The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    Quote from Mark U

    Signal? What signal?

    You fail to understand what you are looking at. There are many more VAERS reports in the last two years because nearly the entire population of the U.S. was vaccinated 2 or 3 times. In a normal year, only children are routinely vaccinated, 15 times in a lifetime:


    Birth-18 Years Immunization Schedule | CDC


    Plus a fraction of the adult population gets influenza shots. In the past two years, there were all of these background shots plus roughly 600 million COVID shots, so the number of reports increased tremendously. Doctors and nurses are legally obligated to report any adverse reaction to any vaccine, even one that is expected and listed on the vaccine insert given to all patients, such as slight fever from the shingles vaccine. The mRNA vaccine adverse reactions are listed on p. 2, here:


    https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download


    They occurred at the expected rate. When you give 600 million vaccinations, the expected adverse reactions will occur and will be reported. That alone will greatly increase the number of VAERS reports, even though only a tiny fraction of these adverse reactions were serious. Doctors and nurses were particularly careful to monitor COVID vaccination results, asking patients to wait 30 minutes. They never did that with other vaccination I got, and they did not do that with the flu shots I got subsequently. Nearly all adverse reactions occur within 30 minutes of inoculation, so when you ask the patient to hang around, you catch them all. When you let patients go home, even the ones who experience an adverse reaction seldom bother to tell the doctors or nurses, so the reactions are never reported. Only a small number of VAERS reports are not from doctors or nurses, such as self-reported ones.


    The adverse reactions occurred at the rate predicted from the double-blind testing before the vaccine was approved. There is nothing unexpected, surprising or alarming about the surge in VAERS reports. The key thing is that there were fewer serious adverse reactions than other vaccines produce, and no deaths.


    This is described in great detail in various authoritative papers. I suggest you review these papers carefully before commenting. See the papers here, for example:


    Home | Covid-19 Data Science
    This page aggregates and tries to provide a balanced discussion of research results, data sets, applications and models, and commentaries regarding Covid-19,…
    www.covid-datascience.com

    Debulking different Corona (SARS-COV-2 delta, omicron, OC43) and influenza (H1N1, H3N2) virus strains by plant viral trap proteins in chewing gums to decrease infection and transmission


    Debulking different Corona (SARS-COV-2 delta, omicron, OC43) and influenza (H1N1, H3N2) virus strains by plant viral trap proteins in chewing gums to decrease infection and transmission
    Because oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is 3–5 orders of magnitude higher than nasal transmission, we investigated debulking of oral viruses using vir…
    www.sciencedirect.com


    Abstract

    Because oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is 3–5 orders of magnitude higher than nasal transmission, we investigated debulking of oral viruses using viral trap proteins (CTB-ACE2, FRIL) expressed in plant cells, delivered through the chewing gum. In omicron nasopharyngeal (NP) samples, the microbubble count (based on N-antigen) was significantly reduced by 20 μg of FRIL (p < 0.0001) and 0.925 μg of CTB-ACE2 (p = 0.0001). Among 20 delta or omicron NP samples, 17 had virus load reduced below the detection level of spike protein in the RAPID assay, after incubation with the CTB-ACE2 gum powder. A dose-dependent 50% plaque reduction with 50–100 ng FRIL or 600–800 μg FRIL gum against Influenza strains H1N1, H3N2, and Coronavirus HCoV-OC43 was observed with both purified FRIL, lablab bean powder or gum. In electron micrographs, large/densely packed clumps of overlapping influenza particles and FRIL protein were observed. Chewing simulator studies revealed that CTB-ACE2 release was time/dose-dependent and release was linear up to 20 min chewing. Phase I/II placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial (IND 154897) is in progress to evaluate viral load in saliva before or after chewing CTB-ACE2/placebo gum. Collectively, this study advances the concept of chewing gum to deliver proteins to debulk oral viruses and decrease infection/transmission.

