Toggle Health Problems and D

Discussion of COVID and 50 ng of Vitamin D (video and transcript)– Dr. Campbell Nov 17, 2021

Image Dr. Campbell - D3 bottle in windowsil since 2020

2 Videos

Vitamin D, government inaction Introduction 10 minutes
Vitamin D levels advised video body 40.5 minutes

50 ng Vitamin D and COVID papers on VitaminDWiki

VitaminDWiki COVID-19 treated by Vitamin D - studies, reports, videos

!COVID-19 treated by Vitamin D - studies, reports, videos

5 most-recently changed Virus entries

Virus and Vitamin D Videos and Books on VitaminDWiki

Transcription - 10 minutes quick view

0:00:01.5 Campbell: A warm welcome to today's talk. It's Wednesday, the 17th of November, and as you'll see, it's a fairly grey day outside here in the north of England. And I'm going to be giving evidence from a paper today, and the authors of this paper are suggesting that to get the optimum amount of vitamin D in the blood, to get the best amount of vitamin D in the blood, at this time of year, adults need to be taking 4000-10,000 units of vitamin D extra per day. That's 100-250 micrograms extra vitamin D per day, and they're also suggesting that with this, we take 200 micrograms of vitamin K too, to make sure that the calcium that's released by the vitamin D goes into the bones and not into the tissues. So I'm gonna do this video in two parts because it's quite involved. So I'm just gonna give a short video now where we get the main points of this across, if you've only got five or 10 minutes. So COVID-19 mortality risks correlates inversely with vitamin D3 status, is what this paper is about. In other words, you are more likely to die if your vitamin D is low. And they're saying the death rate could theoretically be brought down to close to zero.

0:01:18.2 Campbell: Now, of course, they're not saying the death rate ever would be zero because there's always other factors involved. But this is a theoretical consideration, but it shows the power, potentially, the beneficial power of increasing our levels of vitamin D in the blood. And it's a systematic review and meta-analysis. Now, this is the paper here, and of course, I always put the links to it. Heidelberg and Tubingen in Germany, it's a very impressive paper, actually. You can get them, download the PDF, I think this is the full text version I'm on here. So yeah, it's all there. And this paper actually is very, very well-written, it's properly translated, and it's quite intelligible. If you read this, you will understand it. It's not in scientific gobbledygook at all. Let's get straight down to it. Blood calcifediol, that's the active form of vitamin D in the blood, correlates strongly with the SARS Coronavirus 2 infection severity and in death. So no one really disagrees with this. The question is that some people are saying, "Well, it's actually the fact that you get sick that lowers your vitamin D levels." Well, I think it's people with low vitamin D levels that are likely to get sick in the first place, and that's what this paper is about, and that's what this paper argues for strongly, and in my view, convincingly.

0:02:39.4 Campbell: And the fact that authorities haven't taken this on by now really is... Well, it's just inexplicable why they haven't taken it on by now. This really needs to get its way into public health government ordained advice, and it's simply not getting there. So is it cause or effect? So we believe it's cause, and that's what this paper is arguing for. Now, the strength of our immune system, more or less neglected by the responsible authorities, and I think you have to say this is right. The authorities are focused on social restrictions, lockdown measures, vaccination measures, some might say expensive pharmaceuticals, whereas we're not saying that those things are wrong, but we're saying we need to get the immune system optimized first, and it just doesn't seem to have been addressed very much, which is a bit surprising. So nutrition, physical fitness, recreation, sleep, all of these things, are very important. Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Europe and the United States and Canada, we know that. And the interesting thing is the data for this study was collected in March 2021, and it was collected on people that were unvaccinated. So this is not data which has been affected by vaccination, is showing an independent beneficial effect from optimizing vitamin D levels in the blood.

0:04:01.7 Campbell: So it's a systematic literature review, retrospective cohort study. There was one good European-wide study on that, so there was one of those, and there were several clinical studies, and they came to pretty well the same conclusion. Now, this is good because one is a population study on basically healthy people who became ill, and the other is clinical studies on people who were ill. So two different ways of collecting data, but came to essentially the same conclusions. And we'll see that they are very, very closely related. Another reason I think these results are correct. Reported vitamin D levels pre-infection or on the day of hospital admissions. So the big thing about this was they took people into the study who they knew what their vitamin D levels were before, or they took it on the first day of hospitalization. And the key thing here is this is before the illness would have had chance to lower their vitamin D levels. So it's not after the illness has lowered their vitamin D levels, it's what their vitamin D levels were to begin with. And of course, people with lower vitamin D levels did worse, people with higher vitamin D levels did better.

