The point of the argument is, to answer whether Vitamin D is a useful tool in the hospital, you want to use the fastest acting form of Vitamin D. If it takes a week for the levels to rise, thats a week of disease development without Vitamin D
-
-
Given that the average time to hospitalization is about 11 days, average time to death is about 22 days, if it does take a week, you're basically measuring the effect of a couple of days of raised levels.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
The days until hospitalization thing is a complete red herring. The question here is not whether taking prophylactic vitamin D helps, but whether giving it to sick people does. That's the claim being tested
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
As to the raised levels, if vitamin D had a large effect on hospital outcomes, you'd expect to see some impact even if it was delayed by a few hours. So while the study, taken at face value, wouldn't prove definitively that there cannot be a minor benefit
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I was under the impression that it takes a week for Vitamin D to be processed in the liver, not hours?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
then you get 25-hydroxycholecalciferol, which then is further processed (fairly quickly) in the kidneys.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Whereas if you give calcifediol directly (like the Spanish trials did) you can skip the liver processing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Is this not true?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ok, damn. Looks like that bit may have been false. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56061/ pic.twitter.com/thz7xEIXlg
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Here is the source where I got the "few days up to a week" bit:https://youtu.be/V8Ks9fUh2k8?t=462 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
To be *fully* metabolized, it takes a while, but it starts straight away. With such an enormous dose, a lot of it is going to get into the bloodstream quickly. This is why I recommend not watching Youtube as a primary source for information generally 
-
-
Would have been happier to see a chart of the levels over time in the study, but fair enough.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I mean, it was a ~huge~ dose. Unless the human body completely reversed in its functioning, these people would very quickly have stopped being deficient. It's an argument used by people who don't like the trial results, not a realistic reason for the study being bad
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.