Vitamin D: The simple stuff. More info. Propaganda and bad science. And the great science. (beta)

You need 4000-10000 IU (depending on weight) of vitamin D daily unless you get sun in the summer AND during lunch time. A sun that is low on the horizon doesn't give you much Vitamin-D and only cancer. Sunscreens are great, but make sure you get 15 minutes of sun without it in the middle of the day! A tip: If you are close to the equator or in the summer, open windows and door, and then the UV-B light will flow indoor just like the visible light and you will get a sunburn that is very even and safe. The UV-B-light bounce around just as well as the visible light, but it can't pass through glass.

If you think that you're deficient, start with a single dose of 50 000 IE, and then continue with 4000-10000 IU.

Either eat food rich in vitamin K2 or take that as a part of the Vitamin D pill! K2 makes the calcium stay in your bones and removes it from your arteries. Most suspected cases of overdosing vitamin D are likely just a lack of K2 and possibly other minerals.

Also make sure that your food contains enough magnesium and zinc! Magnesium regulates "Vitamin-D levels" making both a shortage and too much D less of a problem. The main problem is not lack of magnesium and zinc in you food, but that you constantly eat bread or pasta (or even nuts) with every meal, and then the body can't absorb minerals well. You can improve the uptake of zinc with "ionophores", for example tonic, green tea, onions and garlic. You can get green tea extract without caffeine and quercetin is the ionophore in many plants like onions and it also have other positive effects on moderating your immune system. But if you eat meals with only meat, seafood and dairy, you will get the minerals you need without any problem.

And eat some liver. If you don't like it, try liver paté or livers from birds or pigs because they don't taste as strong as beef liver! You don't need to eat much, and you will stop liking it when your body has had enough, but liver is a great source of vitamin A and basically everything, but you can't get enough D without overdosing on A from liver, so sun/D-supplemens are preferred too.

You can take a multivitamin pill on top of this, just to make sure you aren't having a great deficiency.

1930-1950 no pandemic

http://www.academie-medecine.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20.5.22-Vitamine-D-et-coronavirus-ENG.pdf
https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/Marik-Covid-Protocol-Summary.pdf

Vitamin D "might be toxic"?!?

The lowest dosage that might have lead to toxic levels was a tiny old lady who got 40000 IU daily and months later got some bleeding, that might have been related to the Vitamin-D or more likely a deficiency in K2 and vitamin C or something completely different. That dosage is however 10 times more than someone her size should take!

Other cases involved men who took 50 000 IU daily, and they started to get calcium in their blood (which is a sign of K2 deficiency), but when they stopped taking that much D, they were just fine (except that one of them was 95 years old, so he didn't live long afterwards, but the middle aged man was just fine).

Propaganda:

Articles mention "Vitamin D might be dangerous" and either they give no sources or they refer to cases in hope that you will not read them in detail. The cases are always vague and people who have taken 40 000 to 100 000 IU of Vitamin D daily for many months, and when they stopped doing that, they were OK or were so old and weak that they die for some reason that probably had nothing to do with them overdosing Vitamin D.

The goal is to give you a feeling of that vitamin D is dangerous and that you should embrace vitamin D deficiency instead:

Example of a study "disproving D" according to articles linking to it:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2613159
1) The study was on elderly women that were not deficient in D
2) The women who got 2000 IU D daily got 30% less cancer than the control
3) This was not statistically significant
They keep on producing studies like this, and articles in every language are linking to them hoping that you will not actually read the study in detail

A series of good arguments on why it's the people who want to keep vitamin D levels low that have to prove their case:
https://twitter.com/KarlPfleger/status/1327374066047619072
There is not one single proof that low vitamin D levels could be a good thing

Studies proving D

Evidence Supports a Causal Role for Vitamin D Status in COVID-19 Outcomes
Gareth Davies, Attila R Garami, Joanna C Byers
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20087965v3

Rahul Kalippurayil Moozhipurath och Lennart Kraft:
"Does Lockdown Decrease the Protective Role of Ultraviolet-B (UVB) Radiation in reducing COVID-19 Deaths?"
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3639244
India has monsoons instead of winter seasons for viruses:
https://blogs.bmj.com/pmj/2020/07/08/monsoon-vitamin-d-covid-19-implications-for-india/

"The Spanish calcifediol study": -96% less need of ICU!!! -100% death
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076020302764
Small study but there is a chance in a million that the ICU value was by chance. Also note that these patients also got zinc+HCQ, without which the calcifediol might not been as successful.

"The Indian study" - 65% well in 21 days compared to 21% in the control
Short term, high-dose vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled, study (SHADE study)
https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/12/postgradmedj-2020-139065.full

50-60 ng/ml seems to be good or at least not bad.
Huge Canadian study showed that the more D in the blood, the less risk of covid:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239252#pone-0239252-g001
MedCram confirms my view of it:
https://youtu.be/UzGKqujdTQ8