The Playground

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Such pride often comes before a fall: I hope not in your case. It just sounds a bit like the many people who have been lucky... till they stop being lucky.

    These are the type of experts I follow Thomas, not some NIH paper pushing nitwit. It's not luck, it's following the science and putting it into real world action.


    New Research Suggests Magnesium and Vitamin D Can Help Reduce COVID-19 Infections


    New Research Suggests Magnesium and Vitamin D Can Help Reduce COVID-19 Infections
    www.saintlukeskc.org


    February 1, 2021

    The COVID-19 pandemic has changed life as we know if for almost a year. It has infected approximately 25 million Americans and killed over 400,000. Many have mild cases and recover on their own, and others have severe reactions that put them in the hospital fighting for their lives on ventilators. The impact of COVID-19 varies dramatically between individuals due to variability in the immune system’s ability to fight it. The human immune system is complex, intelligent, and powerful, but some simple and common nutritional deficiencies can weaken immunity. For many, a simple strategy to bolster immunity is to get magnesium and vitamin D levels back into the optimal range.


    The mineral magnesium activates vitamin D in the body, and vitamin D helps strengthen the immune system. A new paper co-authored by cardiovascular research scientist James DiNicolantonio, PharmD, and cardiologist James O’Keefe, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute suggests that increasing levels of magnesium and vitamin D may help COVID-19 patients successfully fight off the virus.


    Approximately half of adults in the United States do not consume enough magnesium, which impairs the immune system. Magnesium improves the white blood cells’ ability to seek out and destroy germs. Low magnesium can lead to a cytokine storm, during which the body attacks its own cells and tissues instead of fighting off infection. This creates inflammation, cell and tissue damage, narrowed blood vessels, and blood clots. During this COVID-19 pandemic, vitamin D insufficiency has been seen in over 80 percent of patients with severe cases of the coronavirus.


    A study conducted in Singapore between January and April 2020 tested 43 COVID-19 patients aged 50 or above. A group of 17 patients received magnesium, vitamin D, and B12 daily, while the other 26 did not. Those who received supplementation had an 87 percent lower risk of requiring oxygen therapy and an 85 percent lower risk of needing intensive care.


    Another study tested 40 COVID-19 patients who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. Some took vitamin D supplements for two weeks until they achieved a healthy blood level, others took a placebo. After three weeks, three times as many patients in the vitamin D group tested negative for COVID-19 than those who took the placebo.


    Low levels of magnesium and vitamin D are a common characteristic in a majority of patients with COVID-19. Getting these levels back into the normal range is a safe and inexpensive over-the-counter treatment that can strengthen immune function. Dr. DiNicolantonio’s and Dr. O’Keefe’s paper concluded that magnesium and vitamin D should get special consideration in the general population during the pandemic.


    The complete research article is published in the January/February 2021 issue of Missouri Medicine.


    Mo Med January February 2021
    www.omagdigital.com

    a contributing factor to the South Korean Covid rise?


    Vitamin D deficiency and associated factors in south Korean childbearing women: a cross-sectional study


    Vitamin D deficiency and associated factors in south Korean childbearing women: a cross-sectional study - BMC Nursing
    Background Adequate levels of vitamin D are important for women of childbearing age as vitamin D helps maintain the pregnancy and ensures proper maternal and…
    bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com


    Abstract

    Background

    Adequate levels of vitamin D are important for women of childbearing age as vitamin D helps maintain the pregnancy and ensures proper maternal and fetal bone metabolism and fetal skeletal development. However, vitamin D deficiency is a health problem prevalent in women of all ages, worldwide. This study aimed to determine the current status of serum vitamin D levels and the risk factors for vitamin D deficiency among South Korean nurses of childbearing age.


    Methods

    Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) were measured in 1594 registered nurses aged 20 to 45 years who are participants in an ongoing prospective cohort study of the Korean Nurses’ Health Study initiated in 2013. The participants completed surveys about demographic and occupational characteristics and physical and psychological health. We examined associations with vitamin D deficiency through multivariable logistic regression analysis.


