This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Following the science?(21 Posts)
Whilst I appreciate we are in unknown territories is there a risk to ‘following the science’ when scientists don’t seem to agree?
France are running a study saying smoking is a potential prevention against covid-19 and the FDA are saying it’s a risk factor?
I’m not a scientist so do such polar studies usually happen but us as Joe Bloggs don’t here about them until decided or are they just shooting in the dark and we should be concerned about the mantra of ‘following the science?’
Also should we be restricting how much information the masses are getting on these ‘hypothesis/studies’ as in many cases it is conflicting. There seems to be a lot of reporting from Prof so-and-so from X University where their opinion gets reported as fact (I’m not saying they may not be proven right in the long term) but many of these views seem to be at odds with each other?
*couldn’t do links on my phone - sorry
I think there's too much information out there and many people aren't able to respond to it appropriately.
I've been waiting for a published study of blood serum levels of vit D3 versus patient outcome and the first one that I have seen is on the net and the results show a significant correlation. Bear in mind it is not peer reviewed and does not prove causality. But I will continue with this until science proves me wrong.
The study was done by a researcher called Alipio from the Philippines. He took the data from 212 covid patients and ranked their symptoms: mild, ordinary, severe, critical.
He statistically analysed the categories and blood serum levels: normal was defined as vitamin D3 less than 30ng/ml, insufficient was in the range 21–29ng/ml and deficient as less than 20ng/ml.
Here are his results:
mild symptoms = 86% had normal levels of D3, 1.3 % had insufficient levels of D3
ordinary symptom = 26% deficient, 44% insufficient
severe = 40% deficient, 29% insufficient
critical = 32% deficient, 26% insufficient, 3% normal
OK I hear you say, it could be because those patients already had underlying conditions which rendered them deficient in the first place. But this is significant data.
Study is here:
Two things really stand out for me. This is a study of 212 Philippines nationals living in SE Asia. This is one of the BAME communities who have sadly disproportionatly died of covid in the UK:
Meanwhile, there have been only 446 deaths in the Philippines, with a population of 110 million (they had their first case of covid on 30th January!).
Secondly, the UK government has said that they will keep all the scientific data secret until after the pandemic -
'Key scientific data and advice the UK government is using to guide its covid-19 response won’t be published until the pandemic ends. Documents used to make decisions and the minutes of meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE) will only be made public when the current outbreak is brought under control, according to Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser.''
None of the scientific studies done on COVID-19 hold any weight at the moment as none have been peer reviewed as there hasn't been time and yes the media really shouldn't be reporting these so called studies as your average person just doesn't have the capacity to read them critically. For example a recent study showed that cats can transmit COVID-19 to other cats, except that was one study done in a lab with 2 cats, cat 1 was given a high viral load it wouldn't be exposed to in the real world and cat 2 was placed in close proximity. These results wouldn't be replicated in the outside world as a cat just wouldn't be exposed to that sort of viral load so all these studies need much further research to be taken seriously.
This is a flaw in the way some parts of the media report science rather than the way the science is being disseminated.
You are right to be sceptical of what are often very preliminary results but I don't think preventing the masses from accessing the information is a good way to go.
As it's so new there hasn't really been time or enough reliable stats to do proper analysis. You can get a study to say anything, and must be very careful of claiming causation. For example: more men die of coronavirus, but why? Is it something about their hormones, or is it because more men smoke, or is it because the majority of men wear trousers? Some things are relevant, some are not. It takes more time, many more studies and meta analysis to get any kind of consensus.
None of the scientific studies done on COVID-19 hold any weight at the moment as none have been peer reviewed as there hasn't been time and yes the media really shouldn't be reporting these so called studies as your average person just doesn't have the capacity to read them critically.
This is not about cats, but rats.
One of vitamin D3's role in the immune system relates to ACE2.
ACE2 enzyme supresses cytokine storms and Vit D3 goes to the receptor gene and activates ACE2 production. If there's not enough vit D3 patient continues with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
This video leads us through it paper by paper :
I've checked all the research papers, it's 100% legit, not fake news.
Rat studies on SARS have shown the ACE2 receptor is on the X chromosome , both SARS and covid have higher male mortality , males have XY obviously. Lots of other male/factors too though.
