You can use the menu navigation ( ☰ on a mobile device) to access our beautiful and interesting pages about countries of this world. Please help us by providing us with some interesting text about your country.
"It is highly plausible that enhanced population Vitamin D status has been a significant factor in Finland’s low observed incidence and case-fatality rates from Covid-19 " said the Irish Government Report. The report published in April 2021 recommended that people should take Vitamin-D supplements to help in the fight against Covid-19. It was possible to observe an immediate benefit as the death rate fell to 0 over several weeks in May and June. Incredibly the Irish are waiting for the next financial year to take further action on Vitamin-D..
Are you interested in joining us - to be invited to our fantastic places in Iceland or Switzerland? Please visit our volunteer page. We do not only invite volunteers but scientists, strategists, influencers, donors and other important people, who may be able to help us better this world.
"The Ministry of Health and Families recommended the use of Vitamin D in these centers in a generalized way. Initiation of this program in mid November 2020 coincided with a fall in daily case fatalities from 70 per day in mid November to just 3 per day by the first week in January, data which are all the more remarkable given the significant escalation in SARS-CoV-2 incidence and Covid-19 mortality which occurred throughout Europe over the same period. Although these data remain unpublished in the peer-reviewed literature, the dramatic reduction in the daily case fatalities is noteworthy. " A quote from the Irish report this time about the Andalusian success.
"The human impacts of lockdowns and suspensions of social and economic activity are disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable countries and segments of the population. Poverty could rise by 420-580 million people – the first increase in three decades – with 70-100 million at risk of falling back into extreme poverty. "
When families have lost everything and may be on the brink of starvation, selling their children into marriage becomes an option (this year or in 10 years). What follows is what we in the West would call statutory rape, but not only that, for when the child objects, it is rape in every sense of the word and made even more horrible, for the child is raped again and again, can not escape from the rapist, can not get support from law enforcement nor does the child have access anymore to the comforting of parents that every child should be entitled to.
"Current estimates indicate that for every 3 months of lockdown, an additional 15 million women are expected to be subjected to violence. Seven million unintended pregnancies can be expected if the lockdown continues for at least 6 months and an additional 13 million child marriages may consequently take place between 2020 and 2030 that could otherwise have been averted. "
The UN institutes are well aware of the problem, but they are also responsible. For they were instrumental in creating this COVID-19 panic. Reports and vague policy directives do not make up for this manmade overreaction when countries fail to follow the new directives.
We therefore need your help in building up pressure to stop these counterproductive lockdowns that actually lead to at least 1000 times more live years being lost than have been lost already to COVID-19. More on that here. The simplest way to help is to forward the link to this website to everyone you know: https://https.earth
Since most people are actually not at risk at all from COVID-19 and most of the deaths are preventable and because the lockdowns will create more deaths and much more suffering, the lockdowns have to end now and especially the travel restrictions. We can still hold on to what may make sense such as using masks when visiting the vulnerable or in crowded public transport and keeping home office an optional choice for as many as possible.
The hormone that is vital for the immune system (Vitamin-D)
By and large COVID-19 kills only people with preexisting comorbidities. The most frequent exceptions concern overweight people and colored people who are living in temperate climates or who do not get enough exposure to the sun because of modern lifestyles (and actually now in some cases because the lockdowns themselves are preventing them from being outside, which is insane because it is counterproductive). There is a simple reason why these people are at a so much of a higher risk and that is because their immune response is not working properly because of vitamin D deficiency.
Why people in care facilities as well as the black and colored in temperate climates are the worst affected
Skin pigmentation (and being inside, UV protection, avoiding or not having access to high sun, clothes etc.,) prevents the human body from readily synthesizing vitamin D from the sun. This is why over thousands of years the human skin became paler the less sun exposure people were getting in their part of the world.
