Most medical experts and politicians have gone off the deep end on COVID-19.
No effort will be spared to avoid embarrassment of the “experts” that sent us all into lockdown and will ultimately kill millions of people from bad public policies around COVID-19. Expect a full propaganda campaign in the news media and governments around the world to insist that policies were warranted (this has been underway since March 2020 and it will intensify).
Thus, lo and behold, COVID is a less severe infection than swine flu – the pandemic that never was. That’s what these figures appear to tell us. They tell us almost exactly the same in France where they ‘appear’ to have a current case fatality rate of 0.4%.
On the other hand, if you look at the figures from around the world, they are very different. As I write this there have been, according to the WHO, 25 million cases and 850,000 deaths. That is a case fatality rate of more than 3%. Ten times as high.
Why are these figures so all over the place? It is because we are using horribly inaccurate terminology. We are comparing apples with pomegranates to tell us how many bananas we have. Our experts are, essentially, talking gibberish, and the mainstream media is lapping it up. They are defining asymptomatic swabs as cases, and no-one is calling them out on it. Why?
The good news
At the start of the epidemic, the only people being tested were those who were being admitted to hospital, who were seriously ill. Many of them died. Which is why, in France, there was this very sharp, initial case fatality rate of 35%. In the UK the initial case fatality rate was I think 14%. Last time I looked at the UK figures, the case fatality was 5%, and falling fast.
This fall has occurred, and will occur everywhere in the World, because as you increase your testing, you pick up more and more people with less severe symptoms. People who are far less likely to die. The more you test, the more the case fatality rate falls.
It falls even more dramatically when you start to test people who have no symptoms at all. In fact, as you broaden your testing net, something else very important happens. You gradually move from looking at the case fatality rate to the infection fatality rate.
The infection fatality rate is the measure of how many people who are infected [even those without symptoms, or very mild symptoms] who then die. This is the critical figure to know because it gives you an accurate assessment of the total number of deaths you are likely to see.
It [case fatality rate] is falling, falling, everywhere. Where does it end up, this hybrid case/infection fatality rate? Remember, we are still only testing a fraction of the population, so we are missing the majority of people who have been infected, mainly those who do not have symptoms. Which means that these rates must fall further, as they always do in any pandemic.
...I am going to make a prediction that, in the end, we will end up with an IFR of somewhere around 0.1%. Which is about the same as severe flu pandemics we have had in the past. Remember that figure. It is one in a thousand.
It may surprise you to know that I am not the only person to have made this exact same prediction. On the 28th February, yes that far back, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (A.S.F., H.C.L.); and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. 4
In this paper ‘Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted’ they stated the following:
A case fatality rate considerably less than 1%. Their words, not mine. As they also added, ‘the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.’
At this point, you may well be asking. Why the hell did we lockdown if COVID was believed to be no more serious than influenza? Right from the start by the most influential infectious disease organisations in the World.
It is because of the mad mathematical modellers. The academic epidemiologists. Neil Ferguson, and others of his ilk. When they were guessing (sorry estimating, sorry modelling) the impact of COVID they used a figure of approximately one per cent as the infection fatality rate. Not the case fatality rate. In so doing, they overestimated the likely impact of COVID by, at the very least, ten-fold.
...Which means that, unless COVID was going to turn out nearly 100% fatal, we could never get anywhere near 1%, for the infection fatality rate. Even Ebola only kills 50%.
...So yes, it does seem that ‘the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.’
....The mortality rate Dr Fauci? Could it possibly be that he failed to understand that there is no such thing as a mortality rate? Did he mean the case fatality rate, or the infection fatality rate? If he meant the Infection mortality rate of influenza, he was pretty much bang on. If he meant the case fatality rate, he was wrong by a factor of ten.
So, we got Lockdown. The US used the Fauci figure and got locked down. The world used that figure and got locked down.
That figure just happens to be ten times too high.
