Guest research and opinion by Jeremy Harrigan, who previously contributed this essay on the WEF meetings in China.
If enough people wake up, pulling back the curtain on vitamin D as an alternative to Covid vaccines would be a huge blow to the “safe and effective” emergency use authorization (EUA) narrative supporting more COVID vaccines and booster shots. As we approach three years since the COVID-19 pandemic began, if the medical establishment/ Big Government and Big Pharma continues to have it their way, less vitamin D supplements will flow into American households as time marches on. And if people take it for granted that taking low levels of vitamin D is good enough, the Pharma-captured HHS would be fine with that (short of banning it if they could).
We previously briefly reviewed the medical history and literature supporting the use of vitamin D for preventing disease associated with respiratory viruses in this May 07, 2022 essay titled “Preventable Deaths and D3. The Ugly History of Vitamin D3 and Fauci’s pro-Vaccine Bias”.
The pharmaceutical/biodefense/medical complex, working together with corporate media, has succeeded in putting vitamin D in a bad light through their own propaganda and misinformation campaigns. The general public continues to be left out in the dark. These are the same forces which have worked so hard to memory hole, forget, and even discredit the natural immunity which develops from infection and recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. And ultimately it never occurs to them that perhaps higher doses of vitamin D would have been the first consideration before using propaganda and coercion to drive the public to hastily line up at the pharmacy or at vaccine clinics to get the series of experimental EUA-authorized genetic vaccine shots for a pathogen which poses moderate risk.
I stumbled upon a recent article in the Washington Post entitled “Ask a Doctor: How much vitamin D do I need? Should I take a supplement?”, written by JoAnn E. Manson, MD. She is the preventive medicine chief at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Consequent to corporate media propagandizing, many consider Dr. Manson the leading authority on vitamin D. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Here are a few key excerpts from the article in its entirety:
“The vast majority of Americans are already getting all the vitamin D they need freedom their diet and the sun.”
This is an absurd assertion, and ignores more recent studies on vitamin D and clinical experience of other cadres of doctors using early treatment protocols and alternatives to vaccines.
“In 2009, my colleagues and I started a study to help fill in the gaps, looking for clearer answers on whether supplementation can prevent heart disease, stroke and cancer. The nationwide randomized trial, called the VITAL Study, recruited nearly 26,000 adults and followed them for five years. Participants agreed to receive either a placebo or 2,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D per day, without knowing which one they were taking.”
Here’s the point: what she leaves out is that at 2,000 IU’s/day, and even as low as 600 IU of vitamin D per day for adults up to age 70 and 800 IU above that age, which she supports since it comes from the National Academy, is surely insufficient to get a blood level of 50 to 60 ng/ml to prevent COVID. In reality, most people need from 4,000 to 5,000 IUs daily.
I will just cite one study to keep it simple:
A 2021 randomized clinical trial found: “the 5000 IU group had a significantly shorter time to recovery (days) than the 1000 IU group in resolving cough, even after adjusting for age, sex, baseline BMI, and D-dimer (6.2 ± 0.8 versus 9.1 ± 0.8; p = 0.039), and ageusia (loss of taste) (11.4 ± 1.0 versus 16.9 ± 1.7; p = 0.035). Conclusion: A 5000 IU daily oral vitamin D3 supplementation for 2 weeks reduces the time to recovery for cough and gustatory sensory loss among patients with sub-optimal vitamin D status and mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. The use of 5000 IU vitamin D3 as an adjuvant therapy for COVID-19 patients with suboptimal vitamin D status, even for a short duration, is recommended.” The latter would be the case for most people.
So, many studies demonstrate that adequate blood levels of vitamin D (generally speaking, above 50 nanograms/ml blood) provide substantial protection from disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A and B viruses. However, different people with different metabolism, absorbance, and body mass index (indicator how lean or fat you are) will impact on vitamin D biodistribution and bioavailability. So you need to have your blood levels checked, and do not just rely on taking some fixed amount of vitamin D. Furthermore, your vitamin D levels will shift during the year as you are exposed to more or less sunlight. So, checking vitamin D levels should be part of routine medical check up laboratory panels.
What are the downsides, the risks to taking higher levels of vitamin D? This is the logic put forth by the Washington Post’s “expert” Dr. Manson-
Taking very high doses, or “mega-dosing” (such as taking more than 6,000 IU daily), has not been studied long-term and may increase the risk of high calcium levels in the blood, kidney stones and other health issues.
This is the sort of vague argument always put forth by the uninformed physician. Kidney stones. So what does the peer reviewed data actually say about this?
Here is a great search for relevant information that anyone can perform at any time.
Do your own diligence, think for yourself.
For example, here is one interesting article, titled Acute kidney injury and electrolyte disorders in COVID-19
Hypocalcemia is the most common electrolyte disorder in COVID-19 and seems to occur because of vitamin D deficiency and parathyroid imbalance. It is also highly associated with longer hospital and ICU stay.
And it is true that very high levels can be associated with kidney disease, which is why you (or your children!) need to have your vitamin D blood levels checked:
Results: A total of 44 patients (males: 29; age: 7-62 months) were included. Age ≤ 16.5 months, body weight ≤ 10.25 kg, body height ≤ 78.5 cm, body surface area (BSA) ≤ 0.475 m2, 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 ≥ 143 ng/mL, and calcium ≥ 10.65 mg/dL were predictive of developing nephrocalcinosis with a sensitivity and specificity of > 60%. Univariant analysis revealed that BSA was the most significant anthropometric prognostic factor (odds ratio: 12.09; 95% confidence interval: 2.61-55.72; P = 0.001).
Conclusions: Children with smaller BSAs were more vulnerable to high-dose vitamin D3-related nephrocalcinosis. Physicians and parents should be aware of the potential adverse effects of vitamin D overdose in children.
But too little vitamin D can also be associated with kidney stones:
Results: In 1005 patients (66.4% men and 33.6% women), the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was 44.8%. Vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent in patients under 50 years (P < .001) and patients with hyperparathyroidism (P < .05). The lowest prevalence of hyperparathyroidism was in the 25-Hydroxyvitamin D range of 40 to 49.9 ng/mL, followed by the range of 30 to 39.9 and 20 to 29.9 ng/mL. Patients with vitamin D deficiency had lower serum creatinine (P < .02), lower 24-hour urine calcium (P < .01), and lower 24-hour urine oxalate (P < .05).
Conclusion: Iranian kidney stone formers have a relatively high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency. Our population seems to have different predisposing factors for vitamin D deficiency, i.e., higher prevalence among younger patients and no association between obesity and gender with vitamin D status. According to the parathyroid hormone, the favorable serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D level was 20 to 49.9 ng/mL in our kidney stone formers.
Bottom line, like any hormone or drug, vitamin D needs to dosed appropriately. And these one size fits all generalizations such as being promoted by Dr. Manson via the Washington Post is just non-medical propaganda. Medical science is always more nuanced. That is why you pay medical professionals to help guide your treatment decisions.