Jump to content

Menu

Vitamin D and Covid-19 info to share with friends and family


ElizabethB
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-0661-0

Vitamin D importance.  

 

 

“Overall, doses above 6000 IU/d are needed to achieve serum 25(OH)D concentrations above 100 nmol/L and intakes of vitamin D up to 15,000 IU/d were found to be safe [29]. Association between patients’ initial response to vitamin D supplementation with disease progression, recovery, and various clinical outcomes need to be investigated. Following 100,000 IU start dose, we propose patients to continue with the dose of 50,000 IU taken once a week for the second and third weeks. Following doses of 50,000 IU is suggested to achieve optimal levels of 25(OH)D in patients with poor baseline vitamin D status. “

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Well shoot.  Silicon Valley is at 37.3.  And here I thought I was making vitamin D by getting tan.

 

At this time of year you are probably able to get enough sun to be making some D. But it may be less than you think.  There are online calculators that can help you to figure out how much you are likely getting from sun exposure. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2020 at 9:22 PM, BeachGal said:

 

I have the same experience.

The lancet that comes with the diy kits seems to make a deeper and/or wider cut. The drops of blood are huge and drip for awhile afterward. When I test my blood sugar using my own, adjustable lancet, I don’t have nearly as much blood.

My blood on the card also stays red. Maybe it’s a chemical on the card? Don’t know. I’ve read that bright red blood in a tube is a sign of oxygenated blood, which is good. Also, when oxygen/ozone is bubbled into blood, it will turn a much brighter red. It’s a typical response.

My results should be posted very soon. Curious to see what they are.

 

My finger also was bruised after, but is better now.  I think the lancet was both deeper and wider than I had had for previous self tests. 

 

Did your results arrive?  

Mine are not yet available.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2020 at 1:05 PM, ElizabethB said:

Really interesting new vitamin D article by a Scottish doctor, he has some interesting graphs with vitamin D levels in the UK for every month of the year, a parabola opposite the flu parabola.  Also, "To put this another way, of those 104 subjects who took 2,000 IU of vitamin D every day, only one got a cold or influenza in the entire year."  I read and linked the flu vs. vitamin D study, but he has a graph and numbers that show just how powerful supplementation for the flu was.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/04/28/covid-update-focus-on-vitamin-d/

well, I have routinely taken more than that, and I got colds...maybe I'm just lucky. 

On 5/5/2020 at 4:31 PM, ElizabethB said:

Vitamin D could even explain some of the Kawasaki disease that is being seen in children with Covid-19.

“A significantly higher percentage of KD patients (98.7 %) were shown to have reduced 25(OH)-vitamin D levels (<30 ng/mL) in comparison with controls (78.6 %, p < 0.0001).”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10067-015-2970-6

Lovely, sigh. DS7, the one with PANDAS, had low D from absorbtion issues due to Celiac. We have not rechecked due to the shut down, but just lovely. He already has two autoimmune diseases, possibly low D.....ugh. 

(we do supplement, 2,000 IU a day per his neuropsychiatrist, but not every day as we forget, lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

well, I have routinely taken more than that, and I got colds...maybe I'm just lucky. 

Lovely, sigh. DS7, the one with PANDAS, had low D from absorbtion issues due to Celiac. We have not rechecked due to the shut down, but just lovely. He already has two autoimmune diseases, possibly low D.....ugh. 

(we do supplement, 2,000 IU a day per his neuropsychiatrist, but not every day as we forget, lol)

If you are low, 2,000 a day is not enough.  You need at least 4,000 a day to build up.  I have food allergy issues, I have to take mine weekly.  50,000 per week for buildup, my regular doctor thought 15,000 per week to maintain, but I need 30,000 per week to maintain, I don't think I absorb things as well with my allergy issues, it's variable how much you need.  Daily is better but if you're going to forget, weekly works almost as well.  Or, put in a pill box, if you forget one day, take double the next day, make sure you use up the week's ration.  It's important for so many things, you don't want to be low.

Sun is good right now, though, too!  It is probably more efficient than from pills for him right now.  Solar noon, no sunscreen, wear just shorts, start at 10 minutes a day, build up to 20, you don't want to burn.  I have to supplement more in peak summer, I don't tolerate heat well anymore with my allergies, I get heat activated allergy problems, I can only get D from the sun in Spring and late summer when it's cooler.  

Edited by ElizabethB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

well, I have routinely taken more than that, and I got colds...maybe I'm just lucky. 

Lovely, sigh. DS7, the one with PANDAS, had low D from absorbtion issues due to Celiac. We have not rechecked due to the shut down, but just lovely. He already has two autoimmune diseases, possibly low D.....ugh. 

(we do supplement, 2,000 IU a day per his neuropsychiatrist, but not every day as we forget, lol)

 

Perhaps Scottish people developed genetics better able to deal with far northern / low Vitamin D conditions such that just 2000 IU daily does more for them on average than it does for me.

 

https://vitamindwiki.com/Overview+Loading+of+vitamin+D

 

 

Response with 400,000 IU loading dose @ is.gd/7DayVitD
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2020 at 10:39 PM, Pen said:

 

My finger also was bruised after, but is better now.  I think the lancet was both deeper and wider than I had had for previous self tests. 

 

Did your results arrive?  

Mine are not yet available.

 

 

Got the results today — 66. Happy with that!

It took three weeks to get the results, though. Grassroots. They tend to be a bit slow anyway. I think because they’re a small operation.

I take 8,000 to 12,000 IU daily throughout the year along with K2. I got the unlucky genes for vitamin D. The bigger doses work for me, though.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeachGal said:

 

Got the results today — 66. Happy with that!

It took three weeks to get the results, though. Grassroots. They tend to be a bit slow anyway. I think because they’re a small operation.

I take 8,000 to 12,000 IU daily throughout the year along with K2. I got the unlucky genes for vitamin D. The bigger doses work for me, though.

 

Yay! Congratulations!!!

 

I’ve been checking in each day.  It keeps saying “processing” .  It Hasn’t been 3 weeks.  

I wish I’d gotten the added panel that would give zinc, magnesium, etc levels too. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
2 hours ago, IfIOnly said:

"Over 80 percent of 200 COVID-19 patients in a hospital in Spain have vitamin D deficiency, according to a new study published in the Endocrine Society's Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201027092216.htm

 

 

I am not sure if I am reading the study right, but it looks like possibly the “deficient” vs “not deficient”  groups are both what afaik is “too low”  ~13 ng/mL vs.  ~ 20 ng/mL .  

 

Possibly link to actual study preprint

 

It is at Oxford U Press

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I am not sure if I am reading the study right, but it looks like possibly the “deficient” vs “not deficient”  groups are both what afaik is “too low”  ~13 ng/mL vs.  ~ 20 ng/mL .  

 

Possibly link to actual study preprint

 

It is at Oxford U Press

Yes, depending on who you're listening to, both groups are low. It seems like just that additional 7 makes a positive difference though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IfIOnly said:

Yes, depending on who you're listening to, both groups are low. It seems like just that additional 7 makes a positive difference though.

 

What I really want to know is whether if people’s D levels get up to ~60 ng/mL the hospitalization rate goes down to very low.

I guess if 80% in hospital had D level average around 13 and most everyone else in hospital had D level around ~ 20 ng/mL that might be the case, but I don’t think I can reverse extrapolate that legitimately.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...