NOTE: The 2nd and 3rd installments of this series can be found here and here.
The World Health Organization put out a target product profile (TPP) for COVID shots setting up a world standard for efficacy. The minimum acceptable efficacy involves a point estimated 50% reduction in symptomatic COVID, along with a 95% lower bound estimated efficacy of at least 30%:
[click image above to enlarge]
While this ‘official world standard’ for efficacy against COVID applies only to COVID shots, you can also check to see if other substances happen to meet the standard. This series will explore various substances which meet the WHO world standard for having known efficacy against acute respiratory disease. First up is vitamin D:
In the study above, over the last half of 2020, enrolled healthcare workers in Mexico City were either given 4,000 IU of vitamin D, or placebo. The COVID infection rate in the placebo group (PG) was 24.5% but the vitamin D group (VDG) infection rate was 6.4%. That’s a 77% reduction from the baseline risk of COVID. Here are raw numbers:
Stay tuned for future installments to discover whether other substances such as ivermectin — and hydroxychloroquine and others — also happen to meet the official WHO “world standard for efficacy” against COVID. A main argument for COVID shots is that they were argued to be the “only hope” against COVID.
It was necessary for that to be held true so as to justify “emergency use authorization.”
But, as we’ve already seen with just this first installment, vitamin D meets both of the minimum requirements for the WHO world standard of efficacy against COVID — i.e., a point-estimate of at least 50% reduction in disease, with a minimum estimate of efficacy of 30%. This means that we were lied to: the shots were never the “only hope.”
Reference
[WHO efficacy standards] — WHO. https://www.who.int/tools/target-product-profile-database/item/tpp--for-covid-19-vaccines
[vitamin D meets WHO standards for efficacy against COVID] — Villasis-Keever MA, López-Alarcón MG, Miranda-Novales G, Zurita-Cruz JN, Barrada-Vázquez AS, González-Ibarra J, Martínez-Reyes M, Grajales-Muñiz C, Santacruz-Tinoco CE, Martínez-Miguel B, Maldonado-Hernández J, Cifuentes-González Y, Klünder-Klünder M, Garduño-Espinosa J, López-Martínez B, Parra-Ortega I. Efficacy and Safety of Vitamin D Supplementation to Prevent COVID-19 in Frontline Healthcare Workers. A Randomized Clinical Trial. Arch Med Res. 2022 Jun;53(4):423-430. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2022.04.003. Epub 2022 Apr 18. PMID: 35487792; PMCID: PMC9013626. DOI: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2022.04.003
The "efficacy against severe disease" stunt is one of the craziest inventions of the pandemic. I just looked up the previous version of the TPP: "At least 70% efficacy (on population basis, with consistent results in the elderly). Endpoint may be assessed vs. disease, severe disease, and/or shedding/transmission." Choice of endpoint is not the same as "protection against". Even for a vaccine that protects against infection, it may be much easier to measure effect on severe disease. On the other hand, how is a vaccine that does not at all protect against infection (i.e., reproduction of the virus in the body) supposed to prevent severe disease?
Great work. I look forward to your subsequent articles.