    Very Best Supplement to Prevent COVID: Vitamin D


    Very Best Supplement to Prevent COVID: Vitamin D
    From the beginning of the pandemic, I have strongly advised use of vitamin D in the battle against COVID.&nbsp; Excellent research has found that you need a…
    www.trialsitenews.com


    joelshirschhorn

    medical researcher, analyst at Joel S. Hirschhorn | Telling the truth with good data

    Jul. 23, 2022, 4:30 p.m.

    Opinion Article

    From the beginning of the pandemic, I have strongly advised use of vitamin D in the battle against COVID. Excellent research has found that you need a blood level of at least 50 ng/ml. Sadly, very few people get their blood tested for vitamin D. Past studies have generally found Americans have much lower levels.


    Here is the big point. If public health agencies had pushed the wide use of vitamin D early in the pandemic, especially 5,000 units or more daily, there surely would have been virtually no pandemic. And no big need for COVID vaccines. It is a disgrace that governments worldwide have not promoted use of D, and that physicians have not urged their patients to take it. All this is inexplicable, unless you see the evil influence of Big Pharma. All the US government officials who pushed vaccines over vitamin D, especially Fauci, should be criminally prosecuted.


    Personally, I have been taking 8,000 units daily for some time and when I pushed my doctor to order a test for D my result was in the low 60s. In addition, to strengthen my immunity I also take quercetin, zinc and vitamin C. I also keep a supply of pills with very high concentration of the key D chemical just in case of serious symptoms.


    For those contemplating getting a vaccine or booster shot it pays to seriously consider a high daily dose of D, including your children. Unlike vaccines with their multitude of serious adverse impacts, including death, there are no negative impacts of D. Note that even today about 300 Americans are dying every day from COVID despite all the vaccine/booster shots. And if you choose the D strategy, please demand a blood test for D so you can confirm you are taking enough to get to at least 50 ng/ml in blood.


    Below is a slightly edited set of conclusions of a very new, detailed review of D titled: Rapidly Increasing Serum 25(OH)D Boosts the Immune System, against Infections—Sepsis and COVID-19. It is not easy reading, but very high quality.



    Conclusions from review article


    A robust immune system is essential to overcome infections without complications. It depends on the adequate entry of vitamin D3 and 25(OH)D into immune cells for generating calcitriol. The latter required maintaining a serum 25(OH)D concentration of over 50 ng/mL


    Therefore, to successfully manage and overcome an infectious epidemic or a pandemic, it is crucial to maintain the population’s serum 25(OH)D concentration above the mentioned therapeutic level. In acutely ill persons, especially those with vitamin D deficiency having infections, raising serum D3 and 25(OH)D concentrations quickly is paramount and life-saving. In these urgent situations, 0.5 to 1.0 mg of calcifediol can raise serum 25(OH)D concentrations above the minimum therapeutic levels of 50 ng/mL in four hours and boosts the immune system within a day that facilitates to overcome infections. While calcifediol raises serum 25(OH)D within hours, the oral administration of even high doses of vitamin D takes three to five days to raise serum 25(OH)D concentrations. This delay is due to its less efficient absorption than calcifediol and the need for vitamin D to undergo 25-hydroxylation in the liver, a rate-limiting step.


    In acutely ill patients, as in those in the ICU, administering even high doses of oral D3 may take a week to increase serum 25(OH)D concentration. Therefore, it is unhelpful in emergencies like SARS-CoV-2 infections. With a weight-based, single dose of calcifediol, as described in Table 3, circulatory 25(OH)D concentrations are maintained for approximately 8 to 14 days. In contrast, parental high dose vitamin D3, administered as loading or bolus, will maintain serum 25(OH)D concentrations between two to three months. Although the circulatory half-life of D3 is short, due to the larger initial doses, it maintains a higher circulatory concentration of both Nutrients 2022, 14, 2997 23 of 30 D3 and 25(OH)D for several weeks—partly because of the release from the storage in fat and muscle tissues. Therefore, with calcifediol, one should administer a suitable higher dose of vitamin D3. This can be done using 50,000 IU vitamin D capsules in outpatients’ setups and emergencies.