I would like to thank Ronald B Brown for pointing out this catastrophic error, in his article ‘Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation.... I am simply drawing your attention to what has simply been – probably the biggest single mistake that has ever been made in the history of the world.
I recommended Vitamin D as well as sunlight exposure months ago, and repeatedly.
Why is the USA medical community fiddling while Rome burns? My lifetime experience as well as conversations with many doctors tells me clearly: on the whole and excepting a few doctors, the allopathic medical establishment is ignorant about nutrition, or even the value of sunlight because they (medical doctors) get nil training in it. And doctors don’t go looking for stuff they don’t understand.
I know that when I suspected that I had COVID-19, my doctor didn’t even mention Vitamin D (nutrition is a non-topic, poisons like statins are so much easier).
OK, so not every medical specialty has to step up, but why can’t at least internists and infectious disease doctors get their act together? Or the big medical organizations?
Why don’t we ALREADY have a dozen gold-standard studies on Vitamin D already completed here in the USA? What feckless organizations besides Big Pharma are failing to do these studies... or perhaps actively lobbying against studying such inexpensive treatments?
How many people have to die so that Big Pharma can sell us $3000-per-treatment drug that hardly work?
This study could be wrong, it could be faked, etc. But it claims to be randomized controlled study (the gold standard), and the results are so outrageously GOOD that maybe this whole damn mess could be ended tomorrow with some $0.25 pills.
The researchers here used the metabolite the body makes from Vitamin D3, but since either sunlight or Vitamin D supplementation will produce this metabolite in short order, the results are likely to hold simply via prevention for a huge portion of the at-risk population.
Oral calcifediol, the main metabolite of vitamin D3, reduced ICU admission from 50% to 2% among Covid-19 patients.
• The Vitamin D endocrine system may have a variety of actions on cells and tissues involved in COVID-19 progression.
• Administration of calcifediol or 25-hydroxyvitamin D to hospitalized COVID-19 patients significantly reduced their need for Intensive Care United admission.
• Calcifediol seems to be able to reduce severity of the disease.
The Vitamin D endocrine system may have a variety of actions on cells and tissues involved in COVID-19 progression especially by decreasing the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Calcifediol can rapidly increase serum 25OHD concentration. We therefore evaluated the effect of calcifediol treatment, on Intensive Care Unit Admission and Mortality rate among Spanish patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission... Of the patients treated with calcifediol, none died, and all were discharged, without complications.
The 13 patients not treated with calcifediol, who were not admitted to the ICU, were discharged. Of the 13 patients admitted to the ICU [not treated], two died and the remaining 11 were discharged.
Our pilot study demonstrated that administration of a high dose of Calcifediol or 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a main metabolite of vitamin D endocrine system, significantly reduced the need for ICU treatment of patients requiring hospitalization due to proven COVID-19. Calcifediol seems to be able to reduce severity of the disease, but larger trials with groups properly matched will be required to show a definitive answer.
Or, put another away: Ethics in Medicine: the Disinformation and Halfpinion Claims of the Allopathic Medical Establishment vis-a-vis Sunlight and UV Exposure and Vitamin D.
Every dermatologist so far has told me that my skin is in excellent condition for my age. In spite of a great deal of sun exposure, much of it at very high altitude (8000 feet to 14000+ feet). I have never had any skin cancer even though I have quite a few moles starting at young age. My natural skin color is quite light, tanning to a pleasing brown with sun exposure.
How many people are BEING KILLED because of BAD MEDICAL ADVICE regarding sunlight?
Many more details below, but here are key take-aways:
“Vitamin D supplements are not an effective substitute for adequate sun exposure”...
The only identified risk associated with the amount of non-burning sun exposure needed to achieve serum 25(OH)D levels of 30 ng/mL is some possible increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer.
... risks of inadequate non-burning sun exposure include increased risks of all-cause mortality, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer disease, multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, statin intolerance, macular degeneration and myopia.
