problem. Not very ethical to not treat vitamin D deficiency in any RCT and give placebo instead! Levels are typically measured before trial starts. And deficiency is probably where problem is. *From a Vit D scientist *
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's so frustrating! Even something dietary which provided a very modest benefit to symptoms would be really useful at this stage, if it was robustly demonstrated. Do the grifters put some of the good trialists off from even bothering to consider doing supplement based trials?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The recent study in PLOS (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239799 …) based on a cohort from Iran is really frustrating. observational again. (and btw vit D insufficiently - defined as 20 mg/nL, not 30 mg/nL like in the PLOS paper, is common in Iran: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5936844/ …)
-
What does something like that signify? With insufficiency at a much lower threshold, by their definition, everyone’s levels needed supplementation, and any observed improvements could be attributed to supplementation?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.