[peter422]

There is a large difference in saying vitamin D is a "potent inhibitor" of COVID, and seeing that there is a correlation between people with normal levels of vitamin D and less severe COVID. Though even still the study results are mixed and still not ironclad, which is my point. And obviously any doctor (and I) would tell their patient to supplement vitamin D levels if they were low, but they would never say this somehow makes you safe(r) from COVID.

The OP is throwing around giant misleading statements like "potent inhibitor", while chiding others for incorrectly stating tiny details.

The vaccine is a "potent inhibitor" of COVID, and we all have the data to prove it. There is no other substance, other than monoclonals, which would meet that standard.

[nradov]

Did you actually read the linked studies? Several of them show clear evidence that vitamin D is a potent inhibitor of COVID-19 (although less potent than vaccination).

The latest meta analysis indicates that ivermectin is also a fairly potent inhibitor, although the evidence is weaker.

https://doi.org/10.1097/mjt.0000000000001402

[peter422]

There are 4 tiny RCTs with split results.

There is one medium sized almost randomized trial that shows a strong result. I'm not interested in small retrospective studies. There are 50 retrospective studies that show HCQ is an amazing drug against covid.

Clearly since there is little downside to given vitamin D to people who have low levels, it can and probably should be done, but that is very far from proving that it is a "potent inhibitor" of covid. There also is a clear bias for the person who makes that site since they also want it to be true. Maybe they don't look as hard for studies which disprove what they want. It isn't an overwhelming case.

There is more than enough evidence for a big RCT to actually confirm, but given the safety considerations and low expense it probably makes more sense to just dose everybody and hope it works. But I don't see how you could make grand claims with this evidence.

[sjwalter]

Super-strange to be OK with an EUA for vaccines containing all sorts of new technologies, then quibble the evidence against vitamin D, a naturally occurring drug that we've known for many years is a potent inhibitor of ALL respiratory illness, as well as others: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3756814/

Super, super strange that we'd take less-than-typical studies of novel vaccines, and then quibble the evidence on something created by nature that we know is easy to get, easy to dose, very safe, etc.

It's like someone wants to make some profit or something.

[peter422]

So would you encourage people not get vaccinated and just take vitamin D?

Do you believe the evidence for their effectiveness is equal?

[sjwalter]

I'm not a doctor so I wouldn't encourage anybody to do anything in terms of medical advice. What I would encourage people to do is to think for themselves and review all available evidence before taking any kind of medical treatment, and particularly treatments that have not completed Phase 3 FDA trials.

The evidence about coronavirus is quite, quite clear. There may be long-term severe effects of covid, just like there may be severe deleterious long-term consequences of the vaccines. So you must calculate your risk-benefit ratio and use that to elect whether to take the vaccines or not. For those that are worried about experimental vaccines, I absolutely encourage them to get more fresh air and sunlight--in fact, almost everyone would benefit in many ways from getting outside in the sun, getting fitter, and avoiding prolonged "lock downs" in their houses. (To boot, covid has never been observed in the scientific literature to be transmissible outdoors.)

Here's a peer-reviewed study from the Lancet from this month that shows just how short-term irrelevant covid is to those under age 40 who are reasonably healthy: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...

For those under the age of 60, obesity is far and away the thing that makes covid dangerous, and if you're under age 40 and are not obese, the death rate is too low to be measured.

So from that, it seems clear to me: If you're under age 60, get fit (I already am, and getting fitter and fitter every day, which is oddly something never mentioned by the higher-ups at CDC or Pfizer or wherever, which is curious, wouldn't you say?). Get outside.

Effectiveness of the vaccine is irrelevant to me personally because for all people like me covid has thus far posed a risk profile similar to that of driving. Novel vaccine technology presents a totally unknown level of risk, and we've already observed plenty of healthy, young people get all sorts of negative outcomes from it. Plus, again, totally unknown long-term safety profile.

I'm curious why you're so against any kind of solution for covid that doesn't involve novel vaccines.

[peter422]

Name a single vaccine in history that has the type of hidden long term side effect you are worried about. Hidden and long term defined as something that happened only after 6 months from taking the vaccine and is significant.