What is the ultimate prophylactic cocktail? A thread to collect evidence

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   176 posts
Viewing 6 posts - 171 through 176 (of 176 total)
  • Thu, Oct 14, 2021 - 02:09pm

    #171
    Kat43

    Kat43

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 10 2020

    Posts: 678

    count placeholder1

    What is the ultimate prophylactic cocktail? A thread to collect evidence

Chris Masterjohn (my favorite nutritionist) has a nice discussion of the value of Omega 3 (DHA and EPA) in recovering from Covid based on a review of two studies.  Note that DHA and EPA are not handled quite the same way.  He says that DHA readily contributes to the active resolution of inflammation.  EPA can obstruct the inflammatory process but it may also prevent it from fully resolving although also employing aspirin may help drive the resolution of inflammation just like DHA does on its own.

https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/blog/2021/10/14/omega-3-fatty-acids-and-covid

He recommends 600 mg of EPA and DHA consisting of at least 200 mg of both.  Or two ounces daily of wild Alaskan salmon.  Or half a teaspoon of cod liver oil.  I eat a lot of canned wild Pacific salmon so that would be my plan (something easy to eat if I’m feeling unwell).

 

 

  • Thu, Oct 14, 2021 - 04:30pm

    #172
    Kevin Schumacher

    Kevin Schumacher

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2021

    Posts: 13

    count placeholder0

    Reply To: What is the ultimate prophylactic cocktail? A thread to collect evidence

Been reading through the posts here and a lot of it is good information.

Vitamin A: it is crucial to know there are a few types of Vitamin A and not only are they typically measured differently, one you absolutely can get too much of, and the other has really safe margins.

  • Retinoids: From animal sources, also commonly measured in mcg and distinguished as RAE
  • Carotenoids: From plants, and most commonly measured in IU

Retinoids are easier to get a toxic dose of so you need to be mindful of how much you are getting via supplementation and diet.  Carotenoids have a much larger margin for error as far as how much you can take before you get to “too much”.  So when buying it, please keep that in mind.

Vitamin D3: The internet is all over the place on this vitamin.  I’ve ready on NIH previously, and more recently (just before COVID though) that 10,000 IU daily should be the reasonable RDA for it, though, I cannot find this anymore so for those wanting proof of that study, you will need to spend more time looking for it than I did when writing this.

Vitamin D also helps with your circadian rhythm and some studies show it effects melatonin absorption.  With that said, some sources say to take it in the morning, some say it doesn’t matter, personally I always take it in the morning.

 

Vitamin C: take it, lots of it, but split up the doses.

First off, Vitamin C is one of the most powerful vitamins IMHO and there are endless “hit” studies and articles on it.  Pharma would be out of business if people used this to its fullest extent. It is an antiviral, and anti-inflammatory.

I was going to write up a bunch of stuff on this, but there simply is too much to cover. Do I link to this site often? yes, simply because it has the most consolidating information on C.

http://www.doctoryourself.com/omns/index.shtml

http://doctoryourself.com/IVC%20Covid%20Summary.pdf

http://doctoryourself.com/NIH%20VC%20in%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Treatment%20of%20Covid-19.pdf

http://doctoryourself.com/role%20of%20AA%20in%20covid%2019.pdf

http://doctoryourself.com/IVAA-COVID19-Hospital-Use-Anderson-03.24.2020.pdf

 

FLCCC recommendation is low, and if you are sick you need and can take WAY more.  I’ve personally taken upwards of 30g in 16 hours without issue.

 

Ultimately though, I would suggest everyone get in touch with a physician that practices Functional Medicine and get yourself tested to see what exactly your body is lacking.  There are certain things you can take extra of to give yourself added protection like those listed in this thread, and the FLCCC for instance, however if you are severely lacking in some other place, some or none of these suggestions will do you any good.  Especially if you have an issue absorbing certain vitamins and nutrients.

For instance, I supplement like crazy and have been for several years now based on the research I have done and have been empowered to take my health into my own hands.  Though I don’t really get ill anymore, at least not as often as I used to or compared to the people around me, I never felt like I was thriving, health wise.  It wasn’t until I went to a Functional Medicine practioner and discovered that my microbiome was a wreck due to my childhood and early 20’s lifestyle and due to that there were some nutrients I was not absorbing properly.

Just a month after doing that and getting on a proper remediation (diet and supplementation) plan, I have gone from feeling good and not getting sick often if at all to thriving.  It is difficult to explain the difference between feeling good and thriving, though there is a significant difference and it is simply great.

There are other things you can do to help rid your body of certain things and reset it, thinking mostly of different fasts.  I’ve tried a 5 day water fast, which was brutal and not recommended for most, and then I’ve been doing Fasting Mimicking Diet fasting lately and have noticed improvements with that.

 

Something my brother told me many years ago which I realize I hadn’t experienced in a long time was “Don’t underestimate the importance of feeling ‘normal'” in the context of health.

  • Thu, Oct 14, 2021 - 05:06pm

    #173

    Jim H

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1598

    count placeholder0

    Thanks for posting Kevin! The best prophylactic cocktail remains a moving target

Regarding Vitamin D, I always point folks to this website as the best one-stop shopping for Vitamin D3 info;

https://vitamindforall.org/letter.html

I take 10,000 IU daily and I really do need to get a blood test to see if I am at or near 50 ng/ml.