    Results

    The average blood 25(OH) D concentration of the participants was 12.92 ng/mL (4.0–63.4 ng/mL), while the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) was 89% (1419/1594). Multivariable logistic regression showed that significant risk factors for vitamin D deficiency included month of sampling (there was a lower level of vitamin D deficiency in winter than in spring, summer, or fall), age (women in their 20s had a lower vitamin D level than those in their 30s and 40s), and stress symptoms. Vitamin D levels were not associated with body mass index, physical activity, and depressive symptoms.


    Conclusions

    This study showed a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Korean female nurses. Serum levels of vitamin D were associated with age and season. Vitamin D deficiency should be recognized as one of the primary health concerns among young women. More proactive actions, such as vitamin D supplements and food fortification, are needed to improve vitamin D deficiency in high-risk groups.

    Still only 30 citations. Bwa hahahaha


    2022-03-21 11:37 Prof 

    Dr Andrea Rossi,

    Here are the last stats of your papers I read now on

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_Iong_range_particle_interactions

    Total readings: 104 000 ! ( of which 95850 only for “Ecat SK and long range particle interactions” )

    Recommendations: 7081

    Citations: 30

    Total Research Interest index: 1810

    And counting…

    Cheers

    Prof

    Quote from Fm1

    While Jen Psaki included her typical aggressive yet increasingly nasty as well as cursory retort telling “It’s deeply disturbing that there are politicians peddling conspiracy theories out there and casting doubt on vaccinations.”

    The USA is in the middle of a post Putin brain wash - lets say: They are two steps ahead of Putin on the same level as Xsi.


    If a paper writes "vaccine" then I can only laugh... Same as calling a pencil a scalpel...

    Quote from Fm1

    Not only one of the most vaccinated peoples in the world, but the population of South Korea are also one of the most boosted. Yet SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, rages at record levels leading to record deaths.

    As a happy investor I can only say... These damn boosters will save the rest of my live....

    Quote from Fm1

    Results

    The average blood 25(OH) D concentration of the participants was 12.92 ng/mL (4.0–63.4 ng/mL), while the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) was 89% (1419/1594).

    These are deadly low levels.


    Fact:: Big pharma fears VD-3 since at least 30 years. Fighting against V-D3 is similar as fighting for smoking - that delivers more cancer patients = very good vitims $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


    Intake of enough VD-3 would increase the population health overall by more than 30% !

    These are the type of experts I follow Thomas, not some NIH paper pushing nitwit.



    Agreed FM1. My approach is that I do not follow specific experts. Nor specific papers. If you are not willing to go with the consensus then you need to read enough differing views and compare and contrast them


    That is because any one review article (especially in a low impact Journal) can be badly written.


    Specifically the experts you follow (as above).


    Mo Med January February 2021 Page 68
    www.omagdigital.com

    This is a review article, written in the Missouri Medical Journal.


    The trouble with review articles is that they give you the people writing it. If they are good, it is a good review. If not...


    I'd venture that this one is a little one-sided on the following evidence.


    Effect of a Single High Dose of Vitamin D3 on Hospital Length of Stay in Patients With Moderate to Severe COVID-19A Randomized Clinical TrialIgor H. Murai, PhD1; Alan L. Fernandes, PhD1; Lucas P. Sales, MSc


    This was published on Jama Net


    Question What is the effect of a single high dose of vitamin D3 on hospital length of stay among hospitalized patients with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

    Findings In this randomized clinical trial that involved 240 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19, a single dose of 200 000 IU of vitamin D3, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay (median of 7.0 vs 7.0 days; unadjusted hazard ratio for hospital discharge, 1.07).

    Meaning The study does not support the use of a high dose of vitamin D3 for treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.


    How is this summarised by the MMJ review?



    The summary is highly biassed, and quotes one of the secondary results (selectively) which is not statistically significant while ignoring the primary result.


    You will be aware that cherry-picking a subset of the results and studies that happen to favour you by chance can suggets anything.


    The primary outcome was length of stay, defined as the time from the date of randomization to hospital discharge. Prespecified secondary outcomes included mortality during hospitalization; the number of patients admitted to the intensive care unit; the number of patients who required mechanical ventilation and the duration of mechanical ventilation; and serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, total calcium, creatinine, and C-reactive protein.


