When the third supportive pre-print paper was released in late April I started my elderly mother on a D3 supplement. As more papers came out in May I started my whole family on it. I read up on dosing and it's pretty hard to overdose unless megadosing over a sustained period of time and negative reactions/interactions are rare. We've been supplementing ~5k to 10k IU daily (total, incl any multi-vitamins) depending on age/body weight (note: IU is not the same as mg). We also try to get 20-30m a day of actual sun exposure when possible. N=1 but so far no one in my family as gotten CV19 or even had any ILI symptoms despite some probable exposure.
I got my blood run last month and my D3 is at 89mL (normal range is ~30-100 on my provider's test). While dietary supplementation is shown to be effective in studies, keep in mind that some experts believe sunlight generated D may be absorbed differently in ways that might matter, so getting some of both is ideal if possible. Sunlight supplementation scales with exposure duration * skin area * intensity, so less time can be partly offset with more area and/or peak time-of-day. Latitude, altitude and significant particulate air pollution can also matter. Also, be aware many common types of window glass in homes/autos as well as some sunblocks can reduce or block UV types which may contribute to the benefits.
Of course, the usual warnings about consulting your medical provider and more of a good thing is not always 'better' apply, so be careful not to over do it. Although rare, some people who have megadosed huge amounts over long time periods (usually many times 10k IU daily) have built up potentially problematic amounts of D3.
I wouldn’t worry too much about sunscreen. Don’t have the link, but I remember reading a study that sunscreen had pretty much a zero 0% effect on Vitamin D levels, because most people wear way less sunscreen than they should, and the left over areas that people miss still produce enough.
From a doctor I've heard you only need to go in the sun for about 10 minutes a day and you'll get all the vitamin D you need, but food also gives you it.
> Of course, the usual warnings about consulting your medical provider and more of a good thing is not always 'better' apply, so be careful not to over do it.
For anyone who is curious, the NIH's daily upper limit for adults of Vitamin D is 4000IU https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-Consumer/ . (I assume that mrandish already knows this, this is for others' benefit).
Yes, thanks for adding this. You are correct that I was aware of that as I discovered it in my hours of research deep-diving multiple govt agency published recommendations and the original peer-reviewed papers and meta-studies they are based on.
I should have included it as it's something people should know. As you likely already know, there is a lot of excellent research on this topic and, as is often found, there is a range of recommendations within a broader consensus of credible expert groups. Different govt agencies and relevant professional medical associations have released official guidelines in different nations and timeframes. Some find the 4k IU upper threshold may be somewhat too low based on more recent research data (a few, mostly older ones, are even lower than 4k).
All generally agree adverse consequences are rare and that it's not usually possible to get "too much" D from sunlight alone since it's naturally regulated in otherwise healthy people (but other non-D potential negatives from excess sun exposure still apply). Overdoing dietary supplementation is still possible since D can build up over time in the body if sustained supplementation dosing dramatically exceeds an individual's needs and natural clearing rate (which can vary based on age, mass, health condition, gender, complexion, ethnicity, some medications, etc). There are also a small number of individuals who seem to be unusually sensitive to sustained excess D supplementation but this also appears to be rare.
As always any substance, even H2O, can cause adverse reactions if consumed in substantial excess of a given individual's tolerance and clearing rate. Given the primary audience, I was assuming (perhaps naively), HN readers were more likely to actually do the necessary due diligence to verify and appropriately adapt any generalized advice for their context.
Regarding D3 dietary supplmentation in light of current CV19 concerns, I suggest everyone considering it as part of their risk mitigation approach still balance the likely benefits against the possible risks on an individual basis. IMHO, supplementing an otherwise healthy child would be unnecessary and likely inappropriate unless medically advised.
My mother is in her 90s, overweight, pre-diabetic and walks only with a cane. So, based on her weight, age, gender, conditions and elevated risk of serious harm from CV19, I suggested starting on a somewhat higher D3 dose and we've gradually tapered it down over months to avoid any excess buildup. As an additional precaution, I've also had her supplementing K2 because sustained excess D3 supplementation can effect the relative balance of these for her. I also took photos of the labels of her current supplementation (calcium, multi-vitamin, etc) and checked the literature for the combined total amounts for adverse potential interactions. All while keeping her gerontologist apprised at every step via email on what she's taking and our reasoning. To ensure she's taking the supplements correctly I check in with her specifically about the supplements every week. I also have taken over buying the supplements and have automatic subscriptions being delivered at the appropriate frequency as well as getting her a daily pill minder to help ensure she doesn't forget and miss a dose or double dose by accident. I'm also having a variety of healthier prepared hot meals that she enjoys delivered to her on a regular schedule to assist her in weight loss and sustaining a more balanced diet.
