China Coronavirus

[grounded]

Yeah I don't remember it ever being called quackery. Ivermectin or whatever you call it and bleach yes.

Vitamin d helping against COVID has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories included vaccine passports are here to stay because it's part of the plan, COVID is part of a grand plan, it's part of a rest etc etc.  They are not the same thing...

They're actually still evaluating Ivermectin (and favipiravir). They ruled out hydroxychloroquine within a very short time in 2020 and then the antibiotics Aziththromycin and Doxycycline in early 2021 and Colchicine mid 2021. Budesonide was the only drug (at this stage) they found effective in reducing recovery time.

https://www.principletrial.org

[imtommygunn]

Yeah tbf the ivermectin now has more legs in it.

[grounded]

Yeah I am not sure the term conspiracy theory is an understood one in some quarters...

In fairness the supplemental use of vitamin d was ridiculed by a number of media outlets at the early stages of covid 19 outbreak in 2020. Its use was lumped in with that of hydroxychlorquine, Ivermectin and a number of other medications at that time.
      A quick google of conspiracy theories and vitamin d will throw up quite a few links, most going back to 2020.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-myths-debunked-135739788.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE0pdP1Ucz1P17hWykf8DVTvdjpkEa-gDkVWwiltDSI9d2bHuPH8erogATcCkFO02yq10i1oLvXnLLzkUn6o_o30GOV82HWlIBRWE4YDhi4k54rPqQb62sxFjA_d8Deo_r0trNBqAXzB9J96OLpktfXoI59K-LNvLXUW8wzVWzNT

https://infodemiology.jmir.org/2022/1/e32452/

[trueblue1234]

Yeah I am not sure the term conspiracy theory is an understood one in some quarters...

In fairness the supplemental use of vitamin d was ridiculed by a number of media outlets at the early stages of covid 19 outbreak in 2020. Its use was lumped in with that of hydroxychlorquine, Ivermectin and a number of other medications at that time.
      A quick google of conspiracy theories and vitamin d will throw up quite a few links, most going back to 2020.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-myths-debunked-135739788.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE0pdP1Ucz1P17hWykf8DVTvdjpkEa-gDkVWwiltDSI9d2bHuPH8erogATcCkFO02yq10i1oLvXnLLzkUn6o_o30GOV82HWlIBRWE4YDhi4k54rPqQb62sxFjA_d8Deo_r0trNBqAXzB9J96OLpktfXoI59K-LNvLXUW8wzVWzNT

https://infodemiology.jmir.org/2022/1/e32452/

To be fair that link was March 2020. And does vit D prevent covid? I thought it lessened the impact?

[From the Bunker]

Lads, wondering how the Covid-19 vaccine works these days? Does it still depend on herd immunity. Will the unwashed unvaccinated still be the threat to human existence that they were at the beginning of the year? Will we (the unwashed) be treated as 2nd class citizens (again) this winter? Or has all been forgotten and all of that was a big load of silly beggars? Asking for a growing number of friends.

[Gmac]

Yeah I am not sure the term conspiracy theory is an understood one in some quarters...

In fairness the supplemental use of vitamin d was ridiculed by a number of media outlets at the early stages of covid 19 outbreak in 2020. Its use was lumped in with that of hydroxychlorquine, Ivermectin and a number of other medications at that time.
      A quick google of conspiracy theories and vitamin d will throw up quite a few links, most going back to 2020.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-myths-debunked-135739788.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE0pdP1Ucz1P17hWykf8DVTvdjpkEa-gDkVWwiltDSI9d2bHuPH8erogATcCkFO02yq10i1oLvXnLLzkUn6o_o30GOV82HWlIBRWE4YDhi4k54rPqQb62sxFjA_d8Deo_r0trNBqAXzB9J96OLpktfXoI59K-LNvLXUW8wzVWzNT

https://infodemiology.jmir.org/2022/1/e32452/

To be fair that link was March 2020. And does vit D prevent covid? I thought it lessened the impact?

oh so it's the same as the vaccine ?

[grounded]

Yeah I am not sure the term conspiracy theory is an understood one in some quarters...