0:05:09.4 Campbell: Of course, they corrected their results for mortality rates for age, sex, diabetes, all the things you would expect. It was a well-controlled study. Now the results, what they found was a negative Pearson correlation between D3 levels and mortality risk. Now, this Pearson correlation is just a statistical tool and it's a negative correlation. In other words, as vitamin D levels go up, illness goes down, or as vitamin D levels go down, illness goes up. So to just clarify, I know that can be a bit confusing. So if we look at smoking and lung cancer, we could look at towns or countries where this... So people that smoke more get more lung cancer. So we kind of get an upward trend like that, that would be a positive correlation like that. More smoking causes more lung cancer, there's a correlation, that's how the cause of lung cancer was first identified. But we can also have negative correlations as well. So, negative correlation, like if you look at the amount of exercise and the amount of obesity that will go the other way around. The line will be in that direction, it will be the opposite effect. Whereas that one's a positive effect, this one will be an inverse or a negative effect between exercise and obesity for example.

0:06:37.1 Campbell: So, that's what these things are, they are these correlations. And these two different ways of collecting the data as I've said, one was negative 0.4, and one was negative 0.4 and a bit. Both negative. Now if the correlation is negative one, that's a perfect negative correlation. If it's zero, there's no correlation at all. And it's plus one not so perfect positive correlation. We can see it's quite a convincing correlation here. And I'm going to show you the lines in a minute. Now the combined dataset, they found that the median levels of vitamin D were 23.2 nanograms per ml, but as we'll look at they want it to be higher than that. Anyway, when we looked at the combined data, the more astute of you will have realized that the study is on the road, that P value there is not actually significant. And that p value is not actually significant. We need nought point, nought five or less. So really, that's none significant data. But when they combined the datasets, they did get very significant data which is good. So here we have that here. The overall negative correlation was 3.9, and that does give a very significant result. And the regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at 50 nanograms per ml of vitamin D. They're not saying this will happen, of course not, they're not stupid. But it's a theoretical pointer.

0:08:09.5 Campbell: And here are the negative correlations here. They are pretty convincing. Now, the green one is the combined data, the red one is the population study, and the black one is the hospital data. But we can see for this way of measuring death here. That's increasing deaths up there. As the vitamin D levels increased to increasing levels, 10, 20, 30, that's increasing vitamin D levels up there, we see that the death rate went down. And the green line we said there is the combined data. And the green line crosses the bottom line there at zero deaths at about just over 50, as we have said. It's a theoretical consideration. But that would be 50 nanograms per ml of vitamin D. But there's very, very clear trends there that the higher the levels of vitamin D, the lower the levels of death. It's very, very clear from that, higher levels of vitamin D, lower levels of death. And as we've said, we believe that this is not an effect, we believe it's a cause. Because the vitamin D levels were known before the people were ill. So it's pretty convincing. Now, a lot more scientific data on the second video, but let's just give some brief conclusions now from this.

0:09:31.0 Campbell: The author's say direct quote, "The dataset provides strong evidence that low D3 is a predictor rather than just a side effect of severe infection. Despite ongoing vaccinations, we recommend raising serum 25 vitamin D levels to above 50 nanograms per ml". So that is what they recommend. And to do that, they have found that to do that consistently, you need these kinds of levels 4000-10,000 international units of vitamin D per day, that's 100 micrograms to 250 micrograms per day for adults when the weather's cold like this, as in overcast. And they also recommend as we'll see later, taking 200 micrograms of vitamin K too with it. The fact that governments are not acting on this now that there's so much evidence, and I'll be giving stacks of evidence in the next video. It's hard to understand why governments are not taking action on this now. So keep that short and sweet at the moment and we'll look at more data in the next video. Thanks for watching this short one.

Transcription - 40.5 minutes long

0:00:01.1 Campbell Welcome back. It's still Wednesday, the 17th of November. A little more detail on this paper we've been looking at here, that's showing that higher levels of vitamin D in the blood could be protective against severe illness and death, and some pretty convincing data really. Now, before we get down to this, one of the headlines on the last video was that these paper authors are saying that we need higher levels of Vitamin D when we don't get the sunshine 4000 to 10,000 international units of vitamin D per day. Extra, if you live in the north of England like me, and you're not getting any sun, and that should be taken with 200 micrograms of vitamin K2, is what these authors are suggesting.

0:00:46.8 Campbell Now, I've just been reading some of your comments on the first part of the video, a lot of people have said, "Well, there's no money in vitamin D." It's generic. You can make... You can make it really cheaply. It's not a problem. You can't really make a lot of money on it, therefore, pharmaceutical companies probably wouldn't be too interested in running expensive trials on it, which is probably true. But you have... Others have said, "We do need an interventional trial," and we do. And really, the question has to be asked is, "Why have we not had a large-scale interventional trial on something which is potentially so efficacious, and so cheap?" Both quite interesting questions, to be quite honest.

