The biggest issue that no one seems to be talking about (or maybe they are & getting censored) is that there has been irreparable damage done to the credibility of the medical profession.

RichLDNRD
12 min ago
The biggest issue that no one seems to be talking about (or maybe they are & getting censored) is that there has been irreparable damage done to the credibility of the medical profession. Once very trusted members of the medical community have been found out to be quacks on the payroll of big-pharm & will push any narrative, drug, chemical or unproven treatment as long as they cash in on it. Not just that, but the highly respected medical journals that were the all powerful deciding word on anything having to do with health are highly motivated by funding that comes from big-pharm that would benefit the results of the article printed. Furthermore, the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be the safety mechanism looking out for the wellbeing of the general population & patients have also been found to be in collusion to this insane breach of oath & public trust. All of this has real life & death ramifications to the money churning schemes that are in effect feed by greed.

Vitamin D is an immune regulating hormone. Having 25(OH)D3 blood serum values of 50-100 ng/mL highly reduces the risk of being affected by almost all existing diseases, including allergies, cancer, and depression. However, there are two significant, interrelated problems regarding vitamin D.

Most MDs and researchers have no expertise in nutrition, let alone clinical or functional nutrition. And this is the primary reason why the methodology of almost all vitamin D studies is flawed.

Many vitamin D studies consequently manifest a false image of vitamin D. They conclude that vitamin D is ineffective, even though the opposite is true.

$Tip RichLDNRD$

Due to the Covid “pandemic”, many studies on vitamin D have been conducted in the last two years. Many studies conclude that vitamin D is ineffective, if not harmful. The website VDmeta.com provides an overview of the Covid-related vitamin D studies. In this article, I address the methodology of these articles. But let’s first take a look at the three criteria a vitamin D study must fulfil to be meaningful.

Vitamin D from the diet, or from skin synthesis, is biologically inactive. It is activated by two protein enzyme hydroxylation steps, the first in the liver and the second in the kidneys.[1][4] Because vitamin D can be synthesized in adequate amounts by most mammals if they get enough sunlight, it is not essential and therefore is technically not a vitamin.[3] Instead it can be considered a hormone, with activation of the vitamin D pro-hormone resulting in the active form, calcitriol, which then produces effects via a nuclear receptor in multiple locations.[3]
1. Proper Dosage
The vitamin D dosage administered in the study must reflect physiologic requirements and natural endogenous production. Consequently, it should be in the range of 4,000-10,000 IU (depending on age, weight, and skin color) to achieve a vitamin D blood serum level >50 ng/mL. My diagram below illustrates the claim that proper immune system function requires at least 50 ng/mL, as Robin Whittle explained in this article.

2. Duration of Supplementation
The participants of the studies must supplement with vitamin D for at least six months. It can be expected that the vitamin blood serum level plateaus after about four months. However, another 2-4 months are required to cause biochemical changes within the participant’s body. This means that a conducted study does not begin with administering vitamin D, but instead, 2-4 months after achieving vitamin D sufficiency (i.e. >50 ng/mL of 25(OH)D) is reached.

3. Achieved Blood serum Levels
As stated above, the participant’s blood-serum level needs to be between 50-100 ng/mL 25(OH)D. Higher 25(OH)D levels than 100 ng/mL could be clinically problematic. Also, one should always supplement vitamin D with about 200 µg vitamin K2-MK7 to avoid calcification.

Vitamin D Treatment Studies
The website vdmeta.com lists the following treatment studies. Especially, nine studies that show adverse effects of vitamin D catch the eye. Let’s take a closer look at them.

Cereda et al. (2020)
The authors of this paper claim that vitamin D supplementation increased mortality by 73%. The study’s methodology was as follows.

Vitamin-D Dosage: 800 IU per day (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU)
Duration of Supplementation: 3 months (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Blood serum Levels: average of 32,9 ng/mL (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

And yet, the authors concluded that “25OHD supplementation was not associated with the severity of COVID-19. On the other hand, a trend toward a 2-fold higher mortality in users was found.” I have absolutely no clue how this paper passed the peer-review process.

$Tip RichLDNRD$

Murai et al. (2020)
This randomized clinical trial performed by Murai et al. claimed that treatment with vitamin D increased the death rate by 49%. Let’s check out their methodology.

Vitamin-D Dosage: a single dose of 200,000IU (FAIL! Over a six months period, between 800,000 and 1,800,000 IU would be required.)
Duration of Supplementation: 1 day (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Blood serum Levels: average of 44,4 ng/mL (INSUFFICIENT! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

Even though the recorded achieved blood serum level was at a much better range than the placebo (average of about 20 ng/mL), almost no patient achieved higher levels than 50 ng/mL. Also, biochemical changes within the body could not have occurred within such a short time.