— NIH “The risks and benefits of sun exposure 2016”.
As a youth, I loved to fish and be outdoors. I was burned and tanned very satisfactorily as a youth, including blistering on my face at age 16 after skiiing in March. In summar, I had a very dark tanned back and bleached blonde hair—dang it feels good to be in the sun as a kid! That kind of excessive sun exposure is surely Not Good—no argument.
....Being a past scientist, having done research in Molecular and Cellular Biology at UC Davis and Los Alamos National Lab, and being a trained hazard and risk analysis professional at LANL, and trained in contamination control and response to bio- and rad-attacks.... .
I also think the Vitamin D slant has merit and think that the folks at Oak Ridge National Lab have come up with an interesting bradykinin hypothesis. That said, I think you state the Vitamin D case and getting 20 minutes of sun in the middle of the day a bit strongly.
I agree that we need Vitamin D and that some people are deficient. I agree that sunscreen has the potential to be shown to be harmful in the long run. But I don’t agree with having to get out in the mid day sun to get your Vitamin D.
About 2.5 months ago, during the peak of COVID in Miami, I had the pleasure of going to the Miami Cancer Center for melanoma surgery on my arm plus a one node lymph node extraction. I was lucky and they got it in time and it had not yet spread (but it was way too damned close.) Anyway, I looked up an article on Yale Medicine and I’m thinking we can get enough vitamin D in the morning sun, even in shade and minimize risk to skin cancer and avoid sunscreen. It’s a win win.
WIND: I am so glad that Donna got her skin cancer caught in time. May we all be so fortunate! But my family has seen a curious absence of skin cancer, in spite of being very outdoorsy—I’d bet on a strong genetic component, and perhaps nutrition too. But Miama is not Wisconsin or Northern California and the sun intensity varies a lot over the year in northern areas.
My sun-exposure advice
So let’s get to a quality paper which actually does risk assessment across fields. Emphasis added in places.
Public health authorities in the United States are recommending that men, women and children reduce their exposure to sunlight, based on concerns that this exposure will promote skin cancer. On the other hand, data show that increasing numbers of Americans suffer from vitamin D deficiencies and serious health problems caused by insufficient sun exposure.
The body of science concerning the benefits of moderate sun exposure is growing rapidly, and is causing a different perception of sun/UV as it relates to human health. Melanoma and its relationship to sun exposure and sunburn is not adequately addressed in most of the scientific literature. Reports of favorable health outcomes related to adequate serum 25(OH)D concentration or vitamin D supplementation have been inappropriately merged, so that benefits of sun exposure other than production of vitamin D are not adequately described.
This review of recent studies and their analyses consider the risks and benefits of sun exposure which indicate that insufficient sun exposure is an emerging public health problem. This review considers the studies that have shown a wide range health benefits from sun/UV exposure. These benefits include among others various types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer disease/dementia, myopia and macular degeneration, diabetes and multiple sclerosis.
The message of sun avoidance must be changed to acceptance of non-burning sun exposure sufficient to achieve serum 25(OH)D concentration of 30 ng/mL or higher in the sunny season and the general benefits of UV exposure beyond those of vitamin D.
Public health authorities in the United States are currently advising that human sun exposure be reduced.1 At the same time, NHANES data show that 32% of Americans suffer from vitamin D insufficiency.a
In this paper we review the current state of the science of the risks and benefits of sun exposure and suggest that public health advice be changed to recommend that all men, women and children accumulate sufficient non-burning sun exposure to maintain their serum 25hydroxyvitaminD [25(OH)D] levels at 30 ng/mL or more year-round.
...A letter signed by many respected vitamin D scientists and physicians recommends 40–60 ng/mL70 which is in line with what the Endocrine Society recommended as the preferred range for health...