    Nevertheless, considering the non-genomic beneficial actions of vitamin D3 and its longer duration of physiological actions described above, the combination of D3 and calcifediol provides better clinical outcomes than either alone. Therefore, administering the proper doses of D3 and calcifediol is recommended for patients with infections as an adjunct therapy at the first outpatient or inpatient encounter. Multiple observational and RCTs have demonstrated that serum 25(OH)D concentrations (pre-infection or on admission) inversely correlated with the incidence, severity, and rates of death from COVID-19.


    Meanwhile, vitamin D supplementation significantly reduces complications and deaths. Irrespective of the regimen, initial bolus or loading doses of vitamin D and/or calcifediol should follow a daily or weekly, longer-term maintenance regimen. The described schedules in the three tables are highly cost-effective ways to raise serum 25(OH)D concentrations and maintain it to keep the immune system on high alert. Consequently, it prevents and/or reduces infections and complications from COVID-19 and other infections. For non-obese 70 kg adults, the recommended longer-term vitamin D3 maintenance dose is 5000 IU/(0.125 µg) day or 50,000 IU (1.25 mg)/week (or every ten days).


    Nevertheless, this regimen takes a few months to reach the desired serum 25(OH)D concentration above 50 ng/mL. It can be expedited by ingesting vitamin D, 10,000 IU/day (250 µg/day) for 8 to 10 weeks and reverting to the daily dose of 5000 IU. Rectifying vitamin D deficiency costs less than 0.1% of the costs related to evaluating and treating comorbidities and complications associated with vitamin D deficiency. For example, in western countries, vitamin D supplementation to maintain serum 25(OH)D costs approximately $8 per person/year, versus an average cost of $5000 to $15,000/year per person to manage vitamin D deficiency-associated diseases and related complications. Despite a favorable cost-benefit ratio, availability as a non-prescription over-the-counter nutrient, and exemplary safety profile, millions of people become ill due to vitamin D deficiency requiring medical attention, markedly increasing the cost of healthcare. Vitamin D deficiency increases healthcare costs, absenteeism and opportunity costs and reduces productivity. Considering the described significant benefits associated with disease prevention, reduced illness severity, reduced absenteeism, complications and deaths, improved well being and higher productivity, the calculated overall cost-benefit ratio for administered vitamin D3 supplements exceeds 1 in 20,000.


    Despite these data, no country is yet to recommend vitamin D (or has published proper guidelines with the right doses) for disease prevention or recommended it as an adjunct therapy to prevent complications and deaths from infections or other diseases. This report provides rationale, justifications, straightforward guidance, and practical tables that provide regimens for use in clinical practice for achieving and maintaining the serum 25(OH)D concentrations needed to ensure a robust immune system that helps to overcome infections, including SARS-CoV-2

    Trialsite news continues to follow vaccine development, yet some idiots call them an anti Vaxer site while they continue to promote lies!!!


    Novel COVID-19 Vaccine Has Potential to Transcend Mutations at Attractive Price Point—Looks like India's First Country Target


    Novel COVID-19 Vaccine Has Potential to Transcend Mutations at Attractive Price Point—Looks like India's First Country Target
    Recently, TrialSite learned of AKS-452, a potentially valuable novel investigational vaccine in development targeting SARS-CoV-2.&nbsp; Under clinical…
    www.trialsitenews.com