    Am I cherry-picking? I was looking at RCTs. I missed one. Reference 6


    Outcome measure Proportion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative before day-21 and change in inflammatory markers.

    Results Forty SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive individuals were randomised to intervention (n=16) or control (n=24) group. Baseline serum 25(OH)D was 8.6 (7.1 to 13.1) and 9.54 (8.1 to 12.5) ng/ml (p=0.730), in the intervention and control group, respectively. 10 out of 16 patients could achieve 25(OH)D>50 ng/ml by day-7 and another two by day-14 [day-14 25(OH)D levels 51.7 (48.9 to 59.5) ng/ml and 15.2 (12.7 to 19.5) ng/ml (p<0.001) in intervention and control group, respectively]. 10 (62.5%) participants in the intervention group and 5 (20.8%) participants in the control arm (p<0.018) became SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative. Fibrinogen levels significantly decreased with cholecalciferol supplementation (intergroup difference 0.70 ng/ml; P=0.007) unlike other inflammatory biomarkers.


    Looks good? The review certainly thought so.


    Again, we have cherry-picking - this time the paper itself has a main Outcome Measure which they do not quote as a result because it was negative:

    The mean duration to SARS-CoV-2 negativity was 17.6±6.1 and 17.6±6.4 days (p=0.283) in the intervention and control arm, respectively.

    And what does our MMJ review say:


    You can obtain positive results very easily by measuring lots of things and picking the ones that look good, especially in small studies. It is plain misleading to leave out the main outcome that measures RNA clearance time and that comes up with a 0 result, when arguing the study suggests something about RNA cl;earance time.


    Now, Vit D certainly has somatic effects: it might help with COVID. But the evidence for this is low at the moment, which is why the experts (real experts) who evaluate this internationally agree - that is independent panels in many different non-US countries - that Vitamin D does not seem to be a COVID treatment.


    FM1 - you rubbish these experts, I am showing why the evidence you use to rubbish them is scientifically.... misleading. Notice how I carefully stopped myself from saying rubbish. That is what I feel about it, when people so partially quote data.


    Vitamin D may yet turn out to be useful. Finding out how good it is will not be done by cherry-picking secondary results you happen to like.


    So: I'm not an expert. But I read carefully enough (and I do have expertise in reading and writing scientific literature generally) to know when people are puffing up a case, as here. And I can say categorically that the writers of this paper are not experts in evaluating medical trials (or - if they are - they are deliberately setting out to deceive. That seems highly unlikely).

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Question What is the effect of a single high dose of vitamin D3 on hospital length of stay among hospitalized patients with moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

    Findings In this randomized clinical trial that involved 240 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19, a single dose of 200 000 IU of vitamin D3, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay (median of 7.0 vs 7.0 days; unadjusted hazard ratio for hospital discharge, 1.07).

    A clown can only refer to other clowns studies.


    It takes the bodies about 10 days to convert V-D3 to calciferol (the active form of VD-3)....That's why you must take it daily as a prophylaxis.


    But as usual to many idiots live on this planet.

    The writers? I take it back. They might be deliberately misinforming people.


    James Dinicolantino (first named author of above review)


    James DiNicolantonio - RationalWiki


    James DiNicolantonio is an American cardiovascular research scientist, conspiracy theorist, anti-sugar campaigner and cholesterol denialist who is known for spreading misinformation about nutrition.[2] He is best known for his view that salt has been unfairly demonized by the medical community and that eating more of it will save lives.

    As well as recommending an increased consumption of salt, DiNicolantonio is a low-carb advocate and fan of the ketogenic diet.[3][4] In 2018, he co-authored, with alternative medicine guru Joseph Mercola, the food woo book Superfuel, published by Hay House.[4][5]


    Similar to other low-carbers such as Gary Taubes, DiNicolantonio blames sugar for causing most chronic conditions.[7] His health advice is to eat more salt and less sugar. His views on salt consumption are in opposition to conventional medical advice. The American Heart Association recommends that people cut down on salt consumption because of the risk of high blood pressure, as "the science behind sodium reduction is clear. Significant evidence links excess sodium intake with high blood pressure, which increases the risk of heart attack, stroke and heart failure."[8] Health authorities who cite research from evidence-based medicine recommend that people eat no more than 6g (about a teaspoon) of salt each day.[9][10][11][12]

