[R.B.]

Re this link . . .

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4912




There are 86 studies listed and analyzed here https://vdmeta.com/

How much evidence do you need before funding the necessary double blinded studies to confirm that vitamin D factors in COVID-19 risk and that the hydroxylated products used in a hospital setting likely substantial reduce ICU and mortality risk . . .

Smoking was accepted to be detrimental to health using Bradford Hill criteria - viz taking a broader view of evidence . . . surely enough vitamin D evidence has accumulated to justify funding. . .

It is hard to follow all of this and not be a mix of: depressed, resigned. infuriated, at the 'stupidity' of it all.


It would be so easy to be objective, and curious, and fund the necessary research to try and bolt this down - and ideal study for Oxford UK RECOVERY - no response - or for big funders - no enthusiasm so far . . . I have tried . . . and without funding hospital groups will not undertake the research - that is the nature of the system we have created - research is another revenue stream and ultimately controlled by finance considerations . . .

The Semmelweis effect (The Doctor Who Championed Hand-Washing And Briefly Saved Lives) https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-women-s-lives is indeed live and well - same old 'humanity' - same old behavioral traits and drivers - pride, money, and following the herd / peer pressure . . . same result . . . and that in the case of Semmelweis meant 30 years more deaths of mothers from puerperal fever after delivery of babies by surgeons who had performed autopsies without disinfecting their hand first - particularly ironic in the circumstances

Who will be the one to give this the impetus it needs to happen - I have neither the profile nor contacts to do so - and am one of many of a large group who have been trying for over a year . . .




SUMMARY from https://vdmeta.com/

"•96% of 27 vitamin D treatment studies report positive effects (15 statistically significant in isolation).
•Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported shows 78% and 56% improvement for early treatment and for all studies (RR 0.22 [0.12-0.39] and 0.44 [0.34-0.57]). Results are similar after restriction to 24 peer-reviewed studies: 83% and 57% (RR 0.17 [0.07-0.42] and 0.43 [0.33-0.56]), and for the 15 mortality results: 78% and 67% (RR 0.22 [0.12-0.43] and 0.33 [0.22-0.50]).
•Late stage treatment with calcifediol/calcitriol shows greater improvement compared to cholecalciferol: 80% versus 48% (RR 0.20 [0.13-0.31] and 0.52 [0.33-0.82]). The only treatment study reporting a negative effect is a very late stage cholecalciferol study.
•Heterogeneity arises from many factors including treatment delay, patient population, the effect measured, variants, the form of vitamin D used, and treatment regimens. The consistency of positive results across a wide variety of cases is remarkable.
•Sufficiency studies show a strong association between vitamin D sufficiency and outcomes. Meta analysis of the 59 studies with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported shows 56% improvement (RR 0.44 [0.36-0.53]).
•While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 7% of vitamin D treatment studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
•Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Not doing so increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.
•All data to reproduce this paper and the sources are in the appendix.