220,000 veterans given D3... Large retrospective study... 33% reduction in mortality rate... Should IPAK do a prospective RCT on Vitamin D3 supplementation?
"RCT" is a euphemism for blind or double blind study. Those are unethical since they deny consent. Don't give them credence. The placebo effect is overrated.
Of course doing research on D3 would be extremely beneficial. I remember going to an herbal medicine conference 15 years ago and hearing an oncologist stating that every single cancer patient in his 30 years of practice had low levels of D3. ALL patients. He went on to say that not everyone with low D3 will get cancer but everyone who gets cancer has low D3. Imagine how many people could have avoided cancer had this critical information been available to the general public and all PCPs. I suspect the same would be true of Covid patients.
No. There’s no money in it. The public won’t believe it (because it’s cheap and not “approved”). B.Ph. would sabotage it because there’s no money in it.
D deficiency is, in my layperson’s opinion, complex. Too much indoor time? Too much sunscreen? Not enough eggs and salmon? Clothing choices due to climate or religious reasons? How much K2 is needed? D liquid drops or solid? 1,000 IU each hour or one large dose all at once?
Can we please put to rest the reality of EBM (evidence based medicine) The information has been available for 20 years, by those in a position to know what really is going on.
As you likely know, two of the most prestigious journals of medicine are The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
Dr. Marcia Angell, Harvard physician and editor in chief of the NEJM said:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor.”
Dr. Relman, another former editor in chief of the NEJM said this in 2002 - “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
Richard Horton, editor in chief of the Lancet said:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” (2). Horton R. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? [Last accessed August 5, 2015]. www.thelancet.com. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf.
Until this issue is finally addressed, EBM is not the instrument that could have changed scientific inquiry. It's the best example of fraud in scientific investigation. The lack of transparency and misrepresentation of the scientific process has crippled the discovery of medicine and the regulator capture of our pubic health agencies has become the nail in the coffin of science.
There is no money in health. But there's lots of money in selling snake oil to people that have been deliberately made sick by poisonous foods, excessive carbohydrates and dangerous pharma products.
The quality of the vitD research has improved greatly during the last three years, including some very interesting prospective studies (Castillo, et. al 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2020.105751) which looked at ICU admissions. There was a very large effect size in this study, yet it remained suppressed as insignificant due to the sample size. I don't think that that is the case, as the recommendations for Phase III trials using repurposed drugs were to use a sample size of 100. Would like to learn if I've interpreted that correctly or not. I did a critical appraisal on this study for my research methods course and the faculty member overseeing the course published a piece (video) by Medscape to my classmates prior to my presentation....allowing for no discussion afterwards about it. In my view it was a hit piece, but I never had the opportunity to explore that civilly with my classmates. Hmm. That would require freedom of speech.
Sunil Wimalawansa, MD Prof. em. and endocrinologist was the primary author of the FLCCC's vitD dosing table which was published in the last year. His piece in Nutrients is here: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142997. William Grant, PhD and Patrick McCullough, MD also published good predictive mechanistic papers early on, but Dr. Wimalawansa's is a good up to date review.
A lot of quiet work has been done behind the scenes by the indomitable citizen scientist Robin Whittle to get this information onto broader platforms. He and Patrick Chambers, MD submitted vitD recommendations to HMG here:
UK-OHID-Vitamin-D-RW-PWC.pdf. On Robin's website vitaminDstopsCOVID.info you can find an invitation to join NIOSH, a group of vitD researchers. If you choose to prioritize this research, please join us there.
The great thing about IPAK conducting the research is that it could design the study properly so that one would measure the impact related to serum 25(OH)D levels and not the dose given; as the bioavailability varies widely, as you know.
At our practice we have been monitoring vitD levels closely since 2020 and titrating to a level that reflects the literature in terms of immune protection. Of existing patients on vitD, there was no mortality from COVID. The literature has shown those with levels > 50 ng/ml do not enter ICUs nor die.
I would like with you to review the history of the vitamin D IOM recommendations. I'm swamped with school stuff at the moment or I would fish out the citations, but there is a policy paper waiting to be written to expose the public health debacle that was predictable. Perhaps Henry Ealy has already covered this in his long piece on COVID a couple of years ago. If you are interested to review this, let me know.
I would love to see fourth grade children understand the cellular biology of vitD, the VDR, the epigenetic changes made by vitD and the role of cathelicin as a self-generated antibiotic. It would make great 'back-of-the-cereal-box' reading at the breakfast table.
There is so much waiting for people to discover regarding their health that is inexpensive and very protective. I am grateful for your work/IPAK. Happy Thanksgiving.
Many years ago, European population based studies documented widespread deficiencies in Vitamin D - worse in the northern latitudes. among dark skinned people, and during Winter. The investigators also documented a higher attack rate of wintertime viral respiratory disease.