    DiNicolantonio is certainly correct in pointing out that sodium is an essential nutrient for the body, and that there are health risks from salt under-consumption.[13] However, he takes the salt consumption thing to an irrational extreme, claiming that there is no link between salt consumption and the risk of high blood pressure. He claims, instead, that sugar is the real culprit.[7][14] His advice to eat more salt has been condemned by medical experts as potentially dangerous.[15] The claims in his book, The Salt Fix, were criticized by health authorities, including Public Health England (PHE).[15] DiNicolantonio recommends that people eat 7.5g to 15g of salt a day. He says that this is a "normal" salt intake.[15] Louis Levy, head of nutrition science at PHE, stated that "Diet is now the leading cause of ill health. By advocating a high-salt diet this book is putting the health of many at risk and it undermines internationally-recognised evidence that shows a diet high in salt is linked to high blood pressure, a known risk for heart disease."[15]

    In the book, DiNicolantonio bizarrely claims that early humans during the Paleolithic era ate a high-salt diet, in reality the opposite is true as salt in the diet was very low.[16][17]

    The book has been endorsed by various low-carb cranks including Marika Sboros and the Weston A. Price Foundation.[18][19]

    Quote from Fm1

    You really don't understand cardio scaring or you wouldn't state that myocarditis is mild. It's only mild at the time of onset. The scaring heals but heals as scar tissue very different from heart tissue.

    All of the doctors who treated myocarditis induced by adenovirus COVID vaccines say it was very mild, with no damage to the patients. The patients were carefully monitored and examined. Perhaps you are describing cases with other causes, such as cases caused by COVID itself.


    Once it became clear that adenovirus COVID vaccines can cause this problem, it was also clear which age groups and types of patients it occurs in. That was a fairly narrow group. They stopped giving those people adenovirus vaccines. They give them mRNA vaccines instead, which do not cause myocarditis. So, the problem is solved.

    17 in three years.. I guess the lamp and 100 mW power supply aren’t driving citations, just the reads due to the insider physics jokes contained within.


    2019-05-27 07:08 Manuel 

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_Iong_range_particle_interactions

    Here are the numbers as of today at 9.45 A.M. E.T.

    Full Readings: 21 583

    Recommendations: 738

    Index of Research Interest: 277.1

    Citations: 13

    These statistics are calculated by Researchgate directly.

    These numbers would be considered a great success for publications of main Professors of nuclear physics after a career. You got these numbers after less than 5 months.

    Unbelievable.

    Godspeed,

    Manuel

    Another Huxley hit piece


    Sugar Intake Impacts Blood Pressure


    How Does Sugar Intake Affect Blood Pressure?
    Learn how sugar intake impacts blood pressure and why salt is not the only culprit in your diet.
    www.verywellhealth.com


    Though sodium (salt) is known to lead to high blood pressure, or hypertension, sugar can actually play a role too. Eating too much sugar can inhibit the production of nitric oxide (NO) in blood vessels. Nitric oxide normally helps with vasodilation (expanding of the blood vessels). Without NO, vasoconstriction (narrowing of the blood vessels) can result, leading to high blood pressure.


    Learn of the role sugar plays in hypertension and discover ways to keep sugar intake—and, in turn, your blood pressure—at healthy levels


    High Blood Pressure: Sugar vs. Salt

    Typically, people think of salt as bad for blood pressure. However, sugar is actually also responsible for high blood pressure and is a leading cause of it.


    Fructose, a type of simple sugar, raises the levels of uric acid in the blood, which in turn inhibits the production of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is what helps your blood vessels maintain flexibility, so when levels of NO are lowered, you can experience a rise in blood pressure.


    In addition, increased sugar consumption can lead to weight gain. Obesity is also a contributor to elevated blood pressure.1


    Sugar in processed foods is considered a main driver of hypertension, as well.2 Some sugars are worse than others. In particular, "added sugar," such as table sugar and syrups used to prepare and process foods, is thought to be more harmful than naturally occurring sugars like those in fruit and milk.