Why the overweight are also so badly affected and why the cases go down in summer
Nature also created a system where our forefathers would be supplied with enough vitamin D to last the winter. The body stores vitamin D in fat tissue. Through the ages, this worked as people would become fatter during the summer, a time when they had enough to eat and enough sun exposure to produce enough vitamin D both for that period and also to store in the fat being created. In winter they would then get access to this stored vitamin D supplies when they would burn up the fat as they lost the weight in winter, when food supplies were limited and not enough high sun available to enable enough direct vitamin-D production. This ingenuity of nature does not work in the modern world because we no longer have a tendency to gain weight in summer and loose it in winter.
Millions can still be saved
The solution is to do what what Finland does and was doing before the pandemic (to add vitamin D to a common food item) and to recommend to people to take their own supplements (Helsinki region) based on their biological need.
Finland not wanting to be behind Nordic countries such as Iceland and Norway who get vitamin D through their diet of Fish and Cod Liver Oil, long ago decided not only to supplement their milk with vitamin D but doubly more than the few other countries that also provide vitamin-D supplementation.
The Helsinki health authorities wondered why Finland was doing so much better with COVID-19 than any other country in Europe and came to the conclusion that they could do even better by recommending that in addition to what people get in their supplemented milk, people should take extra daily vitamin-D supplements. Colored people and people in care (since they tend to be deprived of sun exposure) should take double the amount and overweight people should take 5 times the normally recommended amount.
Governments must act
We are very happy now that the Irish parliaments (Houses of Oireachtas - the oldest continually running parliament in the world) bipartisan Joint Committee on Health finally put out a recommendation (April 7, 2021) that everybody should take vitamin-D daily and like the Helsinki health authority suggests increasing the daily dosages for people who need more
We already pointed it out 12 months earlier that this was the real reason behind Finland's success
We actually took Ireland which has a similar size population as Finland as an example of how much worse a country does without vitamin-D supplementation. Although doing well by European standards Ireland actually has had a 5 fold death rate compared to Finland (see the chart below)
The Rational for Ireland according to Seán Crowe, TD the committees chairman: "As we emerge from the Covid-19 pandemic, international studies, and the experience of Finland in particular, show just how effective daily Vitamin D supplementation can be when it is implemented as part of an enhanced public health policy. This supplementation represents a safe, practical, and effective means of protecting human health"
Vitamin D and stopping lockdowns makes sense irrespective of whether you are pro COVID vaccination or not
It is clear that vaccination does not stop the spread of the SARS-2 virus. Like vitamin-D vaccination seems to reduce the severity of cases and slows down the spread since people who get less sick tend to spread it less. However the delta variant seems to be changing the nature of the virus. It seems to spread more easily among everybody, including those that are vaccinated and those that are not at risk, including those with enough vitamin-D. On the other hand this variant is not nearly as deadly. Seems to be on par with the normal flu and may therefore be regarded as a natural super vaccine.
Vitamin-D may actually help people cope with the vaccine.
A population where a part of the population is protected with both vaccination and vitamin-D and the other is protected by Vitamin-D alone will surely do better than a population that leaves out the vitamin-D for all.
We need your help
We can not emphasize enough that we need your help in spreading our message. It has taken Ireland a year to discover Finland's secret with a lot of lives lost in the meantime. We now have a real chance of getting some other countries to follow. Please share our message, e.g. by typing or pasting in this link https://https.https.earth into all your social media accounts and messaging apps. If you do it and your friends and acquaintances do it then eventually it will reach strong influencers and politicians and governments which will hopefully lead to a policy change for the benefit of us all.
To make this graph more readable on a mobile device turn the device sideways
To make this graph more readable on a mobile device turn the device sideways
The manslaughter continues (see the graph above) in countries like Germany that go out of their way to publicly deny the evidence for the effectiveness of Vitamin-D where as Ireland which recommended Vitamin-D for everyone and higher doses for risk groups has achieved as much success as the UK with much lower vaccination levels.
Against the truth
There are a lot of half truths, false information, and blatant lies spread on the Internet and by politicians, by some media and even by supposedly reputable institutions. It is understandable that many desperately want to believe that the authorities have been doing the right thing for it is a double shock to realize that so much of what we have been made to go through could have been avoided.