.... Using the Endocrine Society's definition of vitamin D sufficiency of 30 ng/mL, the level of vitamin D insufficiency increased from 55% of the US population in NHANES III to 77% in NHANES 2001–2004,38 which indicates that the vast majority of Americans have an insufficient vitamin D status.
...study found an inverse association of circulating 25(OH)D with risks of death due to cardiovascular diseases, cancer and other causes (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22–1.49 for all cause mortality... authors further estimate that 9.4% of all deaths in Europe and 12.8% in the United States could be attributable to vitamin D insufficiency... found that the overall age-adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality comparing the lowest (0–9 ng/mL) group to the highest (greater than 50 ng/mL) was 1.9 (95% CI 1.6–2.2), indicating that individuals in the lowest [Vitamin D] group had nearly twice the age-adjusted death rate as those in the highest quantile..
...As compared to the highest sun exposure group, the all-cause mortality rate was doubled (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6–2.5) among avoiders of sun exposure and increased by 40% (RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.7) in those with moderate exposure...
...measured low 25(OH)D levels in the general population associated with increased mortality...
...patients in the highest quintile of prediagnostic circulating 25(OH)D concentration (more than 40 ng/mL) had a 42% reduced risk of colon cancer as compared to patients with the lowest quintile (less than 10 ng/mL)....
Breast cancer incidence and mortality
...breast cancer mortality which found that patients in the highest quintile of 25(OH)D (more than 32 ng/mL) had approximately half the death rate from breast cancer as those in the lowest quintile...
Non-hodgkins lymphoma, colorectal, prostate and breast cancer, and multiple sclerosis
1) there is an inverse association between sun exposure and both colorectal cancer risk and colorectal cancer mortality; 2) there is an inverse association between vitamin D status and both colorectal cancer risk and colorectal cancer mortality; 3) there is a negative association between sun exposure and prostate cancer risk and prostate cancer mortality but not between vitamin D status and prostate cancer risk or mortality; 4) there is an inverse correlation between sun exposure and breast cancer risk and breast cancer mortality, and possibly between 25(OH)D and breast cancer mortality, but studies on the association between 25(OH)D and breast cancer risk are inconclusive; 5) there is a negative association between sun exposure and NHL risk and NHL mortality but not between vitamin D status and NHL risk or mortality; 6) there is a negative association between sun exposure and lymphoma risk, but no association between lymphoma risk and vitamin D intake or 25(OH)D levels; and, 7) for multiple sclerosis, both experimental and epidemiological studies show that the preventative role of sun exposure is independent of vitamin D production.
...reduced risk of bladder cancer associated with 25(OH)D concentrations above 30 ng/mL compared to less than 15 ng/mL...
Cardiovascular disease (CVD)
...stores of nitrogen oxides in the human skin are mobilized to the systemic circulation by exposure of the body to UVA radiation, causing arterial vasodilation and a resultant decrease in blood pressure independent of vitamin D...
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) and type 2 diabetes
...higher 25(OH)D levels were associated with lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome... low 25(OH)D levels are associated with type 2 diabetes independently of BMI...
...individuals with 25(OH)D levels above 25 ng/mL had a 43% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (95% CI, 2457%–) compared with individuals with 25(OH)D levels below 14 ng/mL, and that vitamin D supplementation had no effect...
Alzheimer disease and cognitive decline
...participants with serum 25(OH)D levels below 10 ng/mL were more than twice as likely to develop Alzheimer disease than participants with serum 25(OH)D levels greater than 20 ng/mL... the probability is about 140% that an individual without Alzheimer would have a higher 25(OH)D level than an individual with Alzheimer if both individuals were chosen at random from a population...
Multiple sclerosis (MS), type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis
...findings support the long-held view that the incidence of MS is inversely related to UVR exposure... more sun exposure in the third gestational trimester was associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes in male children...
...Vitamin D deficiency was associated with psoriasis independently of other factors (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.18–4.89).