    Recently, TrialSite learned of AKS-452, a potentially valuable novel investigational vaccine in development targeting SARS-CoV-2. Under clinical development, this COVID-19 protein subunit vaccine candidate is developed on Akston Biosciences’ proprietary Fc fusion protein platform. The vaccine is designed to induce a Th1/Th2 mixed immune response against the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the novel coronavirus spike protein. Importantly, this COVID-19 vaccine product represents the potential for a vaccine that can be used across variants and be distributed around the world with more ease and affordability. Unlike other vaccines that must be kept refrigerated or even deep-frozen for transport and storage, AKS-452 has been shown to be shelf-stable for at least six months at 25° Celsius (77° Fahrenheit) and maintains its potency for up to one month at 37° Celsius (99° Fahrenheit). This can greatly simplify distribution and is critically important for vaccinating the billions of people not served by sophisticated and costly cold-chain transportation. In March of this year Akston Biosciences inked a deal with Biolexis, a Strides Group Company, and entered into a licensing, manufacturing, and commercialization agreement for AKS-452. Under the agreement, Biolexis secured the right to manufacture and commercialize AKS-452 (AmbiVax-C) in India as well as over 130 countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa mostly covering low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Stelis Biopharma, a biotech CDMO division of Strides Group, will manufacture the product.


    Clinical Updates

    Recently, Akston Biosciences announced along with Bioloexis the results from a Phase ½ clinical trial in India of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, AKS-452, in which 1,600 healthy volunteers participated – 100 in an open-label bridging study and 1,500 in Phase II/III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.


    What was the finding?

    The trial showed at an interim analysis of this data shows no significant safety issues and a 91% seroconversion rate at Day 56. Volunteers in the bridging study had antibody titers that persisted at statistically-significant high levels through six months, with serum taken from them showing protection against variants of concern.


    Who managed the clinical trial?

    Veeda Clinical Research Limited, a contract research organization (CR), managed the Phase 2/3 trial.


    Does AKS-452 include mRNA technology, gene therapy, or weakened SARS-CoV-2 virus?

    No. This experimental vaccine has been engineered to use established, low-cost, antibody production techniques, such that a single production line could be capable of producing over one billion doses per annum.


    What’s next in India?

    The results will be submitted as a prime vaccine in India for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Later clinical studies are planned to support approval for use as a booster shot to itself and other approved vaccines. Earlier studies in the Netherlands have demonstrated robust antibody neutralization of variants, including Delta and Omicron.


    What’s Akston Biosceinces background?

    Founded in 20100 by Todd Zion, Ph.D., Akston Biosciences leverages its novel fusion protein platform to develop and manufacture new classes of biologics, including vaccines, ultra-long-acting insulins, and autoimmune disease therapies. It was founded by the team that developed the world’s first clinical glucose-responsive insulin at SmartCells, Inc. (sold to Merck & Co.). Besides out-licensing AmbiVax-CTM to Biolexis, Akston has partnered with Dechra Pharmaceuticals PLC (DPH) to commercialize once-a-week canine and feline insulin therapies. It operates a GMP biologics manufacturing cleanroom facility and research laboratory at its Beverly, Mass. Location.


    What about Strides, the owner of Biolexis?

    Strides, a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in Bengaluru, India, is listed on the BSE (532531) and National Stock Exchange of India Limited (STAR). The Company mainly operates in the regulated markets, has an “in Africa for Africa” strategy, and an institutional business to service donor-funded needs. The Company’s global manufacturing sites are located in India (Chennai, Puducherry, and two locations in Bengaluru), Singapore, Italy (Milan), Kenya (Nairobi), and the United States (New York). The Company focuses on “difficult to manufacture” products sold in over 100 countries.


    And what about Stelis Biopharma?

    Stelis Biopharma Limited (Stelis) is an emerging global biopharmaceutical CDMO with a complete and integrated end-to-end offering. It is equipped with world-class Process Development (PD) and manufacturing infrastructure for both drug substances (mammalian and microbial-based therapeutic proteins and other emerging modalities) and drug products (lyophilized vials, liquid vials, pre-filled syringes, cartridges, and devices). Stelis offers the complete spectrum of services, from cell line tech transfer to clinical and commercial manufacturing, with in-house capability to convert drug substances to stable formulations and fill and finish in all formats. Stelis has three state-of-the-art facilities, with ~85,000 square meters of PD and manufacturing space and over 800 highly talented professionals. Its facilities are highly automated to increase accuracy, efficiency, and speed at every process stage.