Fun-fact: the patients were administered 200,000 IU of vitamin D in combination with 10ml of peanut oil. It is known that peanut oil increases inflammation processes within the body due to its high omega-6 fatty-acids content.

Ullah et al. (2020)
This study claimed that treatment with vitamin D increased mortality by 42%. The study was obviously taken offline.

Aldwihi et al. (2021)
In this study, Aldwihi et al. claim that supplementing with vitamin D increased the risk of hospitalization by 49.3%. The respective study is a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study that included adult patients (≥18 years) in Saudi Arabia who could understand Arabic and who had recently recovered from COVID-19.

Vitamin-D Dosage: n/a (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU)
Duration of Supplementation: n/a (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Blood serum Levels: not measured (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

A shame that studies like these actually get published.

Pecina et al. (2021)
This study compared the vitamin D status of severe and non-severe covid patients.

Vitamin-D Dosage: n/a (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU)
Duration of Supplementation: n/a (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Blood serum Levels: n/a (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

This publication is a joke. The authors took blood samples from all study participants and categorized them into two groups: >20 ng/mL and <20 ng/mL. They then concluded that the “vitamin D status was not related to any of the primary outcomes reflecting severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients”. Comparing vitamin D-deficient patients with other vitamin D-deficient patients is junk science — no clue how this paper made it through peer review.

Assiri et al. (2021)
A retrospective cohort study claiming that vitamin D administration increased the chance of dying by 66%.

Vitamin-D Dosage: n/a (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU)
Duration of Supplementation: one month? (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Blood serum Levels: n/a (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

I’m horrified that this study made it through peer review. Nowhere in that study, neither the dose nor the duration of treatment were mentioned. Also, the patients’ blood serum levels were not measured.

$Tip RichLDNRD$

Cannata-Andía et al. (2022)
In this treatment study, participants received a one-time oral dose of 100,000 IU of vitamin D3. The study claims that those who received such a treatment had increased risks of 44 and 117% dying from Covid.

Vitamin-D Dosage: 100,000 IU once (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU per day)
Duration of Supplementation: once (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Blood serum Levels: ~30 ng/mL (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

This study didn’t meet any of the above-mentioned criteria.

Jolliffe et al. (2022)
This randomized controlled trial study claims that those treated with vitamin D required 41% higher hospitalization. Let’s take a look at their methodology.

Vitamin-D Dosage: 800 IU or 3200 IU per day (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU per day)
Duration of Supplementation: 6 months (ALMOST SUFFICIENT! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Blood serum Levels: 30-40 ng/mL (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

This study was better conducted than the others but did not meet any of the abovementioned criteria.

Mariani et al. (2022)
This randomized controlled clinical trial claims that treating patients with a single dose of 500,000IU cholecalciferol increased the chance of dying by 124%.

Vitamin-D Dosage: 500,000 IU (OK!)
Duration of Supplementation: once (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Blood serum Levels: Average 102 ng/mL (OK! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

Administering 500,000IU vitamin D without vitamin K2 is dangerous. Also, the average value of 102 ng/mL means that some patients were far above that value. As stated in criteria #2, at least two months are required for biochemical changes to take effect. Scientists/MDs who know nothing about vitamin D should not be allowed to conduct such studies.

Conclusion
The biggest issue that no one seems to be talking about (or maybe they are & getting censored) is that there has been irreparable damage done to the credibility of the medical profession. Once very trusted members of the medical community have been found out to be quacks on the payroll of big-pharm & will push any narrative, drug, chemical or unproven treatment as long as they cash in on it. Not just that, but the highly respected medical journals that were the all powerful deciding word on anything having to do with health are highly motivated by funding that comes from big-pharm that would benefit the results of the article printed. Furthermore, the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be the safety mechanism looking out for the wellbeing of the general population & patients have also been found to be in collusion to this insane breach of oath & public trust. All of this has real life & death ramifications to the money churning schemes that are in effect feed by greed. There is absolutely no excuse for this willful and educated decision by the most knowledgeable people in our society to violate their oaths & turn their back on the most vulnerable. It is more than disgusting to me as a medical professional, with a 30-year practice that has in no way allowed me to be wealthy. In fact, as a registered dietitian & licensed nutritionist that has no power of the prescription pad & sells no supplement products, I have foregone the get rich mechanisms that seem to be the automatic go to tools in practice today by the majority of my colleagues. I can not in good conscience take money from people who are just wanting to be healthy or feel better then provide them snake oil & false promises.

Lots of information about vitamin D is out there. Many real experts have been stating for decades which blood-serum levels are desirable. Also, the metabolic pathway of vitamin D is well-known. The fact that all of these papers made it through peer review does not say much for these particular scholars and scientific journals.

For brutally honest facts & verifiable medical/health information, please check out my web-site, newsletter, social media accounts digital megaphones I have been screaming into for the last 3 years!

$Tip RichLDNRD$