Digging deeper into the RDA controversy that is mentioned on that website, I found this post from 2015;

http://blogs.creighton.edu/heaney/2015/02/13/the-iom-miscalculated-its-rda-for-vitamin-d/

Last year (2014) saw an unusual event. Two statisticians at the University of Alberta in Ednonton, Canada (Paul Veugelers and JP Ekwaru) published a paper in the online journal Nutrients (6(10):4472-5) showing that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) had made a serious calculation error in its recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin D. Immediately, other statisticians checked the Canadians’ analyses and found that, indeed, they were right. Together with my colleagues at Grassroots Health, I went back to square one, starting with a different population entirely, and came to exactly the same conclusion. The true RDA for vitamin D was about 10 times higher than the IOM had said. Not a small error. To understand, how this might have happened and why this is important, some background may be helpful.

Background
An RDA is technically the amount of a nutrient every member of a population should ingest to ensure that 97.5% of its members would meet a specified criterion of nutritional adequacy. For vitamin D, the IOM panel determined that the criterion for adequacy was a serum concentration of a particular vitamin D derivative (25-hydroxyvitamin D) of 20 ng/mL or higher, and that for adults up to age 70, 600 IU of vitamin D per day was the RDA.

Both of those figures provoked immediate and unprecedented dissent from a diverse group of nutritional scientists, but the disagreement centered mostly around the IOM panel’s reading and interpretation of the evidence, rather than its calculation of the RDA. The Edmonton statisticians took the dissent a step further, showing that the actual calculation was itself wrong. Here’s what seems to have happened.

What Happened
Not everyone gets the same response to a given intake of any particular nutrient, i.e., some require more than others to reach the specified target, and while the average response to a certain dose of vitamin D may be above the target level, a substantial fraction of a population can still be below it. Thus, the RDA will always be higher than the average requirement, and for some nutrients, substantially so. As a consequence, ensuring that every member of a population receives the RDA guarantees that 97.5% of that population will be getting at least enough, while many will be getting more than they actually need.

The IOM panel identified a number of published studies showing the 25-hydroxyvitamin D response to various vitamin D doses. They plotted the average response in each of those studies against dose, thereby generating what is termed a “dose response curve”, i.e., a way to estimate how much of a response would be predicted for any given vitamin D intake. But, to make a long story short, because it used average responses, that curve tells us nothing about the intake requirement for the individual members of a population, and particularly those whose response to a given dose falls in the bottom 2.5 percentiles. The IOM panel surely knew that the average intake required to meet or exceed 20 ng/mL was not the same as the RDA, as it would be inadequate for all those with below average responses (about half the population). So, to catch the “weak” responders, they calculated the 95% probability range around their dose response curve, designating as the RDA the point where the bottom end of that probability range exceeded 20 ng/mL. While this might seem to have been the right approach, it was not. The panel appears to have overlooked the fact that the 95% probability range for their curve is for the average values that would be expected from similar studies at any particular dose. The dispersion of averages of several studies is, as every beginning student of statistics knows, much more narrow than dispersion of individual values within a study around its own average. And it’s the 2.5th percentile individual values from those studies, not the study averages, that should have been used to create the relevant dose response curve.

It’s this latter approach that the Canadian statisticians used. They took precisely the same studies as the IOM had used and demonstrated that the requirement to ensure that 97.5% of the population would have a value of at least 20 ng/mL, was 8,895 IU per day. Recall that the IOM figure was less than 1/10 that, i.e. 600 IU per day up to age 70 (and 800 IU per day thereafter). When my colleagues and I analyzed the large GrassrootsHealth dataset, we calculated a value closer to 7,000 IU per day, still a full order of magnitude higher than the estimate of the IOM, and not substantially different from the estimate of Veugelers and Ekwaru.

Why This Is A Problem
This is an important mistake, not simply because it shouldn’t have been allowed in a major policy document, but because IOM recommendations have important effects on a wide array of government programs. These include nutritional standards for US military, for school lunch programs, for WIC and many others, both in the United States and in Canada.

Canada, which paid one third the cost of generating the IOM report, is in a particularly difficult situation. Its First Nations peoples, living near the Arctic Circle, do not get any vitamin D from the sun, as do those of us living at more temperate latitudes. They are totally dependent upon food and supplement sources. Their ancestral diets, based largely on seals and whales, constituted a rich source of vitamin D. They are much less commonly consumed today, in part because of the ready availability of low nutrient density foods flown in from the south, and in part because environmental pollution has made seal and whale products a source of dangerous toxins (as well as necessary nutrients). The Canadian government, responsible for the health of all of its citizens, can turn only to the existing IOM recommendation (600 IU per day) to set standards for the people living in its northern territories. But, as the Edmonton statisticians noted, that number is woefully inadequate.