In fairness the supplemental use of vitamin d was ridiculed by a number of media outlets at the early stages of covid 19 outbreak in 2020. Its use was lumped in with that of hydroxychlorquine, Ivermectin and a number of other medications at that time.
      A quick google of conspiracy theories and vitamin d will throw up quite a few links, most going back to 2020.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-myths-debunked-135739788.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE0pdP1Ucz1P17hWykf8DVTvdjpkEa-gDkVWwiltDSI9d2bHuPH8erogATcCkFO02yq10i1oLvXnLLzkUn6o_o30GOV82HWlIBRWE4YDhi4k54rPqQb62sxFjA_d8Deo_r0trNBqAXzB9J96OLpktfXoI59K-LNvLXUW8wzVWzNT

https://infodemiology.jmir.org/2022/1/e32452/

To be fair that link was March 2020. And does vit D prevent covid? I thought it lessened the impact?

A vitamin d deficiency has been shown to increase the likelihood of developing a severe or critical case of Covid 19 as compared to those with sufficient  levels of vitamin d present in their system.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/what-is-the-link-between-vitamin-d-levels-and-covid-19/2022/02

And another small scale study from Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/19/insufficient-vitamin-d-linked-to-fourfold-increase-in-risk-of-death-among-covid-19-patients/


I suppose the point is,  it took time to prove/disprove certain treatments/medications.  Even after 2 and a half years, definitive evidence for the use/non-use of some medications in relation to Covid 19 treatments has still not been produced.
         In the case of vitamin d supplements, they got ridiculed early on in the pandemic as being 'quackology' ( similar to Ivermectin) by many media outlets. Later as more evidence began emerging of the link with vit d deficiency and Covid 19, this media portrayal changed somewhat. Similarly if (and it's a very big if) the Principal trial shows Ivermectin to have a medicinal benefit in Covid 19 treatment, i assume the msm outlets will have to do a u-turn on their earlier reporting.

[trueblue1234]

Yeah I am not sure the term conspiracy theory is an understood one in some quarters...

In fairness the supplemental use of vitamin d was ridiculed by a number of media outlets at the early stages of covid 19 outbreak in 2020. Its use was lumped in with that of hydroxychlorquine, Ivermectin and a number of other medications at that time.
      A quick google of conspiracy theories and vitamin d will throw up quite a few links, most going back to 2020.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-myths-debunked-135739788.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE0pdP1Ucz1P17hWykf8DVTvdjpkEa-gDkVWwiltDSI9d2bHuPH8erogATcCkFO02yq10i1oLvXnLLzkUn6o_o30GOV82HWlIBRWE4YDhi4k54rPqQb62sxFjA_d8Deo_r0trNBqAXzB9J96OLpktfXoI59K-LNvLXUW8wzVWzNT

https://infodemiology.jmir.org/2022/1/e32452/

To be fair that link was March 2020. And does vit D prevent covid? I thought it lessened the impact?

A vitamin d deficiency has been shown to increase the likelihood of developing a severe or critical case of Covid 19 as compared to those with sufficient  levels of vitamin d present in their system.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/what-is-the-link-between-vitamin-d-levels-and-covid-19/2022/02

And another small scale study from Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/19/insufficient-vitamin-d-linked-to-fourfold-increase-in-risk-of-death-among-covid-19-patients/


I suppose the point is,  it took time to prove/disprove certain treatments/medications.  Even after 2 and a half years, definitive evidence for the use/non-use of some medications in relation to Covid 19 treatments has still not been produced.
         In the case of vitamin d supplements, they got ridiculed early on in the pandemic as being 'quackology' ( similar to Ivermectin) by many media outlets. Later as more evidence began emerging of the link with vit d deficiency and Covid 19, this media portrayal changed somewhat. Similarly if (and it's a very big if) the Principal trial shows Ivermectin to have a medicinal benefit in Covid 19 treatment, i assume the msm outlets will have to do a u-turn on their earlier reporting.

I honestly don't remember the vitamin D theory getting anything like the same treatment as Ivermectin or bleach.
Science generally doesn't have an issue with making uturns when the evidence is there to support it.

[theskull1]

I honestly don't remember the vitamin D theory getting anything like the same treatment as Ivermectin or bleach.
Science generally doesn't have an issue with making uturns when the evidence is there to support it.

