Agreed, but not sure how you're counting. The first crime against humanity was the lab leak, so every COVID-attributed death is on their hands. If the lab leak was an accident, it's still on their hands for lack of safety precautions and the research shouldn't have been allowed. #2 is suppression of early treatment. It likely doesn't add to the total, but it provides a second reason why they are responible in +-80% of the case. #3 is lockdown. Here you probably have to add in the excess non-COVID death figures. #4 is the mass vaccination campaign, maybe those numbers are already in the excess death, in which case like #2, they are another reason to lay the blame at Fauci's feet. COVID-attributed and non-COVID excess deaths together have to be approaching 10 million, absolutely the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.
I am happy to report that I have taken more interest in vit D3 because of your work. I got tested recently, and the doc assured me that the test was normal. I requested a copy, and it turns out I am only at 37, which is barely above deficient. Good to know, and thank you for alerting me that I should raise it to about 50.
A very important post, thank you. I heartily advocate Vitamin D for Covid to any and all in my circles who will listen.
That said, the table from c19early.com doesn't put Vit D in a very favorable light (RR of 0.57), and therefore I would caution against using it. If I recall correctly, the table significantly understates the effectiveness of Vit D because it lumps together trials featuring sufficient dosing with trials that involved inadequate dosing. A curious reader might come across this table and wonder if D is after all really as useful as most of the rest of your article says. At the very least, some discussion of those seemingly middling results would seem to be in order as they seem to run against the thrust of the rest of your article.
Thank you for introducing me to vitamin D via your website. It was a springboard into further reading of research articles. Of course one has to separate wheat from chaff when reading.
Low quality articles rely on 1) inadequate dosing, 2) inadequate followup, or 3) failure to test starting baseline vitamin D levels.
Even high quality articles will be imperfect due to the nature of vitamin D research--it is inevitable that some trial subjects will break protocol if they discover that they are deficient in vitamin D.
Robin, you write: "A significant proportion of critics of the COVID-19 pandemic response attribute such disastrous harm largely or entirely to people in positions of power and influence who acted with deliberate intent to harm and kill. I argue that a lot of the harm was done by rank-and-file professionals, who did not set out to harm or kill."
If you said, "I argue that a lot of the harm was done by rank and file professionals who did not set out to harm or kill, while also recognizing that there has been a smaller but not insignificant group with influence outsizing (is that a word?) their numbers who acted out intentional harm, and often swayed the former." -- then I would be entirely in your camp.
Please note that Solzhenitsyn also said that Stalin's massive purges in Leningrad would have gone very differently if a small group of men assembled each evening in the foyers of apartment buildings with clubs and axes, and went after the police-thug coming in to arrest someone. Just disappearing a few of them might have stopped the entire operation.
Agreed, but not sure how you're counting. The first crime against humanity was the lab leak, so every COVID-attributed death is on their hands. If the lab leak was an accident, it's still on their hands for lack of safety precautions and the research shouldn't have been allowed. #2 is suppression of early treatment. It likely doesn't add to the total, but it provides a second reason why they are responible in +-80% of the case. #3 is lockdown. Here you probably have to add in the excess non-COVID death figures. #4 is the mass vaccination campaign, maybe those numbers are already in the excess death, in which case like #2, they are another reason to lay the blame at Fauci's feet. COVID-attributed and non-COVID excess deaths together have to be approaching 10 million, absolutely the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.
I am happy to report that I have taken more interest in vit D3 because of your work. I got tested recently, and the doc assured me that the test was normal. I requested a copy, and it turns out I am only at 37, which is barely above deficient. Good to know, and thank you for alerting me that I should raise it to about 50.
A very important post, thank you. I heartily advocate Vitamin D for Covid to any and all in my circles who will listen.
That said, the table from c19early.com doesn't put Vit D in a very favorable light (RR of 0.57), and therefore I would caution against using it. If I recall correctly, the table significantly understates the effectiveness of Vit D because it lumps together trials featuring sufficient dosing with trials that involved inadequate dosing. A curious reader might come across this table and wonder if D is after all really as useful as most of the rest of your article says. At the very least, some discussion of those seemingly middling results would seem to be in order as they seem to run against the thrust of the rest of your article.
Very well-said overall.
Thank you for introducing me to vitamin D via your website. It was a springboard into further reading of research articles. Of course one has to separate wheat from chaff when reading.
Low quality articles rely on 1) inadequate dosing, 2) inadequate followup, or 3) failure to test starting baseline vitamin D levels.
Even high quality articles will be imperfect due to the nature of vitamin D research--it is inevitable that some trial subjects will break protocol if they discover that they are deficient in vitamin D.
The best article which I have found about the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in raising levels is https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/0003-4819-156-6-201203200-00005
"The Trialsite News article stated ". . . the benefits of the immunization program still outweighed the risks"
Jessica Rose's article about the Swedish data demolishes this trope.
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/demystifying-the-swedish-data
Robin, you write: "A significant proportion of critics of the COVID-19 pandemic response attribute such disastrous harm largely or entirely to people in positions of power and influence who acted with deliberate intent to harm and kill. I argue that a lot of the harm was done by rank-and-file professionals, who did not set out to harm or kill."
If you said, "I argue that a lot of the harm was done by rank and file professionals who did not set out to harm or kill, while also recognizing that there has been a smaller but not insignificant group with influence outsizing (is that a word?) their numbers who acted out intentional harm, and often swayed the former." -- then I would be entirely in your camp.
Please note that Solzhenitsyn also said that Stalin's massive purges in Leningrad would have gone very differently if a small group of men assembled each evening in the foyers of apartment buildings with clubs and axes, and went after the police-thug coming in to arrest someone. Just disappearing a few of them might have stopped the entire operation.