There is almost no public awareness of this error or its implications in the United States, but that is not true for Canada. A large nutritional health foundation located in Calgary (Pure North S’Energy Foundation) has taken out a series of half page advertisements in Canada’s national newspaper (Globe and Mail), alerting Canadians to the fact that the error was made and that they need more vitamin D than current policy indicates (http://www.purenorth.ca/?page_id=1356). The IOM, Health Canada, and the Canadian Ministry of Health have all been formally alerted to this problem. The Health Ministry has agreed to undertake an independent reanalysis of the calculation of the RDA, but the results are not yet available and the shape of the ministry’s action is still uncertain.

How It May Have Happened
It’s one thing to know how the mistake was made, and quite another to know how it could have happened. Here, one can only speculate, as the IOM processes are shrouded in secrecy. The IOM report was a massive document and it is likely that much of the background work, such as the literature search, the drafting of the report, and the statistical calculations, were done by IOM staff members who may not, themselves, have been sufficiently expert in the vitamin D field to recognize discrepancies that might have popped up. (It is noteworthy that several of the dissenting letters submitted to scientific publications following release of the IOM report had specifically cited the fact that 600 IU per day was not sufficient to guarantee a level of 20 ng/mL.) It would then have been up to the expert panel to review and adjust this staff work. To be fair to the panel, it is important to understand that the scientific members of IOM panels are not compensated for their time and effort. They do it as a public service, and they are all busy scientists with work of their own. Still, it was their job, and one must wonder how they failed to see an error that was apparent to other equally knowledgeable, but outside, scientists.

Comment
There may be a moral here. It is widely recognized that many of the panel members, before coming together to review the evidence, had already staked out a position to the effect that, while the previous (1997) recommendation for vitamin D (200 IU per day) was probably inadequate, the actual RDA was almost certainly below 1000 IU per day. Accordingly, when the statistical calculations produced a number that matched their own expectations, they may not have been inclined to question its derivation.

There is a generally held belief that science is objective, data-driven. And to a substantial extent that is so. But science and scientists are not identical. Scientists often have strongly held opinions and, like people in general, find ways to construe the evidence to support their beliefs. When those beliefs are wrong, science, as a field, ultimately abandons them. I am confident that this IOM error will be corrected sooner or later. This is partly because it is demonstrably erroneous, and partly because the related set of IOM recommendations for vitamin D has not elicited a consensus in the field of vitamin D research. If the Dietary Reference Intakes produced by the IOM are important, then it is important that they be right. I can only hope that not too much human damage will occur as we wait for the needed correction to happen.

 

  • Thu, Oct 14, 2021 - 07:34pm

    #174
    Kevin Schumacher

    Kevin Schumacher

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2021

    Posts: 13

    count placeholder1

    What is the ultimate prophylactic cocktail? A thread to collect evidence

I have gone between 5,000 IU and 10,000 IU myself, for years.  my last blood test showed that I was at 47 ng/ml after using 5,000 IU for 4 months, and during the summer at that.  I have rotated back to 10,000 IU, especially now entering the winter months in the PNW.

  • Thu, Oct 14, 2021 - 08:24pm

    #175
    travelbug007

    travelbug007

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 16 2020

    Posts: 10

    count placeholder1

    What is the ultimate prophylactic cocktail? A thread to collect evidence

I would add to the excellent comments already shared – take a look at the breathing techniques from Wim Hof, for the eradication of viruses etc in the blood stream.  His cold therapy (or hot/cold therapy) may be a bit of  a challenge, but Dr Seheult from MEDCRAM also covers  benefits of sauna/ hot/cold showers in driving the immune response to elevated levels.  Finally, the study on walking in a forest (hinoki cedar in the Japanese study) also boosted immunity.  Again see MEDCRAM for details, but wanted to introduce some “other” aspects of phrophylaxis.

Also there was a great video between Dr Been and Dr Harrison (google it), that discusses Bromhexine, Ursolic Acid,  Luteolin, Famotidine, Tumeric as blockers of various receptors that Covid uses (such as ACE2 etc) to make viral entry extremely difficult and unlikely.  These are all OTC (over the counter) available medicines (I got most on Amazon, with the Bromhexine online from european pharmacy where it is available (not available in N.A. at all, but over the counter elsewhere).

Hope this helps someone and GREAT IDEA.. lets build a ?REFERENCE” table/page? for these items along with dosages/treatment/recommendations/notes?

Sincerely,

Travelbug

  • Tue, Oct 19, 2021 - 03:44pm

    #176
    Kevin Schumacher

    Kevin Schumacher

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2021

    Posts: 13

    count placeholder0

    What is the ultimate prophylactic cocktail? A thread to collect evidence

I wanted to add another resource that I have used for my children in general before receiving any of vaccine/inoculation.  And whether it is the use of the recommended supplementation at this site or the general supplementation an diet they get already, they have up to this point had 0 reactions to anything given to them.

http://vaccinepapers.org/nutrients-preventing-aluminum-toxicity/

I now the URL and page indicates it is specific to aluminum, though, since some of the recommended supplementation in the link already matches what has been suggested for COVID prevention in general and the ingredients of the current shots has yet to be disclosed, the information could be useful, especially for those who will have to take one of the pharma creations.

Viewing 6 posts - 171 through 176 (of 176 total)

Login or Register to post comments