When you have existing cheap as chips medicinal compounds with well understood safety profiles (safer than aspirin) showing a signal (by clinicians that the main stream want to silence) that there was positive benefits being seen, it would seem to me that there should have been some western government somewhere adopt a strategy to give them a good go (given their safety profiles). When vitamin D and ivermectin were being mentioned way before vaccines arrived, the fact this didnt happen, given the direness of the situation and the impact on the economy is just plain weird to me. Then adding in the media being so quick to ridicule, rather than rationally ask "is this not worth a try?" added to the weirdness. A lot of people obviously don't see this perspective.

[trueblue1234]

I honestly don't remember the vitamin D theory getting anything like the same treatment as Ivermectin or bleach.
Science generally doesn't have an issue with making uturns when the evidence is there to support it.

When you have existing cheap as chips medicinal compounds with well understood safety profiles (safer than aspirin) showing a signal (by clinicians that the main stream want to silence) that there was positive benefits being seen, it would seem to me that there should have been some western government somewhere adopt a strategy to give them a good go (given their safety profiles). When vitamin D and ivermectin were being mentioned way before vaccines arrived, the fact this didnt happen, given the direness of the situation and the impact on the economy is just plain weird to me. Then adding in the media being so quick to ridicule, rather than rationally ask "is this not worth a try?" added to the weirdness. A lot of people obviously don't see this perspective.

Yeah I suppose it's about perspective. Ivermectin had a number of unsuccessful trials so I'm not surprised it was never pushed by "mainstream". And I don't honestly remember the push against vitamin D. I remember they saying they didn't have evidence of how it works as a treatment for covid. But certainly wasn't viewed a quackery.
That's the thing with the "mainstream". They are under a lot more responsibility that someone on Facebook or twitter. They have to have evidence to back up they decisions. If something is lacking data, they won't support it. Rightly so in my eyes, as their decisions carry much more weight that any other groups or people on the internet. And this is where perspective comes in. Some people will see that as a conspiracy when imo it's nothing of the sort.

[grounded]

Yeah I am not sure the term conspiracy theory is an understood one in some quarters...

In fairness the supplemental use of vitamin d was ridiculed by a number of media outlets at the early stages of covid 19 outbreak in 2020. Its use was lumped in with that of hydroxychlorquine, Ivermectin and a number of other medications at that time.
      A quick google of conspiracy theories and vitamin d will throw up quite a few links, most going back to 2020.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-myths-debunked-135739788.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE0pdP1Ucz1P17hWykf8DVTvdjpkEa-gDkVWwiltDSI9d2bHuPH8erogATcCkFO02yq10i1oLvXnLLzkUn6o_o30GOV82HWlIBRWE4YDhi4k54rPqQb62sxFjA_d8Deo_r0trNBqAXzB9J96OLpktfXoI59K-LNvLXUW8wzVWzNT

https://infodemiology.jmir.org/2022/1/e32452/

To be fair that link was March 2020. And does vit D prevent covid? I thought it lessened the impact?

A vitamin d deficiency has been shown to increase the likelihood of developing a severe or critical case of Covid 19 as compared to those with sufficient  levels of vitamin d present in their system.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/what-is-the-link-between-vitamin-d-levels-and-covid-19/2022/02

And another small scale study from Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/19/insufficient-vitamin-d-linked-to-fourfold-increase-in-risk-of-death-among-covid-19-patients/


I suppose the point is,  it took time to prove/disprove certain treatments/medications.  Even after 2 and a half years, definitive evidence for the use/non-use of some medications in relation to Covid 19 treatments has still not been produced.
         In the case of vitamin d supplements, they got ridiculed early on in the pandemic as being 'quackology' ( similar to Ivermectin) by many media outlets. Later as more evidence began emerging of the link with vit d deficiency and Covid 19, this media portrayal changed somewhat. Similarly if (and it's a very big if) the Principal trial shows Ivermectin to have a medicinal benefit in Covid 19 treatment, i assume the msm outlets will have to do a u-turn on their earlier reporting.

I honestly don't remember the vitamin D theory getting anything like the same treatment as Ivermectin or bleach.
Science generally doesn't have an issue with making uturns when the evidence is there to support it.

