Vit-D and COVID19 update: big review (Benskin) peer reviewed; tide turning?

15 points

6 years ago

For months I updated my review of evidence that low D worsens C19. Is the tide starting to turn? (As it did for masks.) Hopeful signs lately. And time to go back to other things. So here's a sign-off update:

Benskin's great review: www.researchgate.net/publication/342976453_A_Basic_Review_of_the_Preliminary_Evidence_that_Covid-19_Risk_and_Severity_is_Increased_in_Vitamin_D_Deficiency is I'm told peer reviewed & accepted. Been in review a while so some stuff out-of-date: Shouldn't include withdrawn Indonesian study & Jun-16 cut-off misses important Israel study & others, but author gets criticism of bad studies right, notes the mistake in setting RDA & has great comprehensive review of early mechanism papers & group-level association studies.

There's been suspicion the D+C19 relationship is explicitly suppressed by various forces. I'm not going to dig into that. I hope someone does someday. Will those on the correct side be rewarded & naysayers/suppressors judged by history?

Despite antipathy, recent weeks have seen many more mechanism papers & other reviews plus a change in media tone. Eg "There has been a clear shift in recent weeks towards putting a greater emphasis on the role of vitamin D in public health messaging." www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/vitamin-d-keep-you-safe-18690173

Vit D now the top trending clinical topic on Medscape: reference.medscape.com/viewarticle/933781

I've been updating my review & 1pager as studies come out but will now stop paying close attention to get back to work on aging bio. No idea if I've helped with D/C19, but mostly out of my hands now. Happy to make updates to my 1pager agingbiotech.info/vitamindcovid19facts for important items if contacted.

Aging is an even bigger risk factor for C19 than low D, just less easily modified but not immutable. More in my Tweet'ed version of this message: twitter.com/KarlPfleger/status/1293679019716558848

2 comments