8 Comments
User's avatar
Copernicus's avatar

Not sure about the genuine risks of most folks taking more robust doses of D supplements. I've been taking 10-20,000 units a day for the last year without any problems. And yes, monitoring levels. It's what my body needs. Whenever I reduced the dose, I got sick.

Although the risk for calcification and the other mentioned adverse effects is real, it seems to be incredibly small and rare.

Expand full comment
Becky Tuch's avatar

Came here to say exactly this. Dr. Berg has a video on YT debunking the idea of too much Vitamin D.

Expand full comment
Van Ivey's avatar

Just keep up the K2 also.

Expand full comment
Sharon Oz's avatar

First one must know why they are taking anything? Why are you taking it? What is your problem and is this effective for the current issues with your health.

Expand full comment
ThinkOnTheseThings's avatar

I have heard bromelain is also beneficial 🌼

Expand full comment
Stuart Hutt's avatar

Since the virus has never been isolated I am not sure about the focus. However all your recommendations are real for general health. Especially D3. Most cells in our body have vitamin D receptors including our brain. High dose D3 via Dr Coimbra Protocol has has significant success with MS, autism, Parkinson, Alzheimer patients. I would add Lugols iodine since we are all deficient. It is used for our immune system and required in sufficient quantities for cellular secretion. In addition we need electrons to maintain a healthy cellular voltage of -25mv. If the polarity reverses we have disease.

Expand full comment
Harrison's avatar

Love this! I’m Harrison, an ex fine dining industry line cook. My stack "The Secret Ingredient" adapts hit restaurant recipes (mostly NYC and L.A.) for easy home cooking.

check us out:

https://thesecretingredient.substack.com

Expand full comment
Moro Balakrishnan's avatar

Among half a dozen repurposed drugs that gained strong currency as off label antivirals against Covid, Ivermectin leads the pack. The population level evidence is undisputed. But then, there are clinical nuances that must be understood.

Its major value has been as prophylactic at population levels. This is when viral loads on individuals are nil or very low and as single off label antiviral it works well as it has other useful mechanisms too. One can see this in two situations. First, countries like Haiti, Papua New Gunea and many African countries that have traditionally used it as population level anti parasitic and this virus could not break through this shield. At the height of a rampaging delta wave, some states of India distributed prophylactic doses of Ivermectin to the population to contain the spread and it worked. In active infections, in asymptomatic people it worked as a single drug because of low viral loads carried by them. But most of the time, in active infections, as early treatment protocol, it was widely used in multi drug prescriptions containing, among others, drugs like Azithromycin, Montelukast, Levocetrizine etc because they were also part antivirals and in combinations, provided the needed total anti viral heft. Being a respiratory infection, combination prescriptions were par for the course. Even in hospitalised patients, being treated with both steroidal and non steroid immune regulators, anti inflammatories etc, Ivermectin could add to those strengths. With his profound experience with filarial pneumonia, Dr. Shankara Chetty used to say how Ivermectin was useful in clearing choked lungs from dead cellular debris in serious Covid patients.

The drugs mentioned here as a replacement for Ivermectin would have worked in low viral load situations like asymptomatic cases, but not otherwise, where active medications were needed, more than one of them, including Ivermectin. They have their supporting role, depending on how, when, where they were used. Not as primary off label antivirals.

Expand full comment