Fair enough, but a quick search will throw up loads of Vitamin D debunked/covid 19 myths articles. They haven't even removed/corrected them given the more current studies.(i've linked just a few below)
         There actually were studies produced around that time(2020) linking low vit D levels and Covid 19 but these were quickly dismissed as being flawed in some way (many actually were). Many people who advocating their use(given the scientific evidence available at that time) were labelled as quacks by other researchers and the supplemental use of vit D was thrown in with other more dubious treatments by msm outlets.
         

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/5-persistent-myths-about-coronavirus-and-why-they-are-untrue
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-myths/art-20485720
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/health-fraud-scams/fraudulent-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-products
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/2019-novel-coronavirus-myth-versus-fact%3famp=true
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7443564/

[Hound]

Lumping in Vitamin D with the others is disingenuous and anyone suggesting that clinicians who advocate the use of Vitamin D are being silenced are also being disingenuous.

Vitamin D has long been advocated as something that improves health and healthy lifespan. You can't point to it as something that specifically prevents Covid or anything else (other than rickets), but people with higher levels tend to do better than people with low levels across a whole swath of illnesses.

The HSE have had recommendations re Vitamin D since long before Covid
https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/


As an aside, Vitamin D was first recommended to me a decade or so ago by a yank scientist who was looking to create a drug that increased lifespan by mixing Vit D with other compounds.
He said that everytime he mixed Vit D with more than 2 other compounds, the effect of Vit D was diminished. So his strong recommendation was to take it on its own or as part of a twin compound tablet - but never as a multi vitamin tablet as the benefit would be lost.

[trueblue1234]

Yeah I am not sure the term conspiracy theory is an understood one in some quarters...

In fairness the supplemental use of vitamin d was ridiculed by a number of media outlets at the early stages of covid 19 outbreak in 2020. Its use was lumped in with that of hydroxychlorquine, Ivermectin and a number of other medications at that time.
      A quick google of conspiracy theories and vitamin d will throw up quite a few links, most going back to 2020.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-myths-debunked-135739788.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE0pdP1Ucz1P17hWykf8DVTvdjpkEa-gDkVWwiltDSI9d2bHuPH8erogATcCkFO02yq10i1oLvXnLLzkUn6o_o30GOV82HWlIBRWE4YDhi4k54rPqQb62sxFjA_d8Deo_r0trNBqAXzB9J96OLpktfXoI59K-LNvLXUW8wzVWzNT

https://infodemiology.jmir.org/2022/1/e32452/

To be fair that link was March 2020. And does vit D prevent covid? I thought it lessened the impact?

A vitamin d deficiency has been shown to increase the likelihood of developing a severe or critical case of Covid 19 as compared to those with sufficient  levels of vitamin d present in their system.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/what-is-the-link-between-vitamin-d-levels-and-covid-19/2022/02

And another small scale study from Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/19/insufficient-vitamin-d-linked-to-fourfold-increase-in-risk-of-death-among-covid-19-patients/


I suppose the point is,  it took time to prove/disprove certain treatments/medications.  Even after 2 and a half years, definitive evidence for the use/non-use of some medications in relation to Covid 19 treatments has still not been produced.
         In the case of vitamin d supplements, they got ridiculed early on in the pandemic as being 'quackology' ( similar to Ivermectin) by many media outlets. Later as more evidence began emerging of the link with vit d deficiency and Covid 19, this media portrayal changed somewhat. Similarly if (and it's a very big if) the Principal trial shows Ivermectin to have a medicinal benefit in Covid 19 treatment, i assume the msm outlets will have to do a u-turn on their earlier reporting.

I honestly don't remember the vitamin D theory getting anything like the same treatment as Ivermectin or bleach.
Science generally doesn't have an issue with making uturns when the evidence is there to support it.

Fair enough, but a quick search will throw up loads of Vitamin D debunked/covid 19 myths articles. They haven't even removed/corrected them given the more current studies.(i've linked just a few below)
         There actually were studies produced around that time(2020) linking low vit D levels and Covid 19 but these were quickly dismissed as being flawed in some way (many actually were). Many people who advocating their use(given the scientific evidence available at that time) were labelled as quacks by other researchers and the supplemental use of vit D was thrown in with other more dubious treatments by msm outlets.
         