0:01:28.9 Campbell So this is the paper. We're gonna carry on looking at it now. And some pretty interesting things about general health here as well as specifically covered. Now, to point out, deficiency of vitamin D limits the performance of systems in the body resulting in increased spread of the diseases of civilization. Now, these are diseases like obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, and again, these do seem to be more common in areas where there's low vitamin D. Certainly, vitamin D deficiency can lead to high blood pressure, and we know that that is a significant COVID risk, for example. So a lot of diseases of civilization, cancer of the colon, ischemic heart disease, a lot of these do seem to be related to low levels of vitamin D and also reduced protection against infection, and these papers are saying reduced effectiveness of the vaccine. Now, I've been asked this an awful lot. We know that low levels of Vitamin D mean that the immune system doesn't work as well. Does that mean the vaccine doesn't work as well? And that is... This is saying, yes, that if people do have low levels of vitamin D and they're vaccinated, then the vaccine probably won't work as well. They won't generate such a good immune response, so another reason, another reason to have good levels of vitamin D.

0:02:54.0 Campbell Now, COVID fatality rates correlate with the elderly who might live in a facility where they don't get out very much. The elderly do tend to stay at home a lot, they don't get the sunlight, therefore, they are low in vitamin D, and we know from large-scale epidemiological studies that older people are low in vitamin D, as are people with dark coloured skins, because the darker the color of the skin, the more slowly you will make vitamin D, and we know that people with darker colored skins living in a particular latitude in North America or North of England or wherever it is, darker colored skins people do have lower levels of vitamin D.

0:03:38.3 Campbell Comorbidities. Well, COVID fatalities correlate with comorbidities, but there again, as we've just noticed, a lot of comorbidities correlate with low levels of vitamin D. So what is the absolute prime cause then? Of course, vitamin D levels go way down in winter when we don't make... The sun doesn't make the vitamin D in the skin, and when do we get more colds and influenza and COVID outbreaks is in winter time, of course. So blood levels of 20 nanograms a mil, that's 50 nanomoles a liter. That 20 nanograms a mil is exactly the same as 50 nanomoles a liter, sufficient to stop osteomalacia. Now, osteomalacia is the softening of bones.

0:04:25.9 Campbell Now, what used to happen particularly in children was the bones were soft, and especially the weight back bones. They would become bent and they would get bent legs, bent long bones, bow-legged we used to call this, and that was caused by the lack of vitamin D, meaning that the bones were... The bones had osteomalacia. But it can prevent rickets with just a relatively low level, 20 nanograms per mil is enough to prevent rickets. But what we're saying here is that, to prevent other things, you need a much higher level, so rickets is protected first before we are protected from other things. These authors are saying it's preferable to have 40 to 60 nanograms per mil. That's 100 to 150 nanomoles per liter. And they are also saying that to get those kind of levels, you need to be taking 6000 to 10,000 units of vitamin D per day to get up to those kind of levels, because we're not making it from the sunshine, we're not in the sunshine all day.

0:05:27.3 Campbell Now, there's vitamin D receptors now, definitely in bone, of course, but also in the intestine. So we know, for example, that low levels of vitamin D are correlated with higher levels of colon cancer. So these vitamin D receptors are actually all over the body. The activated form of vitamin D is a widespread hormone acting on many different parts of the body. Vitamin D receptor in the pancreas. Again, low levels of vitamin D are associated with prostate cancer, and people that have had prostate cancer seem to do better if we bunk up their levels of Vitamin D, such as simple intervention. Why isn't this being done? It's so simple to do.

0:06:11.1 Campbell And immune system cells all seem to have vitamin D receptors, all of them. And vitamin D is also a powerful epigenetic regulator. Now, epigenetics is kinda complicated, but what epigenetics means is that we're born with a certain set of genes, but the way that we live... And we can't change that set of genes that you're born with, that's determined at the moment that the sperm met the egg, when you're a zygote at the point of conception. That can't be changed from that point on, but the genes are switched on and off, are influenced by the environment in the uterus and the environment after uterus, when you are born, in other words, and these are epigenetic factors.

0:06:53.8 Campbell So epigenetics is the way genes are kind of turned on and off. And vitamin D is important to turn on good genes is what this is saying; it's an important epigenetic regulator, influencing more than 2500 genes. Now, this is incredible. Active in any one human being, you've probably got about 21,000 active genes. It was a very big surprise when we found out there were so few active genes, we had thought there was at least 100,000 active genes in people, but with the advent of The Human Genome Project, we now know it's only about 21,000 genes. So we see about 10%, or more than 10% of genes require vitamin D for their normal activation, the hormonal form of vitamin D, which is derived from the vitamin D from the diet and from the sunlight. This is how important this is. Because of course, we are tropical creatures, we are evolved, designed for the... To live in the sunshine, and evidence of that coming up as well. So genetics, of course... It's mutations that cause cancer, so there's increased cancer risk. Diabetes mellitus, especially type 1, the autoimmune diabetes mellitus is associated with low levels of vitamin D, but probably diabetes 2 as well.