    Call to Action: TrialSite will continue to monitor this COVID-19 vaccine candidate ongoing

    Big Pharma Wants to Put an End to Vitamins and Supplements


    Big Pharma Wants to Put an End to Vitamins and Supplements
    The pharmaceutical industry wants nothing more than to put an end to one of its biggest competitors - ...
    www.theepochtimes.com


    STORY AT-A-GLANCE

    One of the latest attempts to thwart your ability to access nutritional supplements comes in the form of draft legislation that would require premarket approval for dietary supplements. In short, it would require supplements — which are food — to undergo the same approval process as drugs

    In the past, the drug industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tried to ban certain supplements, including vitamin B6 and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), by reclassifying them as new drugs

    Another strategy the drug industry has been using to gain a monopoly over the supplement industry is to buy up supplement brands. Just 14 mega corporations — many of them drug companies — now own more than 100 of the most popular supplement brands on the market

    This monopoly over the supplement industry gives drug companies enormous regulatory influence, and that’s a way by which they could eliminate independent supplement makers who can’t afford to put their products through the drug approval process. Indeed, it seems that’s what the Durbin-Braun premarket approval proposal is trying to accomplish

    Take action to protect widespread access to dietary supplements. Contact your Senators and urge them to oppose the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022, and its inclusion in the FDA Safety Landmark Advancements Act

    Healthcare in America!


    America Was in an Early-Death Crisis Long Before COVID

    Even before the pandemic began, more people here were dying at younger ages than in comparably wealthy nations.


    America Was in an Early-Death Crisis Long Before COVID
    Even before the pandemic began, more people here were dying at younger ages than in comparably wealthy nations.
    www.theatlantic.com


    Jacob Bor has been thinking about a parallel universe. He envisions a world in which America has health on par with that of other wealthy nations, and is not an embarrassing outlier that, despite spending more on health care than any other country, has shorter life spans, higher rates of chronic disease and maternal mortality, and fewer doctors per capita than its peers. Bor, an epidemiologist at Boston University School of Public Health, imagines the people who are still alive in that other world but who died in ours. He calls such people “missing Americans.” And he calculates that in 2021 alone, there were 1.1 million of them.


    Bor and his colleagues arrived at that number by using data from an international mortality database and the CDC. For every year from 1933 to 2021, they compared America’s mortality rates with the average of Canada, Japan, and 16 Western European nations (adjusting for age and population). They showed that from the 1980s onward, the U.S. started falling behind its peers. By 2019, the number of missing Americans had grown to 626,000. After COVID arrived, that statistic ballooned even further—to 992,000 in 2020, and to 1.1 million in 2021. Were the U.S. “just average compared to other wealthy countries, not even the best performer, fully a third of all deaths last year would have been prevented,” Bor told me. That includes half of all deaths among working-age adults. “Think of two people you might know under 65 who died last year: One of them might still be alive,” he said. “It raises the hairs on the back of my neck

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Fm1 Why do you bother about a clown ?


    To understand the stupidity of a UK wannabe intellectual just watch once the famous Barry Lindon of the US director Kubrick that enden up in UK...

    I enjoy kicking his ass back under whatever rock he crawled out from. He also has a right to post his thoughts, as dimwitted as they are.

    Yes I posted them. Well I guess as a researcher you really aren't that good. I don't claim to know more than what the researchers conclude. You on the other hand seem to know more or understand better than the researchers. It's your anti science views that you really need to investigate. Don't take it from just me, the cold fusion crowd has the same opinion.


    Calling people names is no substitute for evidence.


    I am not, on this topic, a researcher. Nor are you.


    That is what I meant about swollen heads.


    Other than weak associational evidence - which those who are independent researcher don't much rate - I am struggling to find much.


