The Playground

  • High-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D supplementation in older adults with COVID-19 (COVIT-TRIAL): A multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial


    High-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D supplementation in older adults with COVID-19 (COVIT-TRIAL): A multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial
    In a randomized trial, Cedric Annweiler and colleagues evaluate whether a single high dose of vitamin D3 improves survival among older adults in France with…
    journals.plos.org


    Abstract

    Background

    Vitamin D supplementation has been proposed as a treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on experimental data and data from small and uncontrolled observational studies. The COvid19 and VITamin d TRIAL (COVIT-TRIAL) study was conducted to test whether a single oral high dose of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) administered within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19 improves, compared to standard-dose cholecalciferol, the 14-day overall survival among at-risk older adults infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).


    Methods and findings

    This multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, superiority trial involved collaboration of 9 medical centers in France. Patients admitted to the hospital units or living in nursing homes adjacent to the investigator centers were eligible if they were ≥65 years, had SARS-CoV-2 infection of less than 3 days, and at least 1 COVID-19 worsening risk factor (among age ≥75 years, SpO2 ≤94%, or PaO2/FiO2 ≤300 mm Hg). Main noninclusion criteria were organ failure requiring ICU, SpO2 ≤92% despite 5 L/min oxygen, life expectancy <3 months, vitamin D supplementation >800 IU/day during the preceding month, and contraindications to vitamin D supplements. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either a single oral high-dose (400,000 IU) or standard-dose (50,000 IU) cholecalciferol administered under medical supervision within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but the Steering Committee and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board were masked to the randomization group and outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 14-day overall mortality. Between April 15 and December 17, 2020, of 1,207 patients who were assessed for eligibility in the COVIT-TRIAL study, 254 met eligibility criteria and formed the intention-to-treat population. The median age was 88 (IQR, 82 to 92) years, and 148 patients (58%) were women. Overall, 8 (6%) of 127 patients allocated to high-dose cholecalciferol, and 14 (11%) of 127 patients allocated to standard-dose cholecalciferol died within 14 days (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.39 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.99], P = 0.049, after controlling for randomization strata [i.e., age, oxygen requirement, hospitalization, use of antibiotics, anti-infective drugs, and/or corticosteroids] and baseline imbalances in important prognostic factors [i.e., sex, ongoing cancers, profuse diarrhea, and delirium at baseline]). The number needed to treat for one person to benefit (NNTB) was 21 [NNTB 9 to ∞ to number needed to treat for one person to harm (NNTH) 46]. Apparent benefits were also found on 14-day mortality due to COVID-19 (7 (6%) deaths in high-dose group and 14 (11%) deaths in standard-dose group; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.86], P = 0.02). The protective effect of the single oral high-dose administration was not sustained at 28 days (19 (15%) deaths in high-dose group and 21 (17%) deaths in standard-dose group; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.36 to 1.36], P = 0.29). High-dose cholecalciferol did not result in more frequent adverse effects compared to the standard dose. The open-label design and limited study power are the main limitations of the study.


    Conclusions

    In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we observed that the early administration of high-dose versus standard-dose vitamin D3 to at-risk older patients with COVID-19 improved overall mortality at day 14. The effect was no longer observed after 28 days.


    Trial registration

    ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344041.


    Author summary

    Why was this study done?

    Preclinical data suggest that vitamin D may attenuate the effects of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by exerting anti-inflammatory effects and by regulating the renin–angiotensin system, thus potentially preventing the cytokine storm and its lethal consequences.

    Observational studies have reported that, while accounting for confounders, participants with lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations were more likely to progress to severe forms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to die from COVID-19.

    Observational studies have also found that vitamin D3 supplementation prior to or during COVID-19 was associated with improved survival in older adults with COVID-19.

    Clinical trials to evaluate the impact on survival of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 patients have yet not been performed.

    What did the researchers do and find?

    In this multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), we randomly assigned 254 at-risk older adults with COVID-19 to a single oral high-dose (400,000 IU) or standard-dose (50,000 IU) vitamin D3 administered within 72 hours after the diagnosis of COVID-19, with 14-day survival as the primary outcome.

    We found that the early administration of 400,000 IU versus 50,000 IU vitamin D3 to at-risk older patients with COVID-19 was associated with reduced overall mortality at day 14. The protective effect was not sustained at 28 days.

    High-dose cholecalciferol did not result in more frequent adverse effects compared to the standard dose.

    What do these findings mean?

    In the absence of toxicity and given the benefits of high-dose vitamin D found on 14-day mortality, a combination therapy with both standard treatments for COVID-19 and high doses of vitamin D3 may be proposed to at-risk older patients with COVID-19 within the first hours of the infection.

    The lack of protection after 28 days should encourage examination of the possible benefit of a continuous daily (or weekly) vitamin D supplementation following the initial loading dose.

    Our study was not designed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation helps with prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

  • The study results, uploaded in ResearchSquare, suggest people under the age of 65 may have worse mortality outcomes if they take Paxlovid, suggesting caution should be imposed on age recommendations if shown to be the case via the peer review process.

    One more euthanasia track you can choose.


    My Omicron experience as unvaxx = no gene therapy just tetanus... is a very high temperature of 37.4C for some hours and some pain in the throat that was gone after Betadine treatment...


    So Omicron was a very mild cold thanks to Ivermectin/Sutherlandia/Nigella Sativa I took from day one....


    We see the same for the 100% unaxx North Korea


    conclusion no gene therapy (no vaxx) no death...


    4x vaxx like THH ==> antivaxx rhetoric, blind follow the propaganda ==> mind blow...

  • We found that the early administration of 400,000 IU versus 50,000 IU vitamin D3 to at-risk older patients with COVID-19 was associated with reduced overall mortality at day 14. The protective effect was not sustained at 28 days.

    One more nice killer study... Help for 14 days but no second dose for the next 14 days...


    I know why I did not study medicine. Even more clowns/killers work there...

  • One more nice killer study... Help for 14 days but no second dose for the next 14 days...


    I know why I did not study medicine. Even more clowns/killers work there...

    Had they continued dosing you would not see the effect on immidiate results. So although I agree with the killer study impression it served it's purpose showing vitamin d in large dose can and does have a positive affect on covid as well as being safe. Continued dosing would show a positive affect after 28 days if they chose to continue dosing!

  • Seems they do not account for the volcanic or Cern.

    For some reason this has been pushing my buttons lately.

    thank you for looking..

  • Towards the emergence of a new form of the neurodegenerative Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: Twenty six cases of CJD declared a few days after a COVID-19 “vaccine” Jab


    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358661859_Towards_the_emergence_of_a_new_form_of_the_neurodegenerative_Creutzfeldt-Jakob_disease_Twenty_six_cases_of_CJD_declared_a_few_days_after_a_COVID-19_vaccine_Jab


    . ABSTRACT We highlight the presence of a Prion region in the different Spike proteins of the original SARS-CoV2 virus as well as of all its successive variants but also of all the “vaccines” built on this same sequence of the Spike SARS-CoV2 from Wuhan. Paradoxically, with a density of mutations 8 times greater than that of the rest of the spike, the possible harmfulness of this Prion region disappears completely in the Omicron variant. We analyze and explain the causes of this disappearance of the Prion region of the Spike of Omicron. At the same time, we are analyzing the concomitance of cases, which occurred in various European countries, between the first doses of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine and the sudden and rapid onset of the first symptoms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which usually requires several years before observing its first symptoms. We are studying 26 Creutzfeld Jakob Diseases, in 2021, from an anamnestic point of view, centered on the chronological aspect of the evolution of this new prion disease, without being able to have an explanation of the etiopathogenic aspect of this new entity. We subsequently recall the usual history of this dreadfull subacute disease, and compare it with this new, extremely acute, prion disease, following closely vaccinations. In a few weeks, more 50 cases of almost spontaneous emergence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have appeared in France and Europe very soon after the injection of the first or second dose of Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneka vaccines. To summarize, of the 26 cases analyzed, the first symptoms of CJD appeared on average 11.38 days after the injection of the COVID-19 "vaccine". Of these 26 cases, 20 had died at the time of writing this article while 6 were still alive. The 20 deaths occurred only 4.76 months after the injection. Among them, 8 of them lead to a sudden death (2.5 months). All this confirms the radically different nature of this new form of CJD, whereas the classic form requires several decades

  • Sorry for me popping up again in this forum, but the recent comment posted by JR provides interesting clues about the old diatribe on the F&P reliability.

    Power density roughly 10,000 times higher than any chemical fuel has been recorded. However, these experiments were not well documented. The experiment I usually point to is Roulette, Roulette and Pons.


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf

    It seems to me that results in the above document are not well documented as well, just claims. But, at least, the Roulette's paper contains a very revealing admission:


    From https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf


    These calorimeters are much improved in thermal dissipation, sensitivity, precision, and accuracy compared to the original calorimeters used in these laboratories from 1992 to 1995. […] Foam rise in the calorimeter at the boiling temperature has been minimized.


    As I had already explained in the past, the foam buildup inside the 4 electrolytic cells provides a simple, ordinary explanation, with no need to invoke the production of any excess-heat, of what is shown in the lab videos recorded during the 1992 boil-off experiment. Now, the Roulette's paper confirms that this crucial experiment was performed in the period when "Foam [rose] in the calorimeter at the boiling temperature".


    Quote

    It was obvious from the very first paper that cold fusion cannot be chemical. F&P wrote: "It is inconceivable that this could be due to anything but nuclear processes.” They were right!


    Yes, but it is also obvious, IMO, that the excess heat claimed by F&P was neither nuclear, but just misinterpretation of experimental evidence, as clearly shown in the videos of the 1992 boil-off experiment.


    Sorry to say again that F&P were wrong.

  • As I had already explained in the past, the foam buildup inside the 4 electrolytic cells provides a simple, ordinary explanation, with no need to invoke the production of any excess-heat, of what is shown in the lab videos recorded during the 1992 boil-off experiment.

    And as I explained in the past, the excess heat was also measured in other phases of the experiments, by many other methods, with different instrument types, such as flow and Seebeck calorimeters. If excess heat had only been measured in boil off phase-change calorimeters, you might have a point. But that is not the case. It is not possible that your proposed error in boil-off calorimetry also applies to these other phases and methods. If you wish to disprove all results, you must also explain, for example, why the isoperibolic calorimetry by Miles with a copper sheath calorimeter is wrong; why the flow calorimetry by McKubre is wrong; and why the Seebeck calorimetry by Storms is wrong. That's only the start of the list. You have to explain 20 or 30 other experiments. There are no systematic errors common to all of them. Because the calorimetric systems are different, based on different physics. A problem with a boil off method simply does not apply to a Seebeck calorimeter.


    As I also explained, the control experiments with the boil off methods show no excess heat, so you are wrong for that reason as well.

  • Just interesting..

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • As all this is played off as commercialism

    or capitalism Commercialism: the attitude or actions of people who are influenced too strongly by the desire to earn money or buy goods, rather than other values. Commercialism is born from aggressive capitalism, an obsession with profit and expansion

    until an intervention of an apocalyptic attitude steps in it seems most have surrendered to all this knowing they cant change it without the system going after them or Him.

    When intention is at the door a diction language as a one on one will likely start soon and the beginning of the end will start as a stimulation of fear that we have now but the act of Commercialism starts a new aggregation that can't be tolerated.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Well, the CIA's motto is 'In God we Trust' whilst the FBI's is 'The Truth will always (come) Out' - Whether the CIA or FBI win now is irrelevant in the face of Third World War and the Rise of the Fourth Reich. Both Federal and Underground Investigations are controlled now by the Biden Administration with the sole aim of defeating the countries that make up the New Communist Blocs, the Russians and the Chinese and their allies (N. Korea, Chechnya, Belarus, Iran, Syria, Allied African States, etc., etc. etc.-so the World is polarised in a binary state - black or white with no grey areas left in between. The most dangerous time to live in is now.

  • that make up the New Communist Blocs, the Russians and the Chinese and their allies (N. Korea, Chechnya, Belarus, Iran, Syria, Allied African States,

    No these are by definition fascist countries. Blackrock is fascism too. Always when abstract values (money) have a higher weight than human rights we call it fascism. So one root of modern fascism is Harvard.

  • The last attempt of the vaccine mafia to shed young children into CoV-19 gen-therapy: https://mainichi.jp/english/ar…20607/p2a/00m/0na/028000c


    A very rare from of brain disorder has been found in young child that had Covid. Dozens so far have been killed by the "vaccines".. thousands will live with live long vaxx damage.


    CoV-19 gen therapy did not save a single live. The CoV-19 gen therapy (called vaccine) just stimulates the immune system for a short period only and thus just delays death.



    Here an overview (german) https://www.infosperber.ch/ges…ich-der-covid-impfstoffe/


    Ironically the newest Israel study shows that people with a single gen-therapy dose overall do best....3x boosters do worst.

  • Covid-⁠19 Schweiz | Coronavirus | Dashboard
    Covid-⁠19 Pandemie Schweiz und Liechtenstein: Fallzahlen, Virusvarianten, Hospitalisationen, Re-⁠Wert, Spitalkapazitäten, internationale Lage, Zahlen zu Tests,…
    www.covid19.admin.ch


    We still have about 1500 cases/day but ICU's are empty. We can definitely conclude that nobody goes to ICU due to Omicron. As the weekend load tends to be zero patients.


    In Switzerland nobody not even in hospitals is forced to wear a mask. If you test positive you must not isolate.


    CoV-19 terror states like USA/Japan/Germany still force you to wear mask Japan even outdoors.

  • If excess heat had only been measured in boil off phase-change calorimeters, you might have a point.

    But this point is enough. This is a match point, the definitive match point! :)


    The available lab videos are more than sufficient to say F&P were wrong, and this happened for the most important and best documented experiment of the field. In fact, the 1992 boil-off experiment is the only experiment for which we can look at exactly the same experimental evidence that led F&P to claim that "excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input".


    But they blatantly misinterpreted the experimental evidence, and the videos confirm their incredible mistake. What else do you need to conclude that F&P were unreliable? There is no other direct evidence of the alleged dramatic heating effect of their method other than the videos of the 1992 boil-off experiment. The rest of their claims are not supported by any equivalent evidence and can be simply explained by artifacts or misinterpretations of the experimental data.


    Quote

    If you wish to disprove all results, …


    No, there is no need to disprove other results. The errors in evaluating the energy balance in the 1992 boil-off experiment irreparably compromises the credibility, not only of F&P, but also of the entire field, because, in 2004, that work was selected by the most important experts in the field to be submitted to DoE, and it appeared on the top of the short list of CF experiments that should have unequivocally demonstrated the reality of CF.


    Quote

    … you must also explain, for example, why the isoperibolic calorimetry by Miles with a copper sheath calorimeter is wrong; why the flow calorimetry by McKubre is wrong; and why the Seebeck calorimetry by Storms is wrong. That's only the start of the list. You have to explain 20 or 30 other experiments. There are no systematic errors common to all of them.

    Yes, there is an obvious systematic error: misinterpretations induced by wishful thinking. This people were well aware of the existence of the videos of the 1992 boil-off experiment, but none of them denounced what is so evident from the sequence of their images, that is that F&P's most important experiment was wrong. The same favorable bias cold have been applied to their own results.


    Therefore, IMO, the reluctance of CF experts to acknowledge the obvious mistakes made by F&P, undermines the credibility of the entire CF field.

  • The Foegen effect: A mechanism by which facemasks contribute... : Medicine (lww.com)


    This study applied secondary data on case updates, mask mandates, and demographic status related to Kansas State, USA. A parallelization analysis based on county-level data was conducted on these data. Results were controlled by performing multiple sensitivity analyses and a negative control.

    A parallelization analysis based on county-level data showed that in Kansas, counties with mask mandate had significantly higher case fatality rates than counties without mask mandate, with a risk ratio of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.51–2.10) for COVID-19-related deaths. Even after adjusting for the number of “protected persons,” that is, the number of persons who were not infected in the mask-mandated group compared to the no-mask group, the risk ratio remained significantly high at 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24–1.72). By analyzing the excess mortality in Kansas, this study determines that over 95% of this effect can solely be attributed to COVID-19.

    These findings suggest that mask use might pose a yet unknown threat to the user instead of protecting them, making mask mandates a debatable epidemiologic intervention.

    The cause of this trend is explained herein using the “Foegen effect” theory; that is, deep re-inhalation of hypercondensed droplets or pure virions caught in facemasks as droplets can worsen prognosis and might be linked to long-term effects of COVID-19 infection. While the “Foegen effect” is proven in vivo in an animal model, further research is needed to fully understand it.

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.