Vitamin D3 against COVID: The data is clear, and inaction is malpractice, malfeasance (Torres et al, Biomed Pharmacother 2022 Apr)
Further inaction is OBVIOUS malpractice, malfeasance, and intentional neglect
Thanks to a new article out of Spain from Torres et al (Biomed Pharmacother 2022 Apr), we again have clear evidence of vitamin D’s safety and efficacy against COVID.
We crossed the threshold of sufficient evidence months if not years ago, and at this time any further inaction is OBVIOUS malpractice, malfeasance, and intentional neglect.
Everything they reported is exactly what we have already seen in the other studies and exactly as I described in previous videos; see links/pages/videos provided below.
What they did: Torres et al (Biomed Pharmacother 2022 Apr) gave vitamin D3 either 10,000 IU/d (modest dosing, n=41) or 2,000 IU/d (obviously inadequate dosing, n=44) to patients with Covid pneumonia (very sick, hospitalized) for 14 days (too short with insufficient dosing).
The patients were very sick, and treatment was started late: These patients were already “hospitalized for at least seven days from the onset of COVID-19 symptoms” which means that 1) the condition was severe, and 2) treatment was started very late. Recall from previous discussions that the window of opportunity is within 3 days of onset of symptoms; virtually anything reasonable done within the first 3 days is effective.
Average age was 65 years: Wow! These patients were in big trouble, and supremely high risk for severe complications, death.
These patients were very sick, even before they caught Covid: 54% of the patients were obese and had hypertension (48%), dyslipidemia
(36%), and diabetes (22%).
Yep, many of these patients were about to die: “Most of the participants (85%) showed bilateral pneumonia…”
These patients were older (65y), obese, and largely hypertensive, dyslipidemic and diabetic; treatment was started late, and most of them had bilateral pneumonia at the start of the study. In other words, these were severely unhealthy patients (before they caught Covid) and many of these patients were at very high risk of death.
SHORTER HOSPITAL STAY FOR EVERYONE: Patients receiving the higher dose of vitamin D stayed in the hospital 6 days versus 9 days in the lower-dose group. This 30% reduction in time and complications is huge; in the USA, this would equate to saving thousands of dollars per patient and millions of dollars among a larger population. The study could have stopped here and could have been reported as a massive success.
SHORTER HOSPITAL STAY FOR PATIENTS WITH A.R.D.S.: “The analysis of the LOS among the participants who developed ARDS showed that those participants (9.76%) who received the highest dose of vitamin D stayed at
the hospital an average of 8.0 days (SD: 5.099), whereas those patients
(13.6%) who received the moderate dose, stayed for an average of 29.2 days.” Low-dose ARDS patients stayed in the hospital 3.6x longer — 29 days vs 8 days; that is a massive difference!!! Again, the savings at this point is tens of thousands of dollars per patient and tens of millions among a larger population.
MORE ANTI-VIRAL CYTOKINE: Increase of 1.5x in gamma-interferon, as I reviewed from other studies previously.
MORE ANTI-INFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE: Increase of 1.5x in IL-10, as I reviewed from other studies previously.
MORE T-HELPER CELLS: Vitamin D prevents the immune-depletion common to many viral infections such as Covid and HIV.
BETTER ANTIVIRAL IMMUNITY: “significant increase in the cytotoxic activity on SARS-CoV-2-infected cells exerted by PBMCs from those participants who received 10,000 IU/day for 14 days. This antiviral activity
seemed to rely mostly on NK cell-mediated cytotoxic response, due to
the degranulation capacity of these cells increased after 14 days of
receiving 10,000 IU/day.”
Is failure to use vitamin D malpractice, malfeasance, neither or both?
Failure to use vitamin D is not malpractice but it is malfeasance.
Failure to use vitamin D is not malpractice. Malpractice is defined largely from what is commonly done by the majority of doctors. Thus, if most doctors ignore nutrition, give bad nutritional advice, and use dangerous drugs and injections, then these practices will not be considered malpractice because they are part of the common practice of medicine. Ethically speaking, failure to use vitamin D to combat the high frequency and consequence of vitamin D deficiency is clearly malpractice, but in the legal sense — since malpractice is largely defined as deviation from common practice — it is not malpractice.
In contrast, failure to use vitamin D is clearly malfeasance because it (failure to treat) causes harm, and the data is very clear on this.
See the article here
See my previous videos and posts
Additional citations:
Dr Alex Kennerly Vasquez (introduction; brief Bio-CV) writes and teaches for an international audience on various topics ranging from leadership to nutrition to functional inflammology. Major books include Inflammation Mastery, 4th Edition (full-color printing, 1182 pages, equivalent to 25 typical books [averaging 60,000 words each]), which was also published in two separate volumes as Textbook of Clinical Nutrition and Functional Medicine (Volume 1: Chapters 1-4; Volume 2: Chapter 5—Clinical Protocols for Diabetes, Hypertension, Migraine, Fibromyalgia, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, Vasculitis, Dermatomyositis and most other major inflammatory/autoimmune disorders); several sections have been excerpted including Antiviral Strategies and Immune Nutrition (ISBN 1502894890) (aka, Antiviral Nutrition [available as PDF download] and Brain Inflammation in Chronic Pain, Migraine, and Fibromyalgia. Dr Vasquez’s books are available internationally via bookstores such as BookDepository, Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, ThriftBooks, AbeBooks, BetterWorldBooks, WaterStonesBooks and his new Telegram channel is https://t.me/DrAlexVasquez.