    Since you are making the claim - and saying you know better than others - it is only courtesy that you support it. And not by referring vaguely to 200 papers. That requires us to trust your critical appraisal abilities - but we can't, because you, like me, are not an expert.


    Never mind. In the interests of everyone else on this thread I will do your work for you.


    The best I have found is this:

    Vitamin D Supplementation Associated to Better Survival in Hospitalized Frail Elderly COVID-19 Patients: The GERIA-COVID Quasi-Experimental Study - PubMed
    Regular bolus vitamin D supplementation was associated with less severe COVID-19 and better survival in frail elderly.
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    It shows marginally significant effect of high cholecalciferol (vit D) supplementation on death rate at 14 days:


    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]).


    Which vanished after 21 days:


    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.


    The people in this study were very high risk and ill.


    This, for me, is enough to stay interested in v high dose Vitamin D - but it is definitely not good evidence that it is overall effective. The doses here were single, 400,000IUD vs 50,000IUD. Such high doses may be tolerated by most people but you would have to be concerned about possible side effects - we have not exactly tested super-high doses of Vit D on large cohorts.


    The metabolite 25(OH)D is what is normally active in the bloodstream and it is boosted to 75nMol/ml within 7 days by 70,000IUD (approx the low dose). The very high dose here achieved 150nMol/ml, a level at which there are slight concerns about toxicity. They did not in their sample find any problems.


    Thus, to provide the greatest chance of finding benefit in life-threatening COVID-19, the dose regimen in our trial was designed to result in rapid attainment and maintenance of serum levels that were as high as safely possible [32]. There is concern that 25(OH)D concentrations above 125 nmol/L may be associated with adverse effects [33]. In our trial, the administration of 400,000 IU vitamin D3 resulted in a median 25(OH)D concentration of 150 nmol/L at day 7 without any differences compared to 50,000 IU vitamin D3 regarding the protocol-specified adverse events of interest (Table 3). In line with recent large RCTs that administered for several years 2,000 to 4,000 IU vitamin D3 per day to participants with a very satisfactory baseline vitamin D status [34,35], our study reveals that the risks associated with high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation are minimal during the study period. The clinical implication is that, in the absence of toxicity and given the benefits of high-dose vitamin D 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. However, the lack of protection after 28 days questions the single administration of vitamin D3 at the very beginning of the disease. Since the half-life of 25(OH)D is about 2.5 weeks, which implies that 25(OH)D at day 28 would be about half that at day 14, a continuous daily (or weekly) vitamin D supplementation following the loading dose [23] might be required to improve late survival at 28 days, but this deserves further studies especially since the serum 25(OH)D concentrations at day 14 and/or day 28 were not measured here. Similarly, our study was not designed to determine whether vitamin D3 supplementation can help prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.


    It is worth noting (nerdy but very relevant) that these results are not the straight RCT results.






    The raw (RCT) results between groups are no way statistically significant. They becomes significant only when extra correction is made from base-line characteristics used for randomization, which adds complexity to any interpretation. The particular corrections they do here are complex. I am not clear whether the statistics used to do this were nailed down by the initial trial design (OK), or whether they were worked out afterwards (lots of scope for cherry-picking to get a significant results). But I'm inclined to trust this paper since they are transparent and mention a lot of the caveats.


