I've been a firm believer in the power of vitamin D since way back when and have always believed that the public health crisis and indeed the pandemic in this country is driven by victorian levels of deficiency.
It was discussed a lot in the early stages but seems to have dropped from favour of late as we go back to our old habits, but I came across this post and thought it worth sharing.
The NHS should be testing everyone twice a year to map out population-wide levels and looking at whole-life health outcomes.
, I victorian levels of deficiency.
Vitamin D was not chemically characterized until 1931, 30 years after the death of Victoria. in the time of victoria, people were more likey to work outside, in the fields and were hence less deficient in general in vitamin D.
Keeping your vitamin D levels up is wise, but no substitute for vaccination.
The article cited states that it is better than vaccination, so is obviously nonsense.
The so called study has samples a whole ~260 people and does not compensate for all the other factors, so should be put in the bin.
They have (rather quietly) tweaked their advice on vitamin D supplements, essentially doubling the numbers. Other places recommend even more. In the supermarket (Morrisons), the other day I bought a carton of 25 µg per day, e.g. They’ve spotted the market.
Vitamin D is useful for many things but *if you're not deficient* then extra provides no useful benefit.
No study done has shown people who were NOT Vit D deficient have any reduction in infection or severity to SARs2.
Monitoring to make sure some sub groups aren't deficient in winter (darker skin etc) makes sense generally but its not some miracle wonder drug. For most people who have normal levels, there's no further benefit to taking it for any illness, disease or condition.
Many people in northern climes have low Vit D levels in the winters months, due less time in sunlight and less exposed skin. The average person spends minutes outside each day.