...circulating vitamin D levels may represent a proxy for bodily exposure to sunlight122 explaining the observation that mediators induced by sun exposure other than vitamin D may play important roles in curtailing NAFLD...
Statin intolerance and muscle pain, weakness
...statin intolerance because of myalgia, myositis, myopathy, or myonecrosis associated with serum 25(OH)D less than 23 ng/mL can be resolved with vitamin D supplementation raising serum 25(OH)D to 53 ng/mL. Aleksic et al. 2015123 found that low vitamin D levels are a potentially significant and correctible risk factor for statin-related myopathy, especially in African-Americans.
....6.7-fold increased risk of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) among women with serum 25(OH)D levels less than 12 ng/mL who also had genetic risk for AMD, and noted that previous studies had found that decreased odds of AMD are associated with high compared to low concentrations of 25(OH)D...
Dental caries in infants
...low prenatal 25(OH)D concenratations were associated with increased risk of dental caries among offspring in the first year of life...
UVR exposure may be an effective means of suppressing the development of obesity and metabolic syndrome through mechanisms that are independent of vitamin D but dependent on other UVR-induced mediators such as nitric oxide...
... children who spend more time outdoors are less likely to be or to become myopic, irrespective of how much near work they do or whether their parents are myopic. The likely mechanism for this protective effect is visible light stimulating release of dopamine from the retina, which inhibits increased axial elongation, the structural basis of myopia. The authors describe the effect of time outdoors on the risk of myopia as robust.
Other benefits of sun exposure
prevailing amount of sunlight affects brain serotonergic activity. Deficiencies in serotonin and brain serotonergic activity have been linked to sudden infant death syndrome,134 seasonal affective disorder,133 depression,135 schizophrenia,136 Alzheimer disease,137 and migraine headaches.138 Beta-endorphin, a neuorohormone that acts as an analgesic, has been known for many years to be released in the human body by exercise,139 producing a feeling of wellbeing similar to the feeling of wellbeing induced by sun exposure.
Vitamin D supplements vs. sun exposure
...vitamin D supplements are not an effective substitute for adequate sun exposure.
Balancing the risks of moderate non-burning sun exposure against the risks of inadequate sun exposure
The only identified risk associated with the amount of non-burning sun exposure needed to achieve serum 25(OH)D levels of 30 ng/mL is some possible increased risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer. The amount of sun exposure required to produce this level of Vitamin D varies among individuals and according to time of year, time of day and latitude.
White people with Type II skinsh at 40 degrees latitude can obtain their annual requirements of vitamin D by spending about 15 minutes in the sun with face, arms and legs exposed (half that time if in a bathing suit) 2 to 3 times a week between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. during the months of May through October.141 In comparison, nonmelanoma skin cancer is associated with many thousands or tens of thousands of cumulated hours of lifetime sun exposure.16,52,53 Moreover, inadequate acclimatization to UVR in daily life carries the risk of sunburn and corresponding increased risk of both nonmelanoma skin cancer and melanoma.
The risks of inadequate non-burning sun exposure include increased risks of all-cause mortality, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer disease, multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, statin intolerance, macular degeneration and myopia.
People with darker skins require more time in the sun to produce their requirements of vitamin D but also have lower risks of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and people with Type I skins, who are unable to tan, require less time in the sun but have higher risks of nonmelanoma skin cancer. All persons should avoid sunburns, which are associated with substantial increased risk of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer.
Correlation is not causation, but the idea that the human body evolved for millenia to make lots of Vitamin D from sunlight as some kind of genetic accident replaceable by a single crude supplement, and that all these powerful correlations are accidental... that just defies all logic.
Don’t get me started on impairing the body’s key building block for Vitamin D production via statin drugs—the morally and financially degenerate use of statin drugs by the medical establishment is grotesque in its dishonesty and anti-scientific basis.