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/5-persistent-myths-about-coronavirus-and-why-they-are-untrue
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-myths/art-20485720
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/health-fraud-scams/fraudulent-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-products
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/2019-novel-coronavirus-myth-versus-fact%3famp=true
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7443564/

But as you say some trials were flawed so in that case, any "main stream" medical organisation would have been leaving themselves wide open if they supported it without correct data.
Most medical organisations changed and supported vit D when there was data. There's docs from the nhs that said it can help improve immune system which can help fight covid as far back as late 2020.
I look at this and see the natural progression of data gathering and research. Others see a conspiracy. Each to their own.

[grounded]

I honestly don't remember the vitamin D theory getting anything like the same treatment as Ivermectin or bleach.
Science generally doesn't have an issue with making uturns when the evidence is there to support it.

When you have existing cheap as chips medicinal compounds with well understood safety profiles (safer than aspirin) showing a signal (by clinicians that the main stream want to silence) that there was positive benefits being seen, it would seem to me that there should have been some western government somewhere adopt a strategy to give them a good go (given their safety profiles). When vitamin D and ivermectin were being mentioned way before vaccines arrived, the fact this didnt happen, given the direness of the situation and the impact on the economy is just plain weird to me. Then adding in the media being so quick to ridicule, rather than rationally ask "is this not worth a try?" added to the weirdness. A lot of people obviously don't see this perspective.

Yeah I suppose it's about perspective. Ivermectin had a number of unsuccessful trials so I'm not surprised it was never pushed by "mainstream". And I don't honestly remember the push against vitamin D. I remember they saying they didn't have evidence of how it works as a treatment for covid. But certainly wasn't viewed a quackery.
That's the thing with the "mainstream". They are under a lot more responsibility that someone on Facebook or twitter. They have to have evidence to back up they decisions. If something is lacking data, they won't support it. Rightly so in my eyes, as their decisions carry much more weight that any other groups or people on the internet. And this is where perspective comes in. Some people will see that as a conspiracy when imo it's nothing of the sort.

Carrying out a randomised double blind placebo trial for these medications and their effects on Covid 19  is an incredibly difficult/complex/expensive/time consuming affair. That's the 'Gold Standard study 'that the academics want. As i said that principle study is still underway for Ivermectin (14 months)and Favipiravar (16 months).  Thats an NHS government backed study.
           What private company would invest in a study for a drug that they dont have a patent for. What would be their incentive? Good of humankind? 
         
         
       

[trueblue1234]

I honestly don't remember the vitamin D theory getting anything like the same treatment as Ivermectin or bleach.
Science generally doesn't have an issue with making uturns when the evidence is there to support it.

When you have existing cheap as chips medicinal compounds with well understood safety profiles (safer than aspirin) showing a signal (by clinicians that the main stream want to silence) that there was positive benefits being seen, it would seem to me that there should have been some western government somewhere adopt a strategy to give them a good go (given their safety profiles). When vitamin D and ivermectin were being mentioned way before vaccines arrived, the fact this didnt happen, given the direness of the situation and the impact on the economy is just plain weird to me. Then adding in the media being so quick to ridicule, rather than rationally ask "is this not worth a try?" added to the weirdness. A lot of people obviously don't see this perspective.

Yeah I suppose it's about perspective. Ivermectin had a number of unsuccessful trials so I'm not surprised it was never pushed by "mainstream". And I don't honestly remember the push against vitamin D. I remember they saying they didn't have evidence of how it works as a treatment for covid. But certainly wasn't viewed a quackery.
That's the thing with the "mainstream". They are under a lot more responsibility that someone on Facebook or twitter. They have to have evidence to back up they decisions. If something is lacking data, they won't support it. Rightly so in my eyes, as their decisions carry much more weight that any other groups or people on the internet. And this is where perspective comes in. Some people will see that as a conspiracy when imo it's nothing of the sort.

Carrying out a randomised double blind placebo trial for these medications and their effects on Covid 19  is an incredibly difficult/complex/expensive/time consuming affair. That's what the academics want. As i said that principle study is still underway for Ivermectin (14 months)and Favipiravar (16 months).  Thats an NHS government backed study.
           What private company would invest in a study for a drug that they dont have a patent for. What would be their incentive? Good of humankind? 
         
         
       

I don't know what your point is? I never expected a private company to invest in a drug they don't have a patent for. I don't think anyone would.
I just don't see any cover up/ conspiracy that some here seem to think there was.