    Furthermore, research suggests that sugar intake can actually increase salt sensitivity, leading to the enhanced negative effects of sodium on blood pressure.3 A 2017 research study, in fact, discovered an association between sugar intake and high blood pressure in older women.4


    Hyperinsulinemia

    Hyperinsulinemia occurs when the level of insulin in your blood is higher than normal. Insulin is a hormone that pulls glucose from the food you eat into cells, where it is used for energy.



    It is one of the diagnostic criteria for type 2 diabetes, a condition that develops when the body becomes less sensitive to insulin and cannot use it effectively to turn sugar into energy. If left untreated, hyperinsulinemia can lead to high blood pressure as well.5


    Studies have shown that roughly half of those with hypertension have either hyperinsulinemia or glucose intolerance.6


    How Insulin Works and Why You Need It

    Insulin Resistance

    Insulin resistance also is associated with high blood pressure. With insulin resistance, your body struggles to use glucose for energy because it doesn't respond to insulin as it should. This leads to the overproduction of insulin by the pancreas.


    Insulin resistance is closely linked to hypertension, and together they lead to an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes.7


    Nitric Oxide

    Nitric oxide, produced by the inner layer of cells of blood vessels, relaxes the inner muscles of your blood vessels and opens them up. NO helps boost blood flow and controls blood pressure.


    As we age, our cells produce less nitric oxide, so blood vessels become less flexible, contributing to hypertension, inflammation in blood vessels, and atherosclerosis (plaque buildup on the inner walls of cells), which is a known risk factor of heart disease.


    Advanced Glycation

    Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are potentially harmful compounds that exist in the body and in foods. They are formed when protein or fat combine with sugar. Within foods, they are sometimes referred to as dietary advanced glycation end products (dAGEs). They are linked to inflammation and higher levels of oxidative stressors that are themselves linked to both heart disease and diabetes.8


    Sugar and Salt in the Pathogenesis of Elevated Blood Pressure

    https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.167429


    Salt vs Sugar – Which Is Worse for Your Heart?

    Salt vs Sugar - Which Is Worse for the Heart?
    Living a heart-healthy lifestyle is critical, but all the best foods seem to be loaded with sugar or salt. Which mineral is worse for you? Get the facts.
    www.aedleader.com

    No idea where "Prof" gets his numbers from, recommendations are 955 according to Researchgate. I still can't find the Total Research Interest Index, probably it's only visibly in the author's account (which gives a hint to who "Prof" might be).

    Quote from Fm1

    Fructose, a type of simple sugar, raises the levels of uric acid in the blood, which in turn inhibits the production of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is what helps your blood vessels maintain flexibility, so when levels of NO are lowered, you can experience a rise in blood pressure.


    In addition, increased sugar consumption can lead to weight gain. Obesity is also a contributor to elevated blood pressure.1


    Sugar in processed foods is considered a main driver of hypertension, as well.2 Some sugars are worse than others. In particular, "added sugar," such as table sugar and syrups used to prepare and process foods, is thought to be more harmful than naturally occurring sugars like those in fruit and milk.

    There is a logical inconsistency here perhaps? Which is worst, fructose or sucrose? It's hard to tell from this.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    James DiNicolantonio is an American cardiovascular research scientist, conspiracy theorist, anti-sugar campaigner and cholesterol denialist who is known for spreading misinformation about nutrition.[2] He is best known for his view that salt has been unfairly demonized by the medical community and that eating more of it will save lives.

    This is all proven science but for clowns of FM/R/F/B mafia/big pharma of course its conspiracy.

    E.g. Cholesterol is a no issue since the beginning as big pharma already cheated the first study...


    Almost nobody should take any Cholesterol reducing drugs. Only for people with vascular deposits it could make sense for e.g. a year at most...

    Doctors prescribing Cholesterol reducing drugs without deep testing simply are criminals.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    There is a logical inconsistency here perhaps? Which is worst, fructose or sucrose? It's hard to tell from this.

    The type is not the point. You should only have about 10% of your calorie intake to be sugar. You will get that in the foods you eat. Adding sugar to drinks and food is the killer. I grew up in a home that believed salt was the enemy. Turns out we were only half right, sugar is the true enemy. Stop sugar in your tea and coffee and all the sugar coated pastries. You'll feel so much better, and never have to diet again!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.