So; available evidence should have prompted widespread supplementation with D3 from the beginning of the pandemic. CDC seems to forget that "Prevention" is part of their official name.
Yes. There is a new campaign by government against D3. I think it could stage a dangerous pressure against health care providers recommending D3 as a supplement
I'm sorry to hear about your sister. Can you share whether she had been vaccinated for Covid? I am so grateful that husband avoided the Covid jabs and was able to get a medical exemption from a forward thinking physician. Today, I don't think one could get an exemption for cancer as that's one of the big diseases where they push the jab unfortunately. I don't believe we need an RCT when oncologists around the country are seeing evidence of this in their patients. Given the scientific fraud in the journals, I no longer have any confidence in these clinical trials. This was confirmed by editors in chief of leading medical journals.
Are you saying that when she was first diagnosed, her level was 60? My husband hadn't been taking D for quite a while and then after an exam, when possible prostate cancer was identified, he starting taking high doses of D. When he got a firm diagnosis a month later, he had his labs done and his level was also around 60. I believe he increased his level significantly during that month so the labs from the month later weren't able to assess what his level might have been from prior months. In theory I agree with you but this oncologist had seen 20,000+ patients so his results are certainly meaningful but not definitive.
JLW, I would actually advise against doing an RCT of vitamin d for several reasons. Firstly there are some small number of rcts that don't look that great. Secondly there's enough awareness about vitamin d that there are going to be rcts and a systematic review eventually anyway. Thirdly multiple reviews have found no association between vitamin d levels and severity. Fourthly everyone is completely confused about vitamin d science in general. It is neither generally safe or generally effective for just about anything. There are more than 70 types of vitamin d and nobody understands squat about the metabolism. 2/3rds of the metabolites are literally not even on the metabolic path following supplements. And the most potent anticovid metabolites may be lumisterols which you can only make from sun. There are certain subset of people, myself included, who are severely harmed by vitamin d supplements because it has interaction with undiagnosed ubiquitous chronic infections. In people who have so-called low vitamin d, the so-called active vitamin d is frequently high. This is not deficiency. this is dysregulated metabolism and a disease process.
Low vitamin d does not cause disease. Disease causes low vitamin d. Taking vitamin d can be pouring fuel on a fire.
"RCT" is a euphemism for blind or double blind study. Those are unethical since they deny consent. Don't give them credence. The placebo effect is overrated.
Yes, please! I believe in D3 with K2 and agree their value is being withheld from the public!
03 March 2021:
Susceptibilities to COVID-19 severity and complications are driven largely by vitamin D deficiency
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n544/rr-1
Of course doing research on D3 would be extremely beneficial. I remember going to an herbal medicine conference 15 years ago and hearing an oncologist stating that every single cancer patient in his 30 years of practice had low levels of D3. ALL patients. He went on to say that not everyone with low D3 will get cancer but everyone who gets cancer has low D3. Imagine how many people could have avoided cancer had this critical information been available to the general public and all PCPs. I suspect the same would be true of Covid patients.
No. There’s no money in it. The public won’t believe it (because it’s cheap and not “approved”). B.Ph. would sabotage it because there’s no money in it.
D deficiency is, in my layperson’s opinion, complex. Too much indoor time? Too much sunscreen? Not enough eggs and salmon? Clothing choices due to climate or religious reasons? How much K2 is needed? D liquid drops or solid? 1,000 IU each hour or one large dose all at once?
I don’t know.
If you do an RCT on Vit. D it will be roundly ignored (if positive). Might not be a good use of resources.
Can we please put to rest the reality of EBM (evidence based medicine) The information has been available for 20 years, by those in a position to know what really is going on.
As you likely know, two of the most prestigious journals of medicine are The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
Dr. Marcia Angell, Harvard physician and editor in chief of the NEJM said:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor.”
Dr. Relman, another former editor in chief of the NEJM said this in 2002 - “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
Richard Horton, editor in chief of the Lancet said:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” (2). Horton R. Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? [Last accessed August 5, 2015]. www.thelancet.com. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf.
Until this issue is finally addressed, EBM is not the instrument that could have changed scientific inquiry. It's the best example of fraud in scientific investigation. The lack of transparency and misrepresentation of the scientific process has crippled the discovery of medicine and the regulator capture of our pubic health agencies has become the nail in the coffin of science.
There is no money in health. But there's lots of money in selling snake oil to people that have been deliberately made sick by poisonous foods, excessive carbohydrates and dangerous pharma products.
Hi Dr. LW,
Very glad you are asking the question.
The quality of the vitD research has improved greatly during the last three years, including some very interesting prospective studies (Castillo, et. al 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2020.105751) which looked at ICU admissions. There was a very large effect size in this study, yet it remained suppressed as insignificant due to the sample size. I don't think that that is the case, as the recommendations for Phase III trials using repurposed drugs were to use a sample size of 100. Would like to learn if I've interpreted that correctly or not. I did a critical appraisal on this study for my research methods course and the faculty member overseeing the course published a piece (video) by Medscape to my classmates prior to my presentation....allowing for no discussion afterwards about it. In my view it was a hit piece, but I never had the opportunity to explore that civilly with my classmates. Hmm. That would require freedom of speech.