There does not seem to be any limits to the shameful tactics employed by evil forces to cast doubt on what common sense can tell us is the right thing to do. We found it odd that politicians would shut their eyes to epidemiological data and would fail to use their common sense to see what obviously works. But now we realize this is a result of a carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign. The lobby industry (it is undeniable that it exists) seems to be brainwashing the politicians both directly and possibly through payments to individuals in key positions.
Why else would a reputable institution (The NICE institute in the UK) find it relevant and push to the forefront the outcome of a study that tries to show a link between COVID-19 and 10 to 14 year old data on peoples' vitamin-D levels. They are still doin studies like this as recently as October 2021 another study was published using 11 year old data - who is financing such irrelevant studies.
Why else would a reputable magazine (Spiegel, Germany) publish an article that cast doubt on a study that showed a 2600% improvement for people treated with a vitamin-D derivative. The study was a fully randomized study and as expected from any such small study certain co-factors attributed to the patients such as blood pressure and smoking would naturally not be split 50/50 among the two groups. One comorbid factor slightly higher in one group and another comorbid factor slightly higher in the other group. But the reporter or rather the spin doctor behind the scene choose only to show one side. Of course any good reporter should also be able to see that slight variations in the sample would not be enough to explain the 2600% difference! And how dare they top it up with a quote from a pharmacologist "If you put the healthy in the vitamin D group and the sick in the control group, then the outcome is a forgone conclusion". We do not know if and how much that pharmacologist got paid or if he even knew in which context his words would be put and we understand that times are hard for the print media but as lives are involved, this is unforgivable. Looking at the study we do not see any reason to doubt the study nor have we seen any such unprofessional critique in the scientific literature or elsewhere.
So Spiegel may be able to cast doubt for example among gullible German politicians who are probably not aware of the much more convincing arguments (see below) put forward by 10 departments and its professors at Harvard University in their introduction to their own US nationwide study.
Why else is the media making articles that are designed to cast doubt on Vitamin-D treatments. For example a Hospital system in Spain found Vitamin-D effective. They saw a 60% improvement. But their study was not up to the best of standards (nor should every observation that is still worth publishing need to be a very expensive study that only the rich pharmaceutical companies can afford) for rather than selecting patients randomly they assigned the Vitamin-D treatments to whole sections and compared to comparable sections elsewhere in their hospital system. A good media should simply point this out rather than say that this study should be totally discounted. Similarly the media are now putting out quotes that stress that the causal effect can not be guaranteed although the association between low vitamin-D levels and COVID-19 are clear. They are careful not to totally discourage people from taking vitamin-D but they are very busy in creating doubt. This smells very strongly of an organized disinformation campaign. With similarities to the yearly campaigns which most media participate in that say drinking moderate amounts of red wine is good for you when in reality it is not!
Why else is big money going after small sellers of vitamin-D in the US legal system?
Why else would someone commission a research using vitamin-D dosages that are known beforehand to be the least likely to work. E.g. by preselecting participants for a study that do NOT have a vitamin-D deficiency, to see if they can show NO SIGNIFICANT difference if you give them just a little bit more, as a single shot rather than a dose regiment, in a form that the body needs more time to process, or too late, like 10 days after the onset of infections. These are real world examples the results of which the media is dubbed into publishing with ill placed fanfare when they should be either ignored or given as an example of how not to administer vitamin-D. Given that we already know what is likely to work and what is not it seems that some of these studies have been specifically designed NOT to show a correlation. Which are familiar tactics - See the video towards the bottom of this page (in German, Polish or French) about the kind of dirty tactics that may also be in play here. An example given in the film is the use of a specific type of research rat species that was known to be resistant to the therapy in question.
Note that no Vitamin-D study except one (see the next point) shows a negative relation although reports sometimes incorrectly use the term conversely. Vitamin-C treatment for Covid-19 ICU patients on the other hand has shown a negative relationship. A 360% increase in death rate for ICU patients treated with vitamin-C. It is therefore extremely bad practice when publications and institutions group vitamin-D with vitamin-C treatments. It is also undesirable that vitamin-D treatment which is in recommended dosages pretty save be grouped together with zinc treatments which carry substantial risk such as the destruction of the heart's copper and hence requires more doctor supervision. (I.e. blood tests to determine the copper zinc relationship).