    The participants’ characteristics were summarized using means and standard deviations (SD) or frequencies and percentages, as appropriate. As the number of observations was higher than 40, comparisons were not affected by the shape of the error distribution and no transformation was applied [10]. Firstly, comparisons between participants separated into three groups according to the intervention (i.e., regular supplementation versus supplementation initiated after COVID-19 diagnosis versus no supplementation) were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Mann–Whitney–U and Kruskal–Wallis tests for quantitative variables as appropriate, and using Chi-square test or Fisher exact test for qualitative variables as appropriate. To address the issue of multiple comparisons, analyses were completed by a post hoc Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test. Secondly, a fully-adjusted Cox regression was used to examine the associations of 14-day mortality (dependent variable) with vitamin D supplementation and covariables (independent variables). The model produces a survival function that provides the probability of death at a given time for the characteristics supplied for the independent variables. Third, the elapsed time to death was studied by survival curves computed according to the Kaplan–Meier method and compared by log-rank test. Finally, a multiple logistic regression was used to examine the association of vitamin D supplementation (independent variable) with severe COVID-19 defined as an OSCI score ≥5 (dependent variable), while adjusting for potential confounders. p-values <0.05 were considered significant. All statistics were performed using SPSS (v23.0, IBM Corporation, Chicago, IL, USA) and SAS (v9.4, Sas Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA).


    Since I, like FM1, am no expert here I'd want to look at an expert unbiassed (e.g. not by one of the people convinced Vitamin D works) review.


    The Hirshhorn comment was that if Vit D supplementation had been widely used the course of the pandemic would have been very different. There is not evidence for that from this or anything else.



    Just to repeat: I'm not against Vit D supplementation. The evidence from this trial (limited, but worth following up) is that maybe Vit D decreases deaths later in the course of the disease, rather than having effect early on. So it would not be altering demand on hospital services and therefore the political pressure for lockdowns.


    Other evidence, for lower level Vit D supplementation (up to 75nMol/ml 25(OH)D I just have not seen.


    As of May 2021 the people who ARE experts in reviewing evidence find no clear evidence.


    Vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review - PubMed
    There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment of COVID-19. The evidence for the…
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    Caveat (not I think understood by all). Lack of evidence of efficacy is not the same as evidence of inefficacy. I am not arguing that we know Vitamin D is not effective. Just that I've seen no strong evidence it is effective.


    There is strong enough evidence that not being vitamin D deficient is worthwhile - since we all tend to be that nowadays (not enough sun) some supplementation is a good idea. There is evidence the UK guidelines on supplementation are a bit low.


    But, there is no evidence Vitamin D is a magic bullet.


    The most recent NICE guidelines have allowed Vitamin D treatment as part of a research trial only...

    Do not use vitamin D to treat COVID-19 except as part of a clinical trial.


    THH




    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Let me ask Mark U. What proportion of background deaths would you expect to be reported in the VAERS database? Quantify this. then we can see whether that blip is larger or smaller than (you) expect. You could start by comparing that blip with total US background deaths.

    Why not quantify it by comparing reported Covid vaccine deaths with reported flu vaccine deaths, as Wyttenbach said long ago.

    Over the last year and a half, 600 million covid vaccine doses have been administered to date in the US, amounting to 400 million per year.

    In the 2021 year, almost 200 million flu vaccines were distributed.

    Historical Reference of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Doses Distributed | CDC

    Let's say that 100 million flu vaccines doses were actually administered in one year.

    So the ratio of Covid vaccine to flu vaccines doses administered per unit time is less than 4.

    The ratio of Covid vaccine to all other vaccines doses administered per unit time is of course smaller still.

    By inspection, anybody can see that the spike in deaths reported to VAERS beginning in 2021 dwarfs anything that would be expected.

    Just saying again,


    People here claim to know better than the unbiassed researchers, based on their own reading or blatently biased write-ups from people with a specific view.


    What I can say with certainty (following experts) is that there is a lot of associational linkage between Vitamin D and better health - for pretty obvious reasons, and because low Vitamin D can be caused by lower health. So determining a causal link between higher Vitamin D and better health (in that direction) is always going to require very great care.


    Thus to convince the evidence needs to be very clear. It is not.


    I cannot make my own review of the evidence, juts as FM1 cannot (neither I nor he are an expert on meta-analysis). Those who are have not found conclusive evidence.


    Gut feeling (e.g. you read lots of stuff that seems positive) is a rubbish way to decide this stuff.


