How do you have the nerve to write this? Where do you get your bullshit from? Do you just make it up?
There's a 141-page document (not including references and appendices) from 2016 covering Vitamin D in musculoskeletal health and also: pregnancy and lactation, cancers, cardiovascular disease and hypertension, all cause mortality, immune modulation, infectious diseases, neuropsychological function, oral health, and macular degeneration. Plus there have been a couple of minor updates since.
From the official fucking NHS website and all their messaging. I'm sorry that I forgot muscle health... It's not like we have studies showing taking vitamin d is as much as 6 times more effective against the flu than getting the yearly vaccine, oh but we actually do have those.
Find out about vitamin D, including what it does, how much you need, and how to ensure you get enough.
www.nhs.uk
Vitamin D helps regulate the amount of calcium and phosphate in the body.
These nutrients are needed to keep bones, teeth and muscles healthy.
A lack of vitamin D can lead to bone deformities such as rickets in children, and bone pain caused by a condition called osteomalacia in adults.
Important: Coronavirus (COVID-19) update:
It's important to take vitamin D as you may have been indoors more than usual this year.
You should take 10 micrograms (400 IU) of vitamin D a day between October and early March to keep your bones and muscles healthy.
There have been some reports about vitamin D reducing the risk of COVID-19. But there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D to prevent or treat COVID-19.
New research presented at this week's ESCMID Conference on Coronavirus Disease (ECCVID, held online) shows that a shorter time from symptom onset to hospitalisation is associated with more serious disease and death in patients with COVID-19. The study is by Dr Annie Wong-Beringer and colleagues...
eurekalert.org
Report from an academic conference presentation about a US hospital. 33% of covid-19 hospitalisations in the study were within 3 days of symptom onset, 27% after one week. Beats your unsourced anecdote by a lot.
It's not unsourced, I literally provided the source. And how does that beat it. 33% within 3 days, 27% after one week, then obviously the biggest amount, 40% between those 2 points.
Do you have the memory of a goldfish? I have said many, many times that the evidence against remdesivir being effective is now very strong.
I'm defending the principle of why it was trialled and that (under emergency circumstances) there was data to justify its approval, not that it works.
I'm still seeing money as the main reason. Everything they've thrown remdesivir at before hasn't worked either. It's an antiviral that should be administered early and as outpatient but it has to be given as inpatient treatment, it costs a lot, and the supply was limited. It didn't have really anything going for it as far as effectiveness on other viruses or the logistics of it. And if other SAFER and more readily available drugs were held up to the same standards of proof as remdesivir, they would have been approved to. I don't know how anyone would agree that there isn't double standards here.
In the scientific literature, obviously. Seriously, google something like "study ivermectin covid-19" and start looking. And don't just pick out the ones that say what you want.
So, where's this better quality evidence that says it doesn't work that you said there was?
Yes, because many governments are otherwise unable to control covid-19 and want to be seen to be doing something by an upset populace. As a bunch of numpties spread rumours that ivermectin works, it makes people clamour for that probably useless drug, and so it's cheap and easy for politicians to seem responsive and let them have it. See also hydroxychloroquine.
Philippines seems very wary of ivermectin but they keep adding more hospitals to the short list that can use it. And, again, it has a better chance than remdesivir.
Who cares? Give it to them and be done with. There is no means to force anyone to take a vaccine, so if the anti-vaxxers squeal they can stop their little darlings having the jab. Other than that, go forth and vaccinate because it is just the most sensible thing to do. If you've got a problem with that, you are in essence an anti-vaxxer.
I have an issue giving kids something we've never given them ever in history. Plus, these vaccines are emergency use authorization. And you don't have to vaccinate people that were already infected. There's no reason to mandate vaccines for something around half the population already got.
Herd immunity is simply the point that new infections should go down naturally. However, that doesn't mean people magically stop being infected the minute herd immunity is reached. The more people immune the better the protection, the fewer people get infected in mini outbreaks and the faster they die out.
Yeah, we're at it now already.
Waffle. None of this is answering the fact that your claims are empty.
You never even looked at them.