When every study shows a positive relationship with Vitamin-D (or no relationship if using very old data) how was it possible to make a study that showed a negative effect. Well they took people that where not really massively deficient (a good time to find such patients is in the summer) and gave them what some would consider a lethal dose of Vitamin-D. 200,000 IU in a single dosage where as a quarter of that would have been much more likely to show positive results. This study should be categorized as non-relevant for using too high a dosage. It should also be criticized for not using the Vitamin-D derivative Calcifediol which gives a 7-day head-start, because it takes the body 7 days to break down Vitamin-D into this more useful form a very critical time lost. It should also be criticized for not focusing more on people with very-low Vitamin-D levels which would be much more likely to benefit. To summarize: Giving Vitamin-D to people who do not have an acute deficiency will not show as significant results. Giving them a toxic dose will likely show a reverse relationship. Giving them a single dose rather than regular dosages will not be as effective. Giving them normal Vitamin-D at such a late stage is not likely to be as effective as giving them the Vitamin-D derivate Calcifediol which gives a 7 day head start.
What is also bad is when meta studies emphasize irrelevant studies as the one mentioned in the point above and downplay the overwhelming majorities of good studies.
Why else do reputable institutions do doublespeak (see the blue box at the bottom of this page)
Plenty of evidence
Even though these tactics are well thought out and carefully planned, they can not hide the truth if and only if we are willing to make a little bit of an effort to use our common sense to observe:
What is working and what is not working
If we use our common sense to explain why on exception a few studies do not show a correlation between SARS-COV-2 / COVID-19 vitamin-D levels or treatments
That the time between when a blood vitamin-D level was taken and the incidence of a SARS-COV-2 infection
The worst example of which is using data that is 10-14 year old
which probably did not take account of seasonal variability in peoples vitamin-D levels
Even short time lapse may make the measurements meaningless as many peoples vitamin-D levels are changing dramatically because of lockdowns, supplements or the weather
If people get one shot of vitamin-D (which is known to be less effective) then vitamin-D administered over time
When people who are known to have little or no deficiency are given just a little bit more
If people are given vitamin-D too late, e.g. 10 days after the onset of infection
If people are given vitamin-D at a late stage of infection where calcifediol (a vitamin-D derivate) would be more effective
When the sample size is too small giving meaningful data when taken together with other studies but in itself not significant and not surprisingly so, for it is almost impossible to do a clinical study which eliminates all the comorbidity or significant factors. How do you do a clinical study of people in their prime age, where you want to adjust for race and vitamin-D where almost all the patience are colored?
Studies that may have studied respiratory dieses but not COVID-19, especially with the above shortcomings
The epidemiological evidence
The unifying factor between the hardest hit groups (low levels of seasonal vitamin D)
Somalian woman in Sweden (they are at double risk because not only are they dark but many cover their whole body preventing any synthesis of vitamin-D from the sun). Somalian woman were also reported to be worst affected in Norway and Denmark.
Colored doctors in the UK (there is a trend to discount the colored because it is argued that the lower social economic status is the main factor. However obviously this does not apply to doctors. The overwhelming majority of doctors who where dying form COVID-19 in the first wave in the UK were colored)
Colored people who are living in less sunny climates and/or who are more indoors
Black people in Texas (again the economic status does not explain it, as the average black household income in Texas is higher than the average white household income in for example Germany) We call the inaction systemic racism that results from our prejudges (the wrong assumption that the colored do not have access to health care) that prevent us from seeing the real reason (vitamin-D deficiency) why the colored are suffering and the outcome of this inaction are preventable deaths: systemic genocide
We find the situation so absurd. It would be comparable to, if in the 1980s we would have ignored that gay and drug addicts were the hardest hit by HIV / AIDS and we would not have given out specific advice to those.
