1. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9548
    09 Feb '21 22:35
    @ponderable said
    Just for reminders, this was the study to be discussed. It shows that the immune system suffers from fighting with COVID, and that there is more damage to the body than superficially visible.
    Thank you for your attempt to get the thread back on track. Not sure if it worked, though.

    Viruses are well known to have lasting effects so this does not seem surprising. Post polio syndrome, shingles etc. We don't really have a clear picture yet with COVID but this study seems to be referring to those who get really sick and have multi organ damage. This could be unrelated directly to the virus.
  2. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    09 Feb '21 23:531 edit
    @humy said
    link please
    I have provided it several times already

    From page 3

    Procedures
    All hospitalized patients received as best available therapy the same standard care, (per hospital protocol), of a combination of hydroxychloroquine (400 mg every 12 h on the first day, and 200 mg every 12 h for the following 5 days), azithromycin (500 mg orally for 5 days. Eligible patients were allocated at a 2 calcifediol:1 no calcifediol ratio through electronic randomization on the day of admission to take oral calcifediol (0.532 mg), or not. Patients in the calcifediol treatment group continued with oral calcifediol (0.266 mg) on day 3 and 7, and then weekly until discharge or ICU admission. Outcomes of effectiveness included rate of ICU admission and deaths.

    Go back to my post to find the actual link.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    10 Feb '21 08:021 edit
    @eladar said
    I have provided it several times already

    From page 3

    Procedures
    All hospitalized patients received as best available therapy the same standard care, (per hospital protocol), of a combination of hydroxychloroquine (400 mg every 12 h on the first day, and 200 mg every 12 h for the following 5 days), azithromycin (500 mg orally for 5 days. Eligible patients were allocated ...[text shortened]... ectiveness included rate of ICU admission and deaths.

    Go back to my post to find the actual link.
    The link is;

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/

    it says 76 patients; NOT a large enough sample size to conclude anything for certain. Nothing is proven by this study.
    It even admits this in its conclusion with;

    "larger trials with groups properly matched will be required to show a definitive answer."

    You clearly either didn't read that part or chose to ignore that part.
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    11 Feb '21 02:51
    Just a point to the pill poppers out there. Vitamin D is associated with a higher risk of arterial calcification unless taken with vitamin K. The stuff I take when I remember is vitamin D3 with K2. Having a decent well balanced diet in the first place is probably far better than taking random vitamin pills. Stopping smoking and drinking might be a smart move too! Says he...
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    11 Feb '21 08:082 edits
    Also note;

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181010-do-vitamin-d-supplements-work
    "...experts say that people with healthy levels have no need of vitamin D supplements – which would be most people. In other words, they argue that in healthy people, vitamin D is not, as some have hoped, a way to prevent disease.
    ...
    The current guidelines on how much vitamin D to take were informed by research involving the elderly population living in care homes, who don’t get as much exposure to the sun and are more prone to fractures and osteoporosis than the general population. But Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King's College London, has argued that such studies are “probably flawed”.

    It’s true that the evidence isn’t clear-cut. One meta-analysis published in August 2018 concluded that increasing the levels of vitamin D in the general population is unlikely to decrease the risk of bone fractures in healthy people. And a meta-analysis of 81 studies found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t prevent fractures or falls, or improve bone mineral density. The researchers concluded that guidelines should be updated to reflect this.
    ...
    One meta-analysis concluded that more research is needed to clarify the effect of vitamin D on mortality. The link between cardiovascular disease and vitamin D also has yet been properly established: the link could mean that heart disease is causing low vitamin D levels, not the other way around.
    ...
    Other studies, including of the link between vitamin D and liver cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer, suggest there is good reason to think that low vitamin D plays a part in the spread of cancer cells. But taking supplements would then, surely, help stave off cancer – and a recent meta-analysis failed to find that supplementation reduced cancer risk.
    ...
    Some scientists argue that getting vitamin D from supplements isn’t as effective as getting it straight from the sun, as the process that happens before the body makes vitamin D from sun exposure is more beneficial. More conclusive research around this is currently underway.
    ...
    some studies suggest too much vitamin D can increase risk of cardiovascular disease
    ..."

    As part of my attempt to balance and offset the huge one-sided biased hype in favor of the idea we all take vit D pills that normally ignores all the studies and evidence against doing that, here above I only picked those parts of this link that seem to go AGAINST the idea we should all be taking some vit D pills while leaving out those parts that hint of the contrary. If you point out and accuse me of doing the latter, you are totally missing my point. My point is that the evidence is currently conflicting and it is far too soon to conclude with any certainty that we should all take vit D pills. I'm NOT claiming we shouldn't take vit D pills but rather, except for people that are obviously vit D deficient, claiming it is too soon to tell.
  6. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    12 Feb '21 00:52
    @deepthought said
    Just a point to the pill poppers out there. Vitamin D is associated with a higher risk of arterial calcification unless taken with vitamin K. The stuff I take when I remember is vitamin D3 with K2. Having a decent well balanced diet in the first place is probably far better than taking random vitamin pills. Stopping smoking and drinking might be a smart move too! Says he...
    I think you will find that magnesium is a great counter for calcium as well. If you take vitamin D, cut back on your calcium and increase your intake of magnesium, as well as some sort of fish oil.
  7. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    12 Feb '21 00:53
    @humy said
    The link is;

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/

    it says 76 patients; NOT a large enough sample size to conclude anything for certain. Nothing is proven by this study.
    It even admits this in its conclusion with;

    "larger trials with groups properly matched will be required to show a definitive answer."

    You clearly either didn't read that part or chose to ignore that part.
    As I said, you are stuck believing what people who fund large scale research want you to believe.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Feb '21 07:594 edits
    @eladar said
    you are stuck believing what people who fund large scale research want you to believe.
    -implying the baseless absurd claim that if it is large scale research, specifically as opposed to small scale research, then the results are rigged by the funders to, not find out the truth, but rather make a rigged pre-set conclusion that is the one they personally 'want' people to believe to be true.
    Why doesn't the same apply to small scale research i.e. why isn't small scale research also rigged so to make people what they (funders) want you to believe?
    I guess you just don't like in this case the conclusions of the wider scale thus more reliable research and, via cherry picking the less reliable small scale studies that just happen to conclude what you want while dismissing/ignoring all other studies, choose what you want to believe over truth.
  9. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    12 Feb '21 13:03
    @humy said

    I guess
    Correction; I don't 'guess' that but 'know' that, because its obvious.
  10. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    13814
    13 Feb '21 18:50
    @humy said
    -implying the baseless absurd claim that if it is large scale research, specifically as opposed to small scale research, then the results are rigged by the funders to, not find out the truth, but rather make a rigged pre-set conclusion that is the one they personally 'want' people to believe to be true.
    Why doesn't the same apply to small scale research i.e. why isn't [ ...[text shortened]... at you want while dismissing/ignoring all other studies, choose what you want to believe over truth.
    I am not implying that at all.

    I am saying that certain things will get the research to the level the you wish. Others things will not because they will never get the funding.

    Why do you make such false claims?

    Oh yeah, to divert the discussion and not have to deal with the truth of the point that I bring up.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree