audio-talk

Yes she's taking it on doctor's advice - but if she wasn't , I'd be advising her to take it.
I think you have the wrong idea what an excessive dose is. 12.5µg is barely enough to get you to the bottom of the meagre UK healthy range.
The sort of doses causing hypercalcaemia are going to be well in excess of 5000iu per day, which is 125µg. Read the Vieth paper.

I know that what I am taking is a low dose, I was taking 3 times that, but my latest bloods highlighted a concern. Medical conditions which can have adverse effects to calcium/vitamin D aren’t that uncommon. I just wanted to highlight that popping 10 vitamin D tablets a day to ward off Covid my have issues for some people. As a lot of dairy products and other food stuffs such as bran flakes and brown bread are fortified we do get vitamin D from other sources too.
I have read the Vieth paper, along with lots of others, around markers that makes certain groups more at risk to Covid, as being on critical vulnerable list has made me look at all possibilities to improve my chances. Exercise and eating healthy are the best I can do, along with avoiding people.

Interesting video (imo)

Well that's pretty much what I think.

What's the counter argument?

Looks good, ta much, I'll have a read.

But I was not talking about the Barrington Declaration. That the most recent reference is questioning. I was pretty much agreeing with Roger Hodkinson.

The NHS is being broken by this total attention to a disease that could be better managed as ' a bad seasonal flu attack'.

Ok, but Roger Hodkinson referenced the Barrington Declaration.

The NHS is being broken by this total attention to a disease that could be better managed as ' a bad seasonal flu attack'.

So what are you suggesting if not the Barrington Declaration as a way of handling it?

I haven't read it. I said I more or less agreed with Roger Hodkinson; one thing at a time.

That's why I am confused, the video clip showed Roger Hodkinson referring to the Barrington Declaration. As Roger Hodkinson was basically repeating the BD, I assumed that the subject of "What's the counter argument?" would be a counter argument to the BD.

Not a prob. I haven't read and thought about what you posted as a refutation yet, it's big, serious and worthy but I'm busy.

I agree with what the man was staying, pretty much, not everything ( because I don't know about this Barrington Declaration. ) yet.

When Covid first came upon us my attitude was catch it, get over it and no worries for the future.

Now it's the absolute last thing I'd want to experience. Being 70 now I'm classed as at risk, which is why I take shielding very seriously.

Yes - it's based on the idea you can successfully shield all the vulnerable people. However I don't think anybody has demonstrated properly how that can be done. In the UK, that might be 10 million people.
If you don't manage to do it properly, you lose up to 2% of the population. So it appears to be tough luck if you're over 70, or black or asian.

Sorry, just crossed with your post Phil.

IslandPink wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:27 pm Sorry, just crossed with your post Phil.

Not a problem for me Mark.

Yes - it's based on the idea you can successfully shield all the vulnerable people. However I don't think anybody has demonstrated properly how that can be done. In the UK, that might be 10 million people.

Yes, it also seems to also not consider the knock on effect on the NHS even if only those that recover end up in hospital.