Under the current pandemic we just need to give the advice for everyone who has deficiency to take vitamin D, the colored and people in care to take a double dosage and the overweight to take a 5 fold dosage. Better still also to quickly act to supplement a common food item with vitamin D.
The black people in the US that are dying from COVID-19 on average at a 10 year younger age than white people
The portion of the people who are classified as white in America who are the hardest hit in that group but which happen to be not really white but Arab
The slightly darker skinned white people (on average) in countries like France, Italy and Spain versus for example Germany
People who are living further away from the sea in hot regions e.g. Madrid (These people have less access to fresh fish and hence consume less fish than people near the costal areas)
Colored people who are in sunny but extremely hot regions, covered from head to toe and living inside most of the time. Typically stepping directly between their air conditioned houses and cars
The portion of the population that hardly goes out such as those addicted to work, video games or social media or because of the fear for the pandemic
And last but not least people in modern care facilities (of course this applies to the elderly and even more to the very sick), where resources are not available for the people to be taken outdoors. (Conversely, in the old days people who could afford it with tuberculosis - a different type of lung disease - would be taken into the mountains to sunbath in the UVB rich mountain sun)
The unifying factor between the regions that are doing better (high levels of vitamin D)
Countries where people eat on average more than 1 kg of fish per week
Communities where people eat more fish such as Asians. Even in the US their death rate is not higher than that of white people even though they are colored and hence much lower than for other colored people.
Countries or regions where more people take fish liver oil
Countries where people are naturally more outside and lightly dressed
In the rare cases the countries that have higher average vitamin-D levels when they do have spikes they tend to be very short lived. A logical explanation for this is that as the even though the general population is protected there are some people that are not and constitute the spike cases
The connection between the seasons both on the northern and southern hemisphere and the severity of COVID-19. (Peoples vitamin-D deficiencies are seasonal for obvious reason as explained previously)
How the cases increase as the regions are further into the winter season or the rainy seasons. As peoples body stock of vitamin-D is lowered or depleted
How the cases gradually decrease as the weather becomes more comfortable to be outside wearing less clothes
The connection between heavy pollution and COVID-19 (the pollution both blocks out some of the sun and causes extra stress for the lungs)
How Covid-19 affects women less when their estrogen (which is the woman's hormone and that works a bit like vitamin-D ) levels are high and how conversely the difference between men and women narrows after women hit menopause (in the cases where they do not replace this natural loss of estrogen with supplements)
Mongolia appeared to be an anomality as this land locked land (and therefore presumably with lesser access to fish than other Asian countries) had one of the lowest incidents of SARS-CoV-2) and COVID-19 death rate in the world suggesting an immunity (perhaps from some previous local SARS outbreak). Unfortunately as of April 2021 this is no longer the case.
That aside from the fact that the lockdowns will cause much more lives to be indirectly lost, they do not seem to be as effective as expected in limiting peoples susceptibility to COVID-19. The lockdown situation prevents people either physically or through fear from going outside and/or taking sunny vacations and hence lowers their exposure to the sun and makes them more susceptible to COVID-19
By reducing Vitamin-D deficiencies we could also be lowering the incidence of Osteoporosis, Multiple Sclerosis, severe flu, obesity, mental health problems, pregnancy complications, diabetes, depression and deaths by cancer.
Together we created a global economy. It is not right to abandon and to ignore what is happening in the third world
If it would be possible to do a simultaneous world wide lockdown for a maximum of two weeks then theoretically the virus could be stopped in its tracks. But to do uncoordinated lockdowns, repeated and extended lockdowns just does not make any sense
To do so to flatten the curve does not make sense. It is far cheaper to create extra ICU units than to harm not only your own economy but the world economy. Pushing 500 million people into poverty. Not even counting the multi magnitude higher cost of dealing with the addictions, the psychological problems and deaths that will result from the lockdowns
Many people will find ingenious ways of avoiding the lockdowns. Indeed hidden intimate social contact between a few people at a time is much more contagious than a public gathering with a few targeted precautions
The UN best estimates of the impact of the lockdowns (see the quotes above)
The CDC (The US Center for Disease Control) best estimates of how changes in situation between mid 2019 and mid 2020 has affected life expectancy in the USA. So far (based on mid 2020 data) showing an average loss of one year in life expectancy
The lockdowns are the worst
In the graphic above the direct loss of life years from Covid-19 is expressed by the black dot**, whereas the loss of life years lost by the Lockdowns is represented by the red area. Here we are talking about real lives. In addition and not shown here is the loss of quality life.