Hopefully, everyone exercises similar diligence as good health is only partly in our control, so we shouldn't leave that which can so easily be managed to chance. However, even positive steps toward good health must be balanced in light of individually unique risks, preferences, priorities and life satisfaction. There are some things she could be doing to be healthier but sometimes she makes a conscious choice to not adopt them. Simply being alive isn't always the same as living as happily as possible. It's her life and she should live it as she chooses (self-autonomy can be vital to happiness too). I try not to chide her on health choices but rather to ensure she's able to make fully informed choices (which sometimes includes the choice to not choose). There's a fine line between caring concern and being overbearing. I never want to slip into implying she bears a duty to live her life (or stay alive) for the benefit of those who love her. That means supporting her freedom to fully enjoy the few 'guilty little pleasures' that she chooses - especially in the twilight of a life so well-lived. Anything less wouldn't be returning the unconditional love she has given us.
except 4000 IU for adults is still far from useful, that's sufficient maybe for small children and teenagers, not for adults
> 1000 IU for children <1 year on enriched formula and 1500 IU for breastfed children older than 6 months, 3000 IU for children >1 year of age, and around 8000 IU for young adults and thereafter.
I orderered up some 2000IU vitamin D3 from CostCo for my elderly Dad in May. He's pretty much housebound at the moment with underlying health conditions, so I figured it couldn't hurt and might help.
I remember that there also was the result that supplementing does not help if you have covid. So to me it looks just like correlation and not causation (old sick people do not go out often and have less vitamin D. Probably same reason while you can find health benifits for alcohol: sick people stop drinking )
You missed this from late August. Rct, calcifediol administered to hospitalized patients. Absolutely massive effect on ICU admission.
There have been three RCT I know of. Another calcifediol study showed a big impact. An oral supplement study on hospitalized patients did not. Presumably because oral supplements take a while to change levels whereas calcifediol does not.
Studies seem to be mixed. I've had a hard time finding any that looked at individuals who supplement. Most seem to focus on vitamin d at infection onset or during critical care which is too late. Vitamin D takes about a month of loading for it to have an effect. The one study I did find had a very small sample size.
There are several studies where vitamin D works (amazingly well), and one study where it does not.
But in the study where it does not work, it's an oral supplement given after hospitalization. Oral vitamin D takes a while to elevate blood levels so the fact that such regimen doesn't work, doesn't prove much.
Actual experiments for causation take more time. The abstract itself addresses this: "Given the dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic and the proven safety of vitamin D supplementation, it therefore appears highly debatable and potentially even unethical to await results of such trials before public health action is taken."
I guess the real question is whether you'll wish you had been taking vitamin D if you get Covid-19. While this could end up being placebo, there's some compelling evidence that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
This is because of the lag time of Vitamin D. It takes six weeks to change your levels. Since the course of Covid is lower than that, it's generally not helpful if you start supplementing after getting it.
There are enough "long hauler" cases where you still should, though.
>In other words, in an observational study design, it cannot be excluded that VitD deficiency represents a surrogate marker for a general micronutrient deficiency, which in turn reflects only the patient’s overall health status.
From the authors of one of the cited papers. I.e. if you are in generally poor health already, COVID-19 is more likely to kill you.
As someone with a constant vitamin D insufficiency I'd like to remind people that absorbtion is very difficult - you have to take it with a fatty meal!
> The presence of fat in a meal with which a vitamin D-3 supplement is taken significantly enhances absorption of the supplement [1]
I read an article a few years ago that postulated that Vitamin D itself (whatever it is) was only part of the Vitamin D story. Essentially, sunlight confers benefits that are associated with Vitamin D, but Vitamin D itself may not be the cause of those benefits. And so, supplements are not sufficient. Does anyone know enough to comment on that generally, and regarding COVID?
Yes stories like this pop up all the time for lots of different diseases. There has never been a statistically significant large result observed. There's no way 90% of people dying from Covid would be saved by vitamin D supplements.
> There's no way 90% of people dying from Covid would be saved by vitamin D supplements.
Why?
I’m not saying the opposite is true, but there is evidence for a inverse relationship between respiratory infections and vitamin D levels. We should all believe things for reasons, what reason do you have for discounting the possibility?
Sunlight exposure stimulates nitric oxide production, which lowers blood pressure. High blood pressure is a significant risk factor for COVID-19. I suspect there might be a causative relationship.
