Paul Saladino· MD
people who have vitamin D levels above I think it was 32 nanograms per deciliter I believe are the unit's they were using the the incidence of severe corona virus was astronomically small
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
people who have vitamin D levels above I think it was 32 nanograms per deciliter I believe are the unit's they were using the the incidence of severe corona virus was astronomically small
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
there is good uh observational epidemiological research that levels of vitamin d above 30 nanograms per ml were quite protective
Every 4 ng/mL increase in blood vitamin D levels reduces the rate of hospitalization for respiratory infections by 4%, according to a new study analyzing data from over 36,000 adults in the UK Biobank.
Individuals with severe vitamin D deficiency (below 6 ng/mL) were 33% more likely to be hospitalized for these infections compared to those with optimal levels of vitamin D (above 30 ng/mL).