**On a mobile device you might not be able to see the black dot (It helps to turn the device side ways) because the black dot is so small compared to the red area. So insignificant is the original problem compared to the catastrophe we are creating with the lockdowns that the Dutch saying to make an elephant out of a mosquito literally applies.
It is hard to accept how countries are overreacting with so much lockdowns and spreading of fear as there are other demonstrable methods available (as discussed above) and enough evidence to suggest they would work (as with Finland) as well as information that they would do no harm. On the other hand, we have more and more evidence that the lockdowns are causing harm of catastrophic proportions. By extrapolating (because of the tripling of the length of the crisis) the numbers that are based on the already available public data and forecasts such as that of the CDC, the UN and other sources and common sense we see the impact of the lockdowns and the unnecessary fear induced in people as follows. We think that most individual points are enough reason not to go for these lockdowns, let alone when all are taken together:
1000 times more life years lost than thru COVID-19 itself
Additional 20 million child marriages resulting from poverty in the years ahead
Additional 50 million women subject to violence
Additional 500 million plus people being pushed into poverty (the progress of the last 30 years wiped out)
Additional 100s of millions people being pushed into extreme poverty
Millions of businesses going out of business
Millions of businesses not going out of business but where the net worth build over a lifetime has been wiped out
Millions of businesses kept alive often by public credit for which they have to slave to repay for years to come
10s of millions of people loosing out on friendship and love
100s of millions of people loosing their jobs
100s of millions of people being out of job long term
10s of millions of people being permanently out of work
Millions of people being affected by increased racism
Additional 10s of millions of child abuse cases
Additional 10s of millions of couple breakups
Additional 100s of millions of people going into depression
Additional 10s of millions of people becoming addicted to opiates and doctor subscribed medications
Additional 10s of millions of people becoming addicted to other drugs
Additional 10s of millions of people becoming addicted to alcohol
Additional 10s of millions of people who will die at an early age because of the above mentioned addictions
Additional 100s of millions of people being affected by the addictions of others
Additional 100s of millions of people who will develop psychological disorders
The rich getting much richer and the middle class and the poor poorer
Additional trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of public debt that normal people will have to pay for in the future through taxes, through inflation, through less consumer choice, through public expenditure savings in the future and hence less public services in the future and probably decreased pensions
More money being spent by the authorities and less by the people themselves. Consolidation of power
Reduction in multi cultural offerings such as by multi cultural restaurants
The loss in peoples ability to make their own choices
The increase in the power of money governed invested interest
The increase in the polarization of extreme views
The increase in hysteria, the worked up crowd phenomena
The increase in prejudice. Either "you are with us or against us" line of thinking. Grouping everybody together towards two poles. Whereas a healthy society would benefit from critical and diverse thinking with a multitude of intrinsic variability.
The increase in mass shootings
The loss of freedom of expression
The reduction in independent reporting
For very useful and extra information, appropriate application (how much vitamin D, how frequent and what else deficient people should take or how to administer for a community or country) as well as for some references please refer to our other website end-covid-19.org
Here we used to have a recording of a legitimate TV program by investigative journalists on ARTE titled "Research, fake and dirty tricks". It seems to have been removed at the request of people who engage in suppressing critical news.
One example in the video showed how a pharma company used a resistant type of rat to show that a poisonous chemical was not so poisonous. It is analogues to the method of using one shot Vitamin-D treatments for a study when it is already known that daily dosages work much better.