Criticquing a typical “expert” halfpinion article — Yale Medicine
The referenced Yale Medicine article “Vitamin D Myths 'D'-bunked” is halfpinion dogmatic medical malpractice misinformation, chock full of serious flaws and major omissions includin. These “experts” are just promulgating “fake medical news”. Just for starters:
- Following the cited advice to avoid sun exposure is a recipe for numerous health problems, including other cancers. See the NIH article that follow.
- The authors are seemingly ignorant of the key role that magnesium plays in calcium regulation (“you may absorb too much calcium”), not once mentioning that high calcium levels might be a sign of magnesium defciency and that you CANNOT absorb it properly without Vitamin K2 and magnesium. Indeed, the doctor had to use “medications” instead of recognizing a more basic nutritional possibility, possibly putting the baby (patient) at much higher risk than instead assessing dietary inputs.
- Intellectual incompetence of conflating indvididuals health and genetics with populations as in “Testing is important only for certain populations...”. What twaddle—reminds me of the BMI bullshit with categorized me as “borderline obese” at 8% body fat.
- Citing dubious RDA guidelines e.g., 20 ng/ml for Vitamin D.
- The “body is a test tube with one ingredient” idiocy of taking supplements in isolation: “majority of people can get their vitamin D from nutritional supplements”. And what about the non-majority? Nutrition is a highly synergistic and extremely complex system, and some supplements have problems, like lead contamination.
- Being outdoors with the body almost entirely covered as I see most people doing is the norm around my neighborhood is probably KILLING people from COVID-19 due to low Vitamin D levels needed to combat all sorts of immune system challenges (not just CV19). I see older people covered head to toe—and they are the crowd most at risk from COVID. Ironically, there is a CV19 warning on the page, yet no mention of the role sunlight and Vitamin D might have in fending off CV19.
- Following the cited advice in winter and in northern latitudes and/or with dark skin is dangerously bad advice. Articles that don’t even mention these critical considerations are the worst of the worst halfpinions, misleading tens of millions of people in the USA alone.
- The scientific evidence for skin cancer has NOT shown direct causation—only correlation and correlation is not causation. Researchers isolate a single factor, then choose to NOT STUDY the 100 other factors that might be involved, either because they lack imagination or have a financial agenda, or because they have no training in nutrition or lifestyle factors. The human body is not a god-damned test tube; it is a complex organism with thousands of inputs, including nutrition and microbiome and genetics and environmental toxins.
- Sunblock may make skin cancer WORSE by blocking the critical production of Vitamin D (blocking UV-B rays), needed for the body to destroy cancers of many kinds! Focusing on a single cance while ignoring dozens of upsides is anti-health and anti-science.
- The author’s claim that the bulk of the population is not Vitamin D deficient is bunk, based on bad science and arbitrary cutoffs, and it ignores dark-skinned individuals, who may need hours in the sun for adequate Vitamin D. Citing bogus statistics and generalizing so casually is the hallmark of bad medicine and bad science and just plain Bad Thinking.
- The author fails to mention that breast milk might not have enough D because the mother is deficient.
- Direct causation of melanoma has NOT been proven, nor has it ever been proven that moderate daily sun exposure raises the risk of skin cancer (see quotes from NIH that follow).
- That the author of the Yale article recommends expensive food (salmon, which might be farmed and contain toxins), mercury-high food (tuna), unpalatable food (beef liver), and high-sugar foods (orange juice, cereal) shows he is an ignoramus about nutrition and total healthm, that at best his competence is reading a food label. Does that author understand anything about health or nutrition, or that the body is a complex system with thousands of health threats and hundreds of important nutritional inputs?
Dermatologists who fail to do total health risk assessment are just demonstrating intellectual blind spots, expressing their single-variable halfpinions and thus putting millions of people at increased risk of many ailments. Those same doctors have a near complete ignorance of nutrition, having received nearly nil training in it, let alone any scientifically defensible training—the food pyramid is what most doctors still point you at—unbelievable.