0:08:08.5 Campbell Definitely acute respiratory tract infections are more common in low vitamin D, and viral lung infections that cause acute respiratory distress syndrome particularly. So way before COVID, it was known that people are more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome where the alveoli fill up with fluid, which is a big problem in COVID, of course. It was known that people with high levels of vitamin D are protected against that, regardless of the viral cause of that illness. So this is not particularly new. Chronic inflammatory diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, low vitamin D is a problem. Autoimmune diseases like thyroid disease, diabetes mellitus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, all of these are more of a problem in low levels of vitamin D, and multiple sclerosis is a big one now. Multiple sclerosis, we've always known that it's less common near the equator, especially if people were brought up near the equator. And now hundreds of people have written to me saying that they are so much better. Their multiple sclerosis is so much better now they're taking comparatively high doses of vitamin D.

0:09:18.5 Campbell So, obviously, it would have been better to take it from childhood and hopefully prevent the vitamin... The lack of vitamin D deficiency will prevent the multiple sclerosis, but that's too late now. But if the multiple sclerosis is already there, the vitamin D does seem to help. It's an immunomodulatory properties. It's an immunomodulator. In other words, if there is not enough immunity, vitamin D will turn immunity up. If there's too much immunity causing inflammation, vitamin D will turn it down. It's like a kind of homeostasis, we don't want too much immunity causing inflammation; we don't want not enough, meaning we get rampant infections, and vitamin D just seems to modulate that. It almost brings about a homeostasis of the immune response, which, of course, is exactly what we want. And it regulates the innate and adaptive immune system. Innate immunity, acting against a wide variety of organisms. Adaptive immune system, the acquired immune system, which results in cellular and humoral immunity as we looked at before.

0:10:22.6 Campbell And particularly on that, it's now clear that there's vitamin D receptors in all of the immune cells, it would appear. Certainly, we can say for sure, there's vitamin D receptors in the monocytes, which migrate into the tissues and become the macrophages; absolutely vital immune cell, the big eaters. And the macrophages also release a full range of cytokines that coordinate the immune response and the inflammatory response, and indeed to a large extent, the wound healing response as well. The T cells, the T lymphocytes; the B cells, the B lymphocytes.

0:11:01.6 Campbell So the T cytotoxic cells that will destroy virally-infected cells, the T helper cells, which will stimulate the B cells, and it's the B cells that produce the antibodies, and all these depend on vitamin D activating receptors within the cells, otherwise they're not going to work properly. The natural killer, the NK cells, these are the large lymphocytes that will, again, kill virally-infected cells and kill cancer-infected cells. And the dendritic cells, which actually derive from the monocytes. These dendritic cells that they've got... Dendrites are branches, so they're kind of branched cells like that in the tissues. And what they are is they're antigen-presenting cells, so if there's a virus or something floating past, it's likely to come into contact with the dendritic arm of the dendritic cells, and they will then go to the lymph nodes and stimulate the immune response. So that would be the antigen, so these are antigen-presenting cells. Absolutely vital for the immune response, and they need vitamin D to function.

0:12:04.5 Campbell So moving on to supplements of vitamin D. Now, without calcium supplementation, this is where it gets a bit complicated, but we'll go through it, it is well worth sticking with. Without calcium supplementation... In other words, if you're not giving additional calcium, even high vitamin D3 supplement does not cause vascular calcification. If that is the blood vessel there with its walls, we don't want calcium going into the walls of the blood vessel because they would become hard. This does happen, it's called drain pipe arteries. They become hard and inflexible like drain pipes and look like drain pipes on x-rays. We don't want that calcification, but what this paper is saying is that if we don't give calcium supplements, even very high levels of vitamin D does not cause this. Now, it seems that we might have been giving too much calcium for a long period of time. These are my dad's calcium tablets here.

0:13:05.5 Campbell There's different brands available. They're absolutely huge things, I think they contain about a relatively small amount of vitamin D, from memory, I think it might be... As low as 400 micrograms of vitamin D, and they contain about a gram and a half of calcium. All of this is nearly all calcium. And they're huge things. Look at that. You couldn't swallow that, you just have to suck them, that's why they're lemon flavored. I wouldn't need this now, just taste the lemon, actually. But I wouldn't take it anyway because it's just... I don't need the calcium. Have we been giving people far too much calcium? Well... These tablets are just huge, maybe we have.

0:13:47.8 Campbell Because what this is saying is that we're not gonna get this arterial calcification as long as the Vitamin D is given without the supplementary calcium. So it looks like we might have been giving too much calcium, 'cause the body is very calcium thrifty, if you've got calcium, it won't start passing out in the urine, it's gonna conserve calcium, and if your calcium levels are too low, certainly conserve calcium. Vitamin D3 supplementation in the range of 4000 to 10,000 international units, now that's equivalent of 100 to 250 micrograms, are needed to generate this optimum level, which they're saying is 40 to 60 nanograms of vitamin D in the blood, which is 100, 250 nanomoles per liter.