"Laboratory studies demonstrate that vitamin D is active in pathways relevant to immune function, stimulating the expression of vitamin D receptors in both the innate and the adaptive immune systems. Vitamin D metabolites support innate immune responses to several viruses in cultured human respiratory epithelial cells [, , , , ], including rhinovirus and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Vitamin D may reduce the burden of infections by lowering viral replication rates, through the induction of antimicrobial peptides [, , ] and by enhancing cellular immunity by reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines and increasing concentrations of anti-inflammatory cytokines [11,12].
An example of Doublespeak by Harvard Medical School - Harvard Health Publishing
Below we compare two columns which also happen to have prominent cross links to each other as they appear on harvard.edu
The two texts do not totally contradict each other but their tone is quite different so that the casual reader who reads the first column is likely to take and recommend vitamin-D but the person reading the 2nd column is likely to be more skeptical.
What is not shown here is how the 2nd column puts supplements that have no proof of working in the same section as vitamin-D.
We have numbered and underlined the sections which we hereby compare
*1 The 2nd column begins its narrative about vitamin-D with a warning whereas the first column suggests there is little risk except for mega doses and leaves that advice to the end.
*2 The first column suggests there is evidence whereas the 2nd column emphasizes there is no proof yet.
*3 The first column suggests double to triple doses whereas the 2nd column suggests sticking to minimum dosages.
The first column is a well thought out directive by Harvard Coronavirus Resource Center (with 10 departments behind it) whereas the 2nd column is written by a single medical doctor in a key position as editor at Harvard.
The problem is that when searching for the wisdom of this highly prestigious university, people are more likely to find what we regard as the worse column and not bother about reading the better column. It is unfortunate that a single doctor can undermine the good work of all his collages. And in this fast moving world no one may even notice, but the public and even professionals around the world who google Harvard may not benefit from Harvard's wisdom, ultimately leading to the loss of lives.
"...There is some evidence to suggest that vitamin D might help protect against becoming infected with, and developing serious symptoms of, COVID-19. *2 We know, for example, that people with low vitamin D levels may be more susceptible to upper respiratory tract infections. One meta-analysis found that people who took vitamin D supplements, particularly those who had low vitamin D levels, were less likely to develop acute respiratory tract infections than those who didn't.
Vitamin D may protect against COVID-19 in two ways. First, it may help boost our bodies' natural defense against viruses and bacteria. Second, it may help prevent an exaggerated inflammatory response, which has been shown to contribute to severe illness in some people with COVID-19.
Our bodies make vitamin D when exposed to sunshine. Five to 10 minutes of sun exposure on some or most days of the week to the arms, legs, or back without sunscreen will enable you to make enough of the vitamin. Good food sources of vitamin D include fatty fish (such as tuna, mackerel, and salmon), foods fortified with vitamin D (such as dairy products, soy milk, and cereals), cheese, and egg yolks.
The recommended dietary dose of vitamin D is 600 IU each day for adults 70 and younger and 800 IU each day for adults over 70. A daily supplement containing 1,000 to 2,000 IU of vitamin D is likely safe for most people. *3 For adults, the risk of harmful effects increases above 4,000 IU per day. *1"
"...High doses of vitamin D can cause severe symptoms, such as stomach upsets, kidney injury, and pancreatitis, and may even be life-threatening. *1
"That said, people with nutritional deficiencies should receive supplements. ...vitamin D deficiencies are not rare, and may contribute to poor immune function. Therefore, even without specific evidence linking supplement use with improvement among people with COVID-19, these supplements may be appropriate for people in whom deficiency is suspected or confirmed. For example, a person with little sun exposure and a diet low in dairy products may be likely to have vitamin D deficiency. A simple blood test can confirm or rule out vitamin D ... deficiency.
If you do take supplements, it’s safest to follow the daily recommended amounts *3 your body needs unless your doctor advises otherwise.
... While there’s no proof yet *2 what they do, additional research could show a benefit in certain situations, or with a different dose or formulation of the supplement. So it’s worth keeping an open mind."