Sunil Wimalawansa, MD Prof. em. and endocrinologist was the primary author of the FLCCC's vitD dosing table which was published in the last year. His piece in Nutrients is here: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142997. William Grant, PhD and Patrick McCullough, MD also published good predictive mechanistic papers early on, but Dr. Wimalawansa's is a good up to date review.
A lot of quiet work has been done behind the scenes by the indomitable citizen scientist Robin Whittle to get this information onto broader platforms. He and Patrick Chambers, MD submitted vitD recommendations to HMG here:
UK-OHID-Vitamin-D-RW-PWC.pdf. On Robin's website vitaminDstopsCOVID.info you can find an invitation to join NIOSH, a group of vitD researchers. If you choose to prioritize this research, please join us there.
The great thing about IPAK conducting the research is that it could design the study properly so that one would measure the impact related to serum 25(OH)D levels and not the dose given; as the bioavailability varies widely, as you know.
At our practice we have been monitoring vitD levels closely since 2020 and titrating to a level that reflects the literature in terms of immune protection. Of existing patients on vitD, there was no mortality from COVID. The literature has shown those with levels > 50 ng/ml do not enter ICUs nor die.
I would like with you to review the history of the vitamin D IOM recommendations. I'm swamped with school stuff at the moment or I would fish out the citations, but there is a policy paper waiting to be written to expose the public health debacle that was predictable. Perhaps Henry Ealy has already covered this in his long piece on COVID a couple of years ago. If you are interested to review this, let me know.
I would love to see fourth grade children understand the cellular biology of vitD, the VDR, the epigenetic changes made by vitD and the role of cathelicin as a self-generated antibiotic. It would make great 'back-of-the-cereal-box' reading at the breakfast table.
There is so much waiting for people to discover regarding their health that is inexpensive and very protective. I am grateful for your work/IPAK. Happy Thanksgiving.
Go for it! We absolutely need RCT trials on generics. What better way to send a giant F.U. to our Big Pharma overlords?
Many years ago, European population based studies documented widespread deficiencies in Vitamin D - worse in the northern latitudes. among dark skinned people, and during Winter. The investigators also documented a higher attack rate of wintertime viral respiratory disease.
So; available evidence should have prompted widespread supplementation with D3 from the beginning of the pandemic. CDC seems to forget that "Prevention" is part of their official name.
The VA study is a good one.
Yes. There is a new campaign by government against D3. I think it could stage a dangerous pressure against health care providers recommending D3 as a supplement
Yes please do the research b/c others won’t!
The fashionable "science" is always undertaken without controls these days.
I'm sorry to hear about your sister. Can you share whether she had been vaccinated for Covid? I am so grateful that husband avoided the Covid jabs and was able to get a medical exemption from a forward thinking physician. Today, I don't think one could get an exemption for cancer as that's one of the big diseases where they push the jab unfortunately. I don't believe we need an RCT when oncologists around the country are seeing evidence of this in their patients. Given the scientific fraud in the journals, I no longer have any confidence in these clinical trials. This was confirmed by editors in chief of leading medical journals.
Are you saying that when she was first diagnosed, her level was 60? My husband hadn't been taking D for quite a while and then after an exam, when possible prostate cancer was identified, he starting taking high doses of D. When he got a firm diagnosis a month later, he had his labs done and his level was also around 60. I believe he increased his level significantly during that month so the labs from the month later weren't able to assess what his level might have been from prior months. In theory I agree with you but this oncologist had seen 20,000+ patients so his results are certainly meaningful but not definitive.
JLW, I would actually advise against doing an RCT of vitamin d for several reasons. Firstly there are some small number of rcts that don't look that great. Secondly there's enough awareness about vitamin d that there are going to be rcts and a systematic review eventually anyway. Thirdly multiple reviews have found no association between vitamin d levels and severity. Fourthly everyone is completely confused about vitamin d science in general. It is neither generally safe or generally effective for just about anything. There are more than 70 types of vitamin d and nobody understands squat about the metabolism. 2/3rds of the metabolites are literally not even on the metabolic path following supplements. And the most potent anticovid metabolites may be lumisterols which you can only make from sun. There are certain subset of people, myself included, who are severely harmed by vitamin d supplements because it has interaction with undiagnosed ubiquitous chronic infections. In people who have so-called low vitamin d, the so-called active vitamin d is frequently high. This is not deficiency. this is dysregulated metabolism and a disease process.
Low vitamin d does not cause disease. Disease causes low vitamin d. Taking vitamin d can be pouring fuel on a fire.