0:14:33.3 Campbell So basically, they're saying you need quite large amounts between 4000 and 10,000 international units per day to keep your blood levels up at this nice high level that is needed now. More than 20 nanograms per mil is enough to prevent rickets. But it seems that these... And that's what the advice that has been given on enough to prevent rickets, but now we know that vitamin D is involved in so many other things. We can now say with some confidence on this paper that this higher range is necessary, and of course in winter we simply won't make it. And what this paper is saying is that these higher doses, the 4000 to 10,000 units... Remember we tapped into an email last year, and Anthony Fauci said he was taking 6000 units a day, and he's a relatively small guy, so a bigger guy might need 10,000, that's quite conceivable. Pity it wasn't pushed out on the general population as much as we would've liked it to have been, but at least he was helping his own health by taking 6000 units a day, which would be good.

0:15:42.5 Campbell Anyway, the thing that people haven't known about much in the past is the role of vitamin K2. Now, direct quote from this paper, "taking these higher doses, 4000 to 10,000 units of Vitamin D a day has been shown to be completely safe when combined with approximately 200 micrograms of vitamin K2" is what this paper says, direct quote. And of course, I can't tell you what to take. We're discussing this paper for academic reasons, but that's interesting. So myself, vitamin K2, of course, is fat-soluble, so the fat-soluble vitamins are ADEK, A, D, E, and K. Now, I am not advertising any brands, but this is just a vitamin K2... I got 600 microgram dose. Vitamin K is available from many other manufacturers, I do not get any...

0:16:30.4 Campbell I don't get any money from any pharmaceutical people for advertising their drugs. But that's 600 micrograms, I'm taking one of those a week. I'm taking an extra 600 micrograms of K2 a week, and the idea with that is that the vitamin K2 will take the calcium instead of high calcium levels going into your blood, the high calcium levels will go into your bone, or rather they won't go from your blood into your tissues, because it's okay being in the blood, but you don't want it to go into the tissues, you don't want calcified blood vessels, but you do want calcified bones, of course, otherwise you're going to get soft bones and osteoporosis, which is lack of bone mass, which, of course is a huge problem.

0:17:12.5 Campbell So that's what these authors are saying, and really, it is worth taking time to read this paper because it's absolutely excellent, it's quite readable. It's not a simple read, but it's not... The non scientists can read this and understand it, it is a very comprehensible piece of work, and in my view a very thorough piece of work, which is, of course, why I brought it to you. So the authors of this paper are saying that 4000 to 10,000 units of vitamin D a day in winter, that's 125 micrograms... 100 micrograms to 250 micrograms, rather. So these, again, I absolutely promise, I'm not making any money advertising these, these are just some I've been using myself. These are 25 micrograms of vitamin D; 25 micrograms and 25 micrograms, it is a 1000 international units.

0:18:06.6 Campbell So this is saying, take four to 10 of these a day, this would be saying according to this... So that's actually quite a few tablets, isn't it? That's like a... It's like a... Kind of... It's that, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. So it's easily saying, you could take those seven to give you 7000 units a day. As I say, I can't prescribe for you, I'm only telling you what this paper says for academic interest. Taking it with a vitamin K2. But you see, if you take... What's certainly true is if you've got high levels of vitamin D in the blood, that's going to increase the amount of calcium that is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. If you've been eating a bit of cheese and drinking some milk, then you're gonna be getting quite a bit of calcium. The idea that you need these huge extra ones may turn out to be not quite what was needed, new knowledge will probably demonstrate that in the future. And this paper does come, and again, direct quote, so this knowledge about the large doses of calcium but you need the vitamin D and the vitamin K2 in preference, and you can take the large doses of vitamin D as long you take a little bit of vitamin k2.

0:19:26.5 Campbell It's saying, "this knowledge is still not widespread in the medical community, and obsolete warnings about the risk of vitamin D3 overdose unfortunately are still commonly circulating even amongst doctors." Now, doctors these days are very guideline driven and it can take government guidelines an awful long time to change. I remember we had this when the Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy first came out, it took doctors ages to start eradicating Helicobacter pylori. I was aware of it from about 1991 and it wasn't being commonly done really until the late '90s. Such a pity there's such a delay on these things.

0:20:20.6 Campbell Now, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Cytokine Release Syndrome, cytokine storm. So the cytokines are released that causes this massive inflammatory reaction and that causes the Acute Respiratory Distress syndrome and that's what kills people. So Vitamin D is able to inhibit the underlying metabolic pathways which cause the cytokine storm. So again, lack of vitamin D could mean more cytokines released and more risk of cytokine storm. Vitamin D3 has a protective role against Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome particularly caused by SARS-Coronavirus-2 because it does other things to the ACE2 receptors and makes them less likely to cause the cytokine storm in the lungs. A rapidly increasing number of publications are investigating the vitamin D3 status of SARS-Coronavirus-2 patients so this is being looked at more as an observation of study rather than an interventional study, unfortunately. But these studies have confirmed low Vitamin D levels in cases of severe courses of infection. So there is no real doubt about this that people that are low in vitamin D have more severe infections. I mean there it is, that's the fact that's stated by the paper, low vitamin D levels in cases of severe causes of infection.

0:21:43.3 Campbell Now, of course on this channel we always give evidence and I could give huge amounts of evidence for everything we've said so far but of course that will make it remarkably boring for you, but let me just give you an example. So here is some of the example... Here is some of the evidence for this statement here, low Vitamin D levels in cases of severe causes of COVID infection. So there is low Vitamin D levels in people that get more severe illness. Now here is the references that support that and these are all hyper-linked, I can't put them all in the description because the only... YouTube only allows you so many words, but these are all papers that show that. And if you go to the original paper you can click on any of these links, we're dealing with massive amounts of evidence.

0:22:27.1 Campbell Now, a lot of these are relatively low numbered papers with very relatively low numbers of patients in, and that's because a lot of these papers are carried out by the clinicians themselves because drug companies of course have no interest in spending a lot of money on Vitamin D research 'cause they can't sell it and get a lot of money back. Why governments aren't researching this, of course, is a completely different question. Governments should be researching this and publishing the data and advising the populations accordingly, that's a different question. Positive results from vitamin D treatment earlier, the better of course, preferably before someone gets sick. And again, again some references there for that, these references are all supporting that contention. So I haven't put this all the way through 'cause it would become a remarkably boring talk but it is all there. If you wanna see it click on the original link and you can click on all these hyper-links and I've clicked on them all myself, but they are all there.

0:23:27.2 Campbell So conclusions. We... This is the paper authors, recommend raising serum blood levels above 50 ng/mL, that is 100-150 nmol/L so they want to raise it to at least 50 ng/mL. And the reason for that is to prevent or mitigate new outbreaks due to escape mutants or decreased antibody activity. Now, the thing about the vaccines is that vaccines encourage... They encourage the survival of mutations which are resistant to the immunological response generated by the vaccine, but this doesn't work like that. The vitamin D just greatly increases the capabilities of your own immune system so it work against anything, all variants of course because it just increases your immune system.

0:24:29.4 Campbell So carrying on with the vaccination, we could get a vaccine escape mutants which wouldn't be good. And so, as I said, this was done when vaccines weren't available so this is showing good results before vaccines. Patients with sufficiently high D3 serum levels preceding the infection were highly unlikely to suffer a fatal outcome. There you go, patients with sufficiently high serum levels preceding the infection were unlikely to suffer from a fatal outcome. So this idea, as we've said pretty well everyone agrees that people with low vitamin D levels don't do as well. What some people say though it is the illness which lowers the vitamin D levels. This is saying no these people were tested before they became ill, and the prediction was still valid and I'm convinced by that personally. This correlation should've been good news when vaccination was not available but instead it was widely ignored. Now, why would governments want to ignore this?

0:25:36.9 Campbell And instead seemingly, spend all their energy promoting vaccination. Now, vaccination is important, we're not saying... This is not an anti-vax video, please don't think that. We need vaccination. But why would governments, apparently ignore the beneficial effect and the immunity enhancing effect of optimizing people's Vitamin D levels, thereby optimizing people's Vitamin D status, therefore making people get less sick. I really don't understand why that was widely ignored. I tried. David Davis tried. We did a couple of interviews with David Davis, the MP who brought this up in parliament several times. But it does naught to the fact that it was widely ignored by the Chief Medical Officers in the United States and the United Kingdom. If you meet them, ask them why, because I don't know.

0:26:32.1 Campbell The lowest threshold for a healthy vitamin D level should lie at approximately 125 nmols or 125 nmol/L or 50 ng/ml not the 20ng/ml. That is necessary for preventing rickets. So these recommendations, you could argue, we've known that vitamin, well, people have known that... Even before my time, people have known that vitamin D prevents rickets since Victorian times. This is 120 years ago. And yet when the levels that were required to prevent rickets were worked out literally 100 years ago, it is more than 100 years ago now, they don't seem to have been updated. What's going on? Why don't the medical authorities update this information? And this paper is saying, if this was done, if everyone was put up to 50 ng/mL this would save most lives, reducing the impact, even for patients with various co-morbidities. So this is going to protect everyone including those with co-morbidities, to some extent, or to a large extent. This, to our knowledge, is the first study that aimed to determine an optimum levels of D3 to minimize COVID-19 mortality. So there you go. That's the first time that this has appeared in the literature, and the answer is we need to get our vitamin D levels up to 50 ng/mL, according to this paper, which is 125 nmol/L.

0:28:04.9 Campbell Therefore, everyone should get their vitamin D levels measured, and doctors should titrate the Vitamin D levels up to these optimum levels according to the authors of this paper. Of course, most doctors won't test for your Vitamin D levels because it's quite expensive. But that's... Surely, this will be a cost-effective... Very cost-effective strategy, you would have thought. Implications for herd immunity. The paper said, it seems clear that a good immune defense does not provide protection against physical infection. In other words, you'll still be exposed to the organisms. And if you are exposed to the organisms, you'll generate specific active, acquired immunity. So the Vitamin D levels aren't stopping you being exposed to the organism, they are not stopping you generating immunity to the organism, but they are stopping you getting sick and dying when you are exposed to the organism. So that's a win-win situation. We still get herd immunity, but no one dies, or very few people die. That is just brilliant. That's what we want.

0:29:13.0 Campbell This protection was most effective at round about 55 ng/mL. By the way, if you watched the previous video, we actually looked at this on the graphic here. And this is the graphic for the negative inverse correlation. And we found out that when we got to this level here, of about vitamin D levels of about 50 ng/mL, theoretically this green combined late dated line went down to a death rate of zero. Whereas for people with the lower levels of Vitamin D, here, we see that the mortality was much higher. They were much more likely to die. It's just absolutely... Those lines are clear. People with high levels of Vitamin D are getting lower levels of death. It is a clear inverse correlation, and this paper has given the evidence to argue that it's not a cause of the illness, but the illness is a cause of the lack of vitamin D.

0:30:12.3 Campbell Now, another reason I'm convinced by this, it's kind of a bit more philosophical really. And it's this. I've probably got some of these. I got that one up there. Yeah, I've got that paper there, look, traditional living populations in East Africa have a mean serum of 25-hydroxy D vitamin concentration of 115 mmol/L or higher. Now, of course, you and I deny it, as we might try to, we are hunter-gatherers, that's what we are. We are designed, evolved to survive by gathering and foraging for roots and vegetables, then once a week, once a month, the young men in the tribe might make a kill and we'll eat meat. We are hunter-gatherers. We're fishers, we're foragers for limpets on the sea shore. That's what we are. And of course, all those things are outdoors.

0:31:08.0 Campbell So this is traditional-living populations in East Africa, people who live in a traditional hunter-gatherer way. Natural vitamin D levels seen amongst traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Even when there's lots of infectious diseases around, in a natural environment, the Vitamin D levels go up to 45 to 50 ng/ml. So these people had way higher... That's 110 to 125 nmol/L. These people living a natural lifestyle had way, way higher levels of vitamin D than we do in our natural circumstance here where the government just wants us to get it above 20 or even up to 30 according to the World Health Organization. According to the World Health Organization, if you've got 30 ng/ml, you're not deficient. They count that as sufficiency, but that's not good enough for the hunter-gatherers. They have 45 to 50.

0:32:04.7 Campbell Because they're living outdoors, all the time. A traditional lifestyle, which we are supposed to... Our physiology, your physiology, your anatomy is that of a hunter-gatherer. And if you want to try and change that by eating cream cakes and not exercising, not working, and doing things that are inconsistent with hunter-gatherer lifestyle, we'll get these so-called diseases of civilization that we talked about, the obesity, the heart disease, cerebrovascular accidents, the hypertension, all of these diseases associated with what we're calling, for want of a better term, civilization. WHO advice may not be correct therefore, so, 30 nanograms per ml is considered by the WHO to be the threshold of sufficiency. So they're saying you've got sufficient vitamin D if they're above... If it's about 30 nanograms per ml, whereas people with traditional lifestyles are 40 to 50 nanograms per ml.

0:33:04.2 Campbell Now, if these people with traditional lifestyles are exposed to even greater amounts of sunshine, their vitamin D levels still don't go higher. So it looks like human physiology is kind of optimized, this is the optimum, around about 50 is the optimum vitamin D level, but most of us are way below that, way below that. Future mutations of the SARS-Coronavirus-2 vaccine escape immune, so, as we've said, vaccines could cause immune escape resulting in organisms or types of viruses that are not where the vaccines no longer protect us, but for the vitamin D that will still work. It will still work. And they say, "the entire population should raise their serum vitamin D levels to be at safe levels as soon as possible," direct quote from the paper, "As long as enough vitamin K2 is provided, the suggested D3 levels are entirely safe to achieve by supplementation," according to the authors of this paper, now of course, this is for academic interest only.

0:34:08.3 Campbell I'm not advising you what to do, the authors of this paper are not advising you what to do, but that's what they say, that's a direct quote, as long as enough vitamin K2 is taken, and that's probably about 200 micrograms per day. We'll look at the vitamin K2 in a minute actually, I think the recommendations are a microgram per kilogram per day, but this is saying, if you take a lot of Vitamin D, which we need to take, because we don't get it from the sun, then you probably need to increase that a bit. And the paper also mentions the importance of selenium, magnesium, zinc, vitamins A and E, you're very unlikely to be short of vitamins A and E I would've thought, but selenium, magnesium and zinc, people can be short of, and all of these things are important. They should also be controlled for and supplemented where necessary to optimize the conditioning of a well-functioning immune system. So we need to optimize our immune system. Now, I am going to tell you how we can...

0:35:00.1 Campbell In fact, I think I'll do that next. This can be proved or disproved quite easily. All we need to do is test positive PCR contacts and the infected person for D3 levels immediately. In other words, people that are likely to have been infected, just get a few thousand of them, so as soon as someone test positive, round up all the other members of their household, test the other members of the household for vitamin D levels and then you'd know what they are. Obviously, their vitamin D levels would not have been decreased by illness because they've just been exposed to the virus a few hours ago, because a member of their household has just tested positive. So before any onset of any symptom, so as soon as they become infected, even before the start of the incubation period, test the vitamin D levels and then follow them for three weeks, relate the course of their symptomatology to D3 levels. It's that simple.

0:35:54.1 Campbell The same results also shown above must be obtained if the hypothesis is correct. Now, why the heck are our governments not doing this? It's not even an interventional study, you don't even have to organize a clinical trial. What you have to do is take people, just 10, 20 thousand of them, it will be so easy to do, that have been exposed to the virus by a household contact who've just tested positive, test all those contacts, Vitamin D levels, because we know they're at an increased risk of infection from the same household, follow their course of illness, and you'll find, according to this paper, that those with higher vitamin D levels do better, those with lower vitamin D levels are more likely to get very sick, more likely to be hospitalized, more likely to be ventilated, more likely to die.

0:36:40.8 Campbell Why on earth don't we do that? The fact that medical authorities are not doing this, because it's such a simple observational study, really is getting into the bounds of negligence, as far as I can see, unless there's some other reason they haven't sought fit to share with the hoi polloi, like you and me. There's some reason they haven't told us or they're negligent, I really don't see an alternative. Now just before we finish, I'm just gonna look at vitamin K2 briefly here. Now, this is directly from the British government's site, so this is live, so we can take this as definitive information really. This one is on vitamin K. Good sources of Vitamin K, green leafy vegetables such as broccoli and spinach, so eat plenty of broccoli and spinach, vegetable oils, don't wanna eat too many of those, but cereal grains.

0:37:33.8 Campbell So green leafy vegetables and cereal grains would be good, small amounts of vitamin K can be found in meat and dairy foods, but the main things there are good to eat, green leafy vegetables and vegetable oil is very... You don't want too much vegetable oil, 'cause it's often not the right kind of fat, but certainly cereal grains you want, so you can get vitamin K... Get the vitamin K that we need easily from those healthy sources. How much vitamin K do I need? Adults need approximately one microgram of vitamin... One microgram a day of vitamin K for each kilogram of body weight, so in other words, 65 kilogram person will need 65 micrograms, but this is saying... This paper's saying, take 200 micrograms extra if you're taking these higher, six, seven, eight, nine, 10,000 international units of vitamin D a day.

0:38:27.0 Campbell So a microgram, as we know, is 1000 times smaller than a milligram, you should be able to get the vitamin K that you need from eating a varied and balanced diet, so that's true, but this paper is saying, just to make it completely safe, if you're taking high doses of vitamin D as a tablet, do take some K2 as well, according to this paper. Any vitamin K your body does not need is stored, because it's a fat-soluble vitamin of course. Well what happens if I take too much vitamin K? There's not enough evidence to show what the effects might be of taking high doses of vitamin K supplements each day.

0:39:05.5 Campbell What does the Department of Health and Social Care advise? You should be able to get all the vitamin K you need by eating a varied and balanced diet. If you take vitamin K supplements, do not take too much as this might be harmful, and they're saying taking one milligram or less of vitamin K supplements daily is unlikely to cause any harm, and I'm taking 600 micrograms a week, which is 0.6 of a milligram, so that's way under what they consider to be harmful, so from that, it looks like it's pretty safe to take at the levels suggested by the paper, but of course, you'll have to decide that for yourself, this is just for academic interest.

0:39:53.1 Campbell So there you go, those British government's simple guidelines are really very helpful. So, some interesting questions for the chief medical officers next time you meet them, why on earth aren't they doing this simple observational study? Do that on 10, 20,000 people, the data would be definitive. We are predicting here that it will show that people with low levels of Vitamin D don't do as well. And by banking it, we could massively improve the health of the population for, essentially, no cost and yet it is not being done. Strange, but true. Thank you for watching.

Comments on Campbells discussion at Grassroots Health

GRH Nov 19

Created by admin. Last Modification: Sunday December 12, 2021 17:51:42 GMT-0000 by admin. (Version 10)

Attached files

ID Name Comment Uploaded Size Downloads
16612 Campbell and D3 bottle.jpg admin 19 Nov, 2021 00:34 79.93 Kb 508