I write this while the editors-in-chief of VK, AD and Telegraaf at Jinek are shaking their heads and observing that social media spread harmful disinformation. But this afternoon Radio 1 was on for me and it was again a shame what the Dutch state broadcaster performed. Unbelievable, to lie like this to all those people who are unable to properly inform themselves and dig for the underlying information. Radio1 listeners in particular think they are in safe hands. The media abuse their position, it's really horrible.
Why, what could be the reason, that the public broadcaster deliberately misinforms the population about good nutrition and effective immunity-enhancing supplements? Why for heaven's sake? Which sick minds are the editors there?
So I have to use social media to correct incorrect information that was just announced on Radio 1. That's bad, who is a journalist here? When someone says 'it has been scientifically proven that Vitamin D and Zinc do not work against Covid-19. That was on the radio, then you know why. In the audio recording below you can hear how it was claimed that this had been scientifically proven.
This 'news' initially surprised me because I follow things quite closely - but of course there can always be a knowledge breakthrough.
Factcheck: "Vaccin kan covid-19 niet voorkomen"
When I went to check that Vitamin D debunking, it became clear once again what kind of liars they are on Radio 1. Still a bit of indoctrination in a funny way thrown into the ether. Tomorrow we will jokingly rectify it again for Jan Publiek; The damage has already been done.
The source that was mentioned was the Belgian Knack: SHC: 'Vitamin D supplements cannot prevent Covid-19'. Once again it seems that something from other media is being echoed indiscriminately because it is appropriate in the context. Copy-paste journalism, that's a shame.
Title analysis
De titel "Vitamine D-supplementen kunnen covid-19 niet voorkomen" kan op twee manieren worden gelezen.
- "Vitamine D is geen garantie dat je gezond blijft".
- "Vitamine D heeft geen (preventieve?) werking op Covid-19".
Anyone with even one brain understands that there is no guarantee. Even the much-vaunted vaccine does not offer that guarantee - but that is not how it is talked about. I don't see a head yet "Pfizer vaccin kan Covid-19 niet voorkomen". You could say that very well, even if the 95% effectiveness is correct. After all, you remain at risk of developing that disease, so prevention... no.
Of course, Radio 1 takes the explanation that keeps the need for vaccination alive. That remains the only point of focus, in accordance with the instructions of program management Hugo de Jonge cs.
What do recent studies say?
I immediately went to PubMed to see what I could have missed in recent studies on the link between Covid-19 and Vitamin D levels. I have looked at the first five relevant and recent studies. These studies signal without exception a positive link between Vitamin D and Covid-19 Resistance Recommend Use and insist on the need for further thorough research to substantiate. More about the problems with the evidence later. I have put some phrases (and the links) of the most recent studies at the bottom of this article.
As a 'treatment', i.e. using Vitamin D as medication to cure the (severely) ill, doctors have actually tried it everywhere, that's how strong the connection is. And in high doses, it is that safe (at the recommended daily amount).
De "bron" legt armetierige Radio 1 journalistiek bloot
On Knack.be reference is made to a PDF: the latest advice from the Superior Health Council. After all, Knack is not a 'source' at all, only for lazy copy/paste editors who have had something chewed out by another editor. Then take a look at that HGR advice PDF yourself, maybe the Belgians have discovered something new. That's the minimum I would expect from a Radio 1 editorial team.
The main line that runs through everything is that people with Vitamin Dlack becoming more often and more seriously ill from a SARS-Cov-2 infection. The moment doctors start administering large doses to the seriously ill, they achieve little or no result. Who would have thought. They then conclude that it has no effect. You may not believe it, but that's really how they work and research.
Nu mogen ze alleen "experimenteren" in een klinische setting, dat wil zeggen als mensen al zo ziek zijn dat ze in het ziekenhuis liggen. Een kind snapt dat het dan een beetje laat is om je Vitamine D- en Zinkniveaus op peil te krijgen - en al lukt dat, dan nog... Inderdaad, een kind snapt dat misschien maar ja: als artsen er niet mee kunnen behandelen, werkt het voor hun dus niet.
Zinc: cause and effect
As far as zinc is concerned, there are positive studies: more serious disease progression at lower zinc levels. However, HGR itself concludes that severe inflammation lowers the Zinc level, which is a well-known phenomenon. They therefore believe that you should also be able to turn the statement around: with a high zinc level you should not be able to get sick... and guess what? There are people who still get sick despite having enough Zinc. So it doesn't work. It's like proving that seat belts don't work if there are road casualties.
If something doesn't seem to work, it's mainly in the minds of the Superior Health Council. It will be found why Zinc sometimes protects and sometimes not. Or maybe the Zinc level is affected by other causes. But the fact that you don't know that yet should not be a reason to doubt the effect of a proven safe and sensible supplement. Only when no one has a zinc deficiency anymore can you start discriminating on other factors. Fat, for example.