Tons and tons of evidence that vit D3 is key to the immune system in the last 10/15 years and NHS haven't updated their main vitamin webpage:
UNTIL YESTERDAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks LWJ70. Yes I'm aware of the rat studies and the role of the ACE-2 receptor cells/vitamin d3 (have been taking it for years myself). The difference is those studies are relating to SARS, not just SARS coV 2 and so there has been sufficient time for those studies to be carried out and peer reviewed. But yes why the government have failed to pick up on this and advise appropriately is beyond comprehension.
Here's a summary of a pre-published research paper from UK scientists - we are talking about very reputable scientists here
copy and paste:
www.dropbox.com/s/ka7h4fbi7xdz9s9/Covid-19 and Vitamin D Information.pdf?dl=0
They have sent out a summary above with a poster calling for hospitals to urgently analyse serum D3 levels from covid 19 patients. Their paper is a meta analysis, which means that it collates masses of data from previous studies involving 1000s of cases.
1. Winter Vitamin D deficiency is common in northern latitudes above 20 degrees and (Apr - Sep) in southern latitudes 20 degrees below the equator.
2. Coronaviruses and influenza viruses in the past have displayed very strong seasonality with winter appearances Severe Covid-19 outbreaks have happened above 20 degree winter latitudes whereas outbreaks in the southern summer hemisphere have been mild and case fatalities relatively low. Case fatalities show a striking relationship to latitude.
3. The most severe outbreak in the north has been Italy where it is noted vitamin D deficiency is one of the highest in Europe.
4. Japan is an outlier in the north, with only a very mild outbreak and has the lowest incidence of Vitamin D deficiency thanks to its high fish-content diet
5. Research suggests covid 19 can lead to a cytokine storm (where the patient's lungs fill with fluid).
6. Research shows that Vitamin D acts to limit the cytokine storm and limit lung inflammation.
There's a shed load of extra evidence which I've not had time to summarise.
I live in Thailand
Population =70 million
Deaths from covid =48
Infection = rife, I had it, we've all just about had it
Date of first covid case in Thailand= 13th January
I found some data revealing that the average daily vitamin D3 intake in the UK was approx 2.2-3.5 mcg - roughly in line with Ireland.
An elderly Norwegian female on average eats much more than the 10mcg recommended by the UK NHS website (updated yesterday).
Even if vitamin D3 deficiency has no causal effect upon covid 19 mortality, the UK's levels are shockingly bad. The sparse data from Spain is even worse.
Anecdotally, my doctor gave me a vitamin d boost a week or so before fhe lockdown. No blood test to say i was low. I have been reading about vitamin d from these threads and i am very glad he did.
The third study in the world that shows a clear relationship with vitamin D deficiency and covid 19 severity has been published. It's a study from Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans.
20 patients, randomly sampled.
''Strikingly, 100% of intensive care patients less than 75 years old had vitamin D deficiency. Among these, 64.6% had critically low (less than 20ng/mL) and three had less than 10 ng/mL.''
Only one of the randomly sampled patients was caucasian - the other 19 were afro american and hispanic.
The study also cites 33 references of causal evidence.
Here is the link.
A number of the patients were taking vitamin D supplements. So safe sunlight exposure must be more important and the much lower deaths rates in equatorial and southern hemisphere regions are surely explained by this.
SAGE, the group of scientists that advises Public Health England only meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so they will not have seen this study. I doubt whether they have read the previous two conclusive blood studies.
Even if SAGE does read these three studies, they do not have any specialist molecular virologists or immunologists to professionally interpret and evaluate the scientific evidence:
'Government rushes out request for experts to work with Sage panel Notice sent to universities amid concern over lack of expertise in parts of Covid-19 advisory group''
''The government's secret science group has a shocking lack of expertise''
In the meantime thousands of elderly are dying in care homes. The government can't even be bothered to test all of them for covid and vit D def. and administer any vitamin D3 supplements. If only they knew.
Well I understand it's a n unfolding situation and the science will develop and change as we move through this pandemic, but if we aren't following the science, what are you suggesting we follow?
Nobody seems to have picked up on the fact that covid causes blood clots in the lungs. Should we all be taking aspirin?
We could always use a magic 8 ball or just let politicians make decisions without any input from experts. The scientists don't know all the answers just now because they haven't got enough data or had enough time to reach a consensus. That is kind of how science works though. If they had all the answers they'd stop and look for another problem to solve.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.