MDPI follows an author-pays model, which incentivizes it to accept all submissions instead of publishing only good-quality work. In fact, this publisher is highly suspect, as it has allegedly pressured peer reviewers to accept low-quality work for publication in the recent past:
I would treat this paper with, at most, the same skepticism as a preprint. Vitamin D supplementation is so easy and inexpensive, that if this correlation is truly that strong, I'd expect to see it in The Lancet or Nature or any one of the other mainstream journals.
MDPI also publishes some high quality work, in remote sensing serious labs do publish good work in their journals “Forests” and “Remote Sensing”. You are right to be skeptic, though. They have very lax review processes and will publish anything that looks like science because their incentives are screwed up. Pay-to-publish for-profit OA is just as bad as closed-access IMHO, and in some case it’s worse when the publisher is a non-profit professional organization.
I somewhat agree, but many traditional publishers have an optional "pay for OA" model and more and more funding providers require OA. For journal publications, we (in the EU) almost always have to pay. However, MDPI is particularly aggressive in its editorial practices and marketing tactics. In my community, we sometimes publish "smaller" works there: when early-career researchers get to guest edit a special issue in an MDPI journal and we want to support them; i.e., we sometimes fall for MDPI's marketing tactics ;-)
It's best to have journals that are owned by the community, but these take time to grow into venues that administrators respect: we can publish some work there, but it's not enough for building a competitive academic CV.
Considering this article: it's just a comment, and to me it looks like something an expert can easily tear apart. A well-established researcher wouldn't publish such a comment in an MDPI journal (as one of the other comments suggests).
I think that easy and inexpensive treatment methods are getting very skeptical reception by the medical community. My sense is that this is the training from the medical school, which in turn, is influenced (to a degree of course) by the pharmaceutical companies.
I think the inexpensive treatments are abused by many different actors because they carry little or no cost to develop, thus there is reason a to be sceptical.
For example you can find a lot of supplements that claim to cure various cancers and many have been proven to have no effect. People even claim that objects or they by themselves cure diseases.
If not much money or effort has been put into a 'treatment' you have reasons to sceptical, don't you think? It's like working in the financial services and someone is trying to sell you a $10 e-book that will make you rich in 1 year. It could do the trick but I bet you would be sceptical.
Testing/clinical trials usually cost a lot and even if the treatment it's not great, at least you have some hard data that you can rely on.
I think it’s more about prescription drugs versus otc drugs.
Prescription drugs need a prescription because they have potentially dangerous side effects. Often you don’t get a wanted effect without potential side effects.
OTC drugs are usually extremely cheap (hence why you could think the medical community dislikes cheap medication). The fact that you don’t need a medical professional to get them makes them a target for the alternative medicine crowd.
In the end it’s also the fault of patients for simply asking for simple cures. My doctor uses every occasion to tell me that I should do more sports, but that would mean that I would actually need to put effort in my health.
Also, an actual peer reviewed paper came out recently that showed giving vitamin d to covid patients upon admitting them did not decrease death rates. I'll look for the link but it was front page here like two weeks ago.
The Lancet or Nature don't exactly have stellar reputations anymore. Source reputability should not be weighted heavily when assessing new information in our information environment — this is a very outmoded, maladaptive norm.
It's unfortunate that it is not simple to get regular tests for vitamin and mineral deficiencies. The whole process seems to be stuck behind the doctor appointment firewall. This might be one of the reasons why Theranos was so readily believed. As the quantified self movement that gained popularity around the same time showed, there's an appetite in certain segments of the population for this type of testing and tracking but the process isn't very transparent and often expensive due to it being a profit center. Make it a simple yearly subscription where you can stop in at any time at a clinic like a CVS Minute Clinic, get a blood sample drawn, and then get your results a couple of hours later. Maybe a limit of once a month or once every other week depending on your needs. Only if something is out of standard range would you need to involve a doctor. It would also be good for your next annual checkup to have an entire year's worth of such data.
I've often wondered if it would be economically feasible for blood donation banks to do this as a perk/incentive for giving blood.
Every 6 months or so, you donate blood and as part of the process you get run-of-the-mill bloodwork report emailed to you a few days later.
You'd have to make sure you weren't creating an incentive for sick people to donate blood just for the lab work, but otherwise it seems like it would be an excellent perk for donating blood.
I wonder if the business model could be a free or nearly free blood / genetic test for people. Each time you donate, you select either one genetic test panel or one blood test panel. The organization uses the money saved / earned from the blood donation to pay for the test. Possibly it also requires signing off on providing information to a research study as an additional revenue stream to pay for the testing / subsidize the creation of new panels.