Researchk with obstacles Echt goede, grote studies worden niet gedaan omdat die onethisch zijn: je zou grote groepen mensen moedwillig moeten besmetten om de resultaten goed te kunnen vergelijken tussen placebo en medicatie. Dat gaat nu eenmaal niet. Daarvoor worden te weinig mensen ziek van SARS-Cov-2. Het argument van "niet wetenschappelijk bewezen in een RCT" kan dus niet meer met goed fatsoen geaccepteerd worden. Het gaat dan immers niet meer om werkzaamheid. Het gaat alleen om het afdraaien van protocollen. De methode van wetenschappelijk onderzoek die men graag zou willen is hier simpelweg niet op berekend. Er moet, zeker in een crisis, verstandig worden nagedacht in plaats van gemeten.
It is as if they insist on measuring with a ruler that the bath water has the right temperature.
Cherries from the pie
So there are all kinds of circumstances under which Vitamin D is of no use. One of them is when someone is already critically ill. This also applies to Zinc (and to HCQ, although this will not be discussed further here). So I'll do some 'cherry picking' from the SHC's advice: I'll cite the proven positive results. I leave the 'treatment problem' for what it is: a problem for doctors, not for potential patients.
The positive findings are sometimes also a reason for doctors to reason further, to construct a hypothesis about a treatment and if that hypothesis cannot be 'proven', they believe there is something wrong with the effectiveness. Silly of course. We understand that D and Zinc are not instant miracle cures. The Supreme Health Council also sees it, just read:
Quotes from the latest advice from the Superior Health Council: Vitamin D
- The difference is with a 70% reduction in risk (IC: 47 to 83) more significant in patients with an initial deficiency of Vit. D. [Initially: so not only administered as a medicine in high doses, but simply in people with a good mirror]
- There are strong arguments in favour of regular vitamin D supplementation spread over time.
- Better vitamin D status before infection reduces risk to develop a severe form of Covid-19.
- We cannot rule out the possibility that high doses of vitamin D administered at an early stage a positive effect could have.
- These few studies show that vitamin D could be one of the measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of vitamin D Reduce progression from infection to disease and perhaps to increase the frequency of reduce the number of serious casesn.
Hoezo Lammert: "Niet effectief". Je bent al net zo'n ... als Keulemans.
SHC: Conclusions and practical recommendations Vitamin D
- In the current circumstances of the pandemic and given the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, it is necessary to ensure that the population is getting enough vitamin D
- Vitamin D should in a regular way (daily, weekly or monthly) And not once or twice a year in the form of megadoses. Max 30 μg per day.
- In patients at high risk of developing Covid-19 and in patients who have tested positive but do not show symptoms, it is recommended to have their vitamin D status check.
- In population groups where the prevalence of a vitamin D deficiency is very high such as the elderly in nursing homes, pregnant women, people with dark skin, some vegetarians, etc. will be administered vitamin D routinely.
No, Lammert, all nonsense, that Vitamin D.
Quotes from the latest advice from the Superior Health Council: Zinc
- Zinc appears to have a preventive effect and to play a role in the Reduction of severity and durationr of lung infections. These findings could be transferred to Covid-19.
- Other authors suggested that no longer waiting to administer Zinc preventively en ook aan oudere patiënten en patiënten met chronische ziekten (Wessels, Rolles & Rink, 2020; Alexander et al, 2020, Hunter et al, 2020).
SHC: Conclusions and practical recommendations Zinc
- Still [sic! do I taste disgust?] in the current circumstances of the pandemic, it is important that the entire population sufficient Zinc .
- Persons at high risk of infection, who are not yet infected and therefore do not show Covid19 symptoms, can preventive Receiving a supplement with moderate doses for 3 to 4 weeks.
Not proven effective, eh Lammert?
Hieronder enkele vertaalde quotes uit recente studies naar Vitamine D, na een half uurtje lezen in PubMed. Gezocht op "Covid 19 Vitamin D":
Does vitamin D supplementation prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in military personnel? Review of the evidence
Vitamin D status can influence the risk of acute respiratory infection, especially in a military cohort, although further research is desired.
There are mechanistic and observational data on vitamin D repletion and on the reduction in COVID-19 severity, although more interventional data is needed.
Vitamin D in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients with non-invasive ventilation support
a significant part of the COVID-19 patients have a VitD deficiency
Vitamin D Levels in O2-supported patients [i.e. the less severe] were significantly higher than in both CPAP and NIMV patients.
Inositol and vitamin D may naturally protect human reproduction and women undergoing assisted reproduction from Covid-19 risk
Vitamin D deficiency shows increased susceptibility to acute viral respiratory infections. In addition, vitamin D appears to be involved in the Protecting the host from different virus species by modulating the activation and release of cytokines.
Tot 50% van de bevolking lijkt een VD-deficiëntie te hebben, met serumniveaus <10 ng / ml
Supplementing these molecules could be a possible alternative therapy to reduce the hyperimmune activation caused by Combat COVID-19
… [taking] Vitamin D is said to be a Effective and safe prophylactic approach [prophylactic: as a precaution] against the infection.
Since the association between MI and vitamin D has already been successfully proven in pregnancy without side effects, such molecules could be used as prophylactic therapy against COVID-19 in women seeking natural conception or during assisted reproductive programs.
Impact of Serum 25(OH) Vitamin D Level on Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 in Turkey
Vitamin D-insufficiency was present in 93.1% of patients with critically critical COVID-19.
...vitamin D was independent [i.e. independent, independent of other characteristics or substances] associated with mortality in COVID-19-patients.
