Update: A few minor cosmetic edits were made to this video (mostly in the first 5 minutes) to name the researchers who were important in providing the evidence for the “paradigm shift” that I wrote and published in 2004:
1999: Vieth R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25ohD concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr
2002-present: William B Grant PhD has published more than 300 articles on vitamin D proving the relationship between (low) vitamin D and various diseases
2003: Zittermann A. Vitamin D in preventive medicine: are we ignoring the evidence? Br J Nutr
2003: Heaney et al. Human serum 25-OHD3 response to oral dosing with cholecalciferol. Am J Clin Nutr
2004: Vasquez et al. Clinical importance of vitamin D: a paradigm shift with implications for all healthcare providers. Altern Ther Health Med
Very important new publication justifies our analysis! See my review notes in the video and also included toward the bottom of the page below.
“Never underestimate the ability of a team of MDs, PhDs, and statistical experts to completely SNAFU a basic nutrition research article to produce the illusion of inefficacy in order to endorse drugs and pandemic restrictions and mandatory drugging of the population. … The American government functions as an extension of the marketing department of the drug industry.” DrV March2026
New VitaminD-Covid Study published from Harvard Medical School, funded by USA NIH (American taxpayers)
Do your own analysis of the abstract:
Very important treatment target
Very important intervention
Major implications for international government / healthcare / travel policies
Important to review if this represents appropriate use of public funds up to tens/hundreds of millions of USD$
Very important implications for insurance reimbursement, and determining which professions get funding, insurance payments, etc.
Major importance for censorship, debunking, employment…
And more!
Publication:
Ganmaa D, Cook KA, Khudyakov P, Enkhjargal D, Bilegtsaikhan T, Mayer KH, Clar A, Rueschman M, Balasubramanian R, Hazra A, Sesso HD, Stone VE, Copeland P, Friedenberg G, Smith DC, Lei Q, Lee T, McDonald EG, Enkhtsetseg T, Sumiya E, Narankhuu Y, Erdenetuya M, Tserendagva D, Landberg R, Roxhed N, Lagerström SR, Manson JE. A Randomized Trial of Vitamin D Supplementation and COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes and Long COVID: The Vitamin D for COVID-19 Trial. J Nutr. 2026 Mar 12:101398. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2026.101398. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41826107
Affiliations (partial listing):
Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Mongolian Health Initiative, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Program in Statistical and Data Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA.
Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmacy, Mongolian National University of Medical Science, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Fenway Institute, Fenway Health and Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Division of Sleep Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts, School of Public Health, Amherst, MA, USA.
Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Department of Life Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Micro and Nanosystems, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Do your own analysis of the abstract:
Background: Data from randomized controlled trials of vitamin D3 supplementation in modifying the course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections are sparse.
Objectives: We evaluated the effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on healthcare utilization and other clinical outcomes among adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and their close contacts.
Methods: We conducted a parallel 2-group randomized controlled double-blinded trial targeting free-living adults in the United States and Mongolia. Index participants with newly diagnosed COVID-19 were cluster-randomized with up to one of their cohabiting contacts either to an oral vitamin D3 loading dose of 9600 IU/d for 2 d followed by 3200 IU/d for 4 wk or to placebo. Participants completed weekly questionnaires on healthcare utilization, disease severity, and long COVID (index participants) or new SARS-CoV-2 infection (household contacts). The primary outcome was ≥1 healthcare visits (including hospitalization) or death within 4 wk among the index participants.
Results: Index participants (n = 1747) were a median of 38.0 y old (IQR: 31.1-47.0), 65.6% female/other sex, 4.2% Black non-Hispanic, 4.8% Hispanic/Latinx, 43.2% Asian, 44.3% non-Hispanic White, and 44.9% vitamin D deficient or insufficient (25-hydroxyvitamin D3 <20 ng/mL). Baseline characteristics for the household contacts (n = 277) were similar. The 4-wk cumulative incidence of healthcare utilization in index participants did not significantly differ between the vitamin D3 (n = 863) and placebo (n = 884) groups [cumulative incidences, 0.28 compared with 0.29; odds ratio (OR), 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75, 1.24]. Similar nonsignificant results were observed for the prespecified secondary treatment and prevention outcomes, though per-protocol analyses showed a nonsignificant trend toward benefit of vitamin D3 on the prevalence of long COVID at 8 wk (OR, 0.78; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.03). No safety concerns were identified.
Conclusions: Among adults with newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections, vitamin D3 supplementation did not significantly change the 4-wk cumulative incidence of healthcare utilization or COVID-19-related outcomes compared with placebo. Promising results for long COVID warrant further study. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04536298. First registered on 1 September, 2020.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; clinical trial; long COVID; vitamin D.
Does this look like good research to you?
Within the next day or so, I will provide my detailed video review.
See my related articles and previous video posts provided below:
See my review notes in the video and also included at the bottom of the page below.
This article reviewed above is a complete failure of professionalism, science, academia, federal funding, and editorial integrity
1. Very important treatment target
2. Very important intervention
3. Major implications for international government / healthcare / travel policies
4. Important to review if this represents appropriate use of public funds up to tens/hundreds of millions of USD$
5. Very important implications for insurance reimbursement, and determining which professions get funding, insurance payments, etc.
6. Major importance for implantation of censorship, debunking, employment
7. And more!
Importance
1. Efficacy, legit medicine
2. Disqualification of emergency-enforced treatments, restrictions of travel, commerce, work, education, drug passports
3. Disqualification of drug-dependent protocols
4. Allocation of funds
5. Reimbursement of professions
6. Justification of censorship and deplatforming, firing
7. Justification/disqualification of qu@kseen paradigm which generally cannot be questioned and not even mentioned by name!, thereby proving its lack of scientific merit
8. Integrity of elite schools, government institutions and funding, scientific research structure
> 10 Disqualifying errors
1. Insufficient loading dose
2. Insufficient daily dose
3. Insufficient duration of 4 weeks is laughable
4. Prolonged surveillance with insufficient treatment is the clue that they are looking for failure because the patients would revert to severe deficiency
5. High baseline prevalence of severe deficiency indicates that low-dose short-term treatment had no hope of solving deficiency let alone providing clear benefits
6. Comparison group wasn’t sick at baseline, thus comparing a sick group against a healthy group which is completely absurd
7. Looking for “long Covid” in an underpowered study of only 4 weeks of insufficient treatment with 8 weeks surveillance is stupid. 4 weeks is common for normal recovery.
8. Wrong form of vitamin D for acute illness short-term study, especially at low dose
9. Comparing 1700 sick patients against 270 healthy cohabitants is clearly deviant from a standard study design, both qualitatively and quantitatively
10. Clear failure of adequate literature review because they wanted the study to fail and they achieved their goal
11. Clear failure of Harvard review, strategic stupidity
12. Clear failure of NIH review and misuse of taxpayer dollars 💸
13. Clear failure of editorial review integrity