    THH

    Quote from Mark U

    Why not quantify it by comparing reported Covid vaccine deaths with reported flu vaccine deaths, as Wyttenbach said long ago.

    Other than that you should not do it because W suggests it...


    (sorry).


    No, the obvious reason you should not is because VAERS report frequency depends on how people feel about the possibility of a problem. Any new vaccine will naturally have every many more reports than an old and (as far as we know) unproblematic vaccine.


    You actually see VAERS signals (strong ones) from the PR around Court cases!


    The level of uncertainty over new COVID vaccines (licensed for experimental use faster than any other vaccine) is way higher than for a 30 year old Flu vaccine.


    Now, Mark U, do you understand this repeated by me many times point? I find it blindingly obvious myself. Do you dispute it (when it is what every unbiassed person working with VAERS cautions you about)? It was even highlighted as a phenomenon that would be used by antivaxxers before the vaccines came out. It is why the VAERS and other similar databases warn about this type of comparison - they measure how people feel about a vaccine and how much publicity its possible side effects have - not how dangerous it is. There are other databases which do that - however for some reason the antivaxxers never quote them.


    Forgive my tetchiness here but I have repeated this point over and over - and it has never been answered, nor have Mark U et all to my knowledge even acknowledged that it exists, and that it is why no-one except antivaxxers makes these comparisons.


    THH

    for an antivaxxer, VAERS gives:

    • reported Covid vaccine deaths
    • reported flu vaccine deaths


    For anyone else it gives reported deaths that are within some short period of a COVID or Flu jab. You then need to compensate as follows:

    (1) relate to number of jabs over time (divide by this). During mass covid vaccination there are a lot of jabs

    (2) relate to the background death rate of the jabbed population (which will determine the number of coincident deaths). This is complex but it can be done.

    (3) relate to the likelihood a coincidence will be reported to VAERS. Will an old person dying of a heart attack 7 days after a Flu jab be reported to VAERS? Not often. The same after a COVID jab? Much more likely.


    We can estimate (1) and (2). Unfortunately it is very difficult to estimate (3) so getting quantitative info from such a comparison as W and Mark U recommend is doomed.


    I'd like to ask politely (in line with this thread): is Mark U in maintaining this fictive comparison:

    (a) incapable of understanding the above?

    or

    (b) ignoring arguments contrary to his political views?

    or

    (c) Has the same collective inability to pay attention to what others say that W manifests. (It would be for a different reason perhaps - paranoid distrust of any mainstream expert rather than conviction that he must know better).


    I would very much like to understand this.


    And - to lighten things up a bit:


    Don’t Fall for the ‘VAERS Scare’ Tactic
    The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS is being misused by anti-vaxxers to terrify the public. It’s a shame because VAERS plays a vital role in…
    www.mcgill.ca


    It’s not how big your tool is, it’s how you use it

    To show that VAERS listings should not be taken at face value to mean that the vaccine caused the reported event, I trawled through the database’s reports on the COVID-19 vaccines. There were many, many reports of fever and injection site reactions (to be expected), but there were also, shall we say, head-scratching reports. A woman reported a large bald spot on top of her head following vaccination. Someone simply wrote in, “Nosebleed.” I saw a report of “anal leakage.” More than one person complained of suddenly becoming impotent. Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, the funniest report I saw stated, “My penis swelled to ten times its size.”



    Or, for a deep technical dive into VAERS use and idiotic misinterpretation:


    Are the vaccines really safe? What VAERs does and doesn't tell us about vaccine safety.
    Many people have been genuinely excited about the positive results from the Moderna and Pfizer/Moderna phase 3 trials suggesting the vaccines were safe and…
    www.covid-datascience.com


    THH




    I know, we are not supposed to engage in tech argument with antivaxxers. It just publicises their memes without any resolution because like Trump they will repeat lies as much as they like regardless of counterarguments. I just keep hoping that Mark U is not really an antivaxxer - and so is capable of thinking for himself. And I've blocked W so his views do not concern me.

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.