I'm guessing this may not be economically feasible though. Additionally, you have the issue that people who can't afford health insurance would be literally selling their body for healthcare. Strictly speaking, it might be better than the alternative, but it's still not good that it's even necessary to consider something like this.
Seems like that could easily work places with universal healthcare. Very little incentive to donate for free lab work when any medically necessary lab work would be done for free anyway.
And second that, would happily donate in exchange for curiousity-fulfilling bloodwork.
There are fairly silly exclusions to donating blood. I was recently (but apparently no longer, thanks to new rules?) blocked from donating blood because I spent too much time in Europe. Would be unfortunate to gate this care on such eligibility.
When I'm feeling ill or need a test I call a friend of mine who is a nurse practitioner in another state. She has a ballpark idea of my current health, enough info to fit on an index card. Then she files a script with the pharmacy or writes me a prescription for a blood test. The whole thing is done in 5 minutes. In fact, the whole thing is done over iMessage.
Firewall is the perfect term. Everyone knows the industry is ripe to be turned upside down in the absense of a public option. What surprises me is that Walmart and Amazon still haven't attacked it head-on.
You can get blood tests without a prescription - or at least
without a nurse friend, by just paying a fairly small fee and going to a local labcorp/quest diagnostics.
e.g. privatemdlabs.com (I'm not recommending this site - just giving it as an example. Though I have used it before without issue, there may be other companies providing better/more competitive services in this field)
Even beyond that in almost every state you can order your own labs via websites like OwnYourLabs, PrivateMDLabs, RequestATest, etc. OmegaQuant also offers an at home vitamin D test.
Why not make it simple? I donate blood every 2 months. They tell me cholesterol and if I have c19 antibodies. Why not other important health indicators?
There's a reason medical tests aren't made easily accessible. The science of when regular testing something helps is complicated. If you test for things that are rare you might cause more harm than good by doing mass testing, because you might overwhelmingly treat people with false positive test results.
There's a lively debate around various cancer screening initiatives, which often don't have any good evidence that they overall do more good than harm. The same mechanisms are true for lots of other medical tests.
Ultimately a medical test should be treated like any other medical intervention: Only do it if you have scientific evidence that it helps the patient.
I agree with you on "detection tests" (not sure what a Dr would call them) - but checking for vitamin deficiencies would be more of a preventative type test, and everyone should have those probably once a year or every X years, but that would lower insurance profits, so they don't happen in the US anyway.
I usually use Ultalabtests.com to order my own blood work, but it pays to comparison shop even at an individual test level.
Being familiar with what tests I need to run and what the acceptable ranges are, there is literally no reason for me to go through the doctor appointment firewall anymore.
Around/after Thanksgiving, many of the online test mongers discount tests heavily, so it's not a bad idea to stock up for the year on lab work orders, as they don't expire.
Most online providers give you the choice of labs to use.
I get an annual every year for around $150 and can request any test that I want from my doctor. I don't think this is something you need to test more often than that unless you have huge swings in your diet. Obviously if low levels of something are detected there are follow ups. I was actually low on vitamin d (by quite a lot) and started taking supplements. However, I do wish it was easier to get medical tests as you suggest without a doctors orders.
In a clinical setting when you know what you're looking for, blood tests are great. Randomly running panels on yourself, you'll have a hard time distinguishing signal from noise. Or even worse interference. Say, taking high doses of Biotin is known to interfere with many tests.
By all means, I'd rather have that data on myself than not. But I can see why the doctors wouldn't be too crazy about it.
I know, right; imagine if Theranos were actually legit. It'd be amazing. Something like that will probably come someday from some people who have more than just an idea and a zealous propaganda strategy. Current medicine, like a lot of fields, will probably be seen as incredibly immature in the next century.
I've been telling family and friends to take vitamin D supplements since the first of these kinds of studies came out. The data is hardly conclusive (case control bias, affect of supplementation vs natural production, etc), and the abstract here even points that out. However, there's nothing to lose...especially this time of year.
Readit News
I got my blood run last month and my D3 is at 89mL (normal range is ~30-100 on my provider's test). While dietary supplementation is shown to be effective in studies, keep in mind that some experts believe sunlight generated D may be absorbed differently in ways that might matter, so getting some of both is ideal if possible. Sunlight supplementation scales with exposure duration * skin area * intensity, so less time can be partly offset with more area and/or peak time-of-day. Latitude, altitude and significant particulate air pollution can also matter. Also, be aware many common types of window glass in homes/autos as well as some sunblocks can reduce or block UV types which may contribute to the benefits.
Of course, the usual warnings about consulting your medical provider and more of a good thing is not always 'better' apply, so be careful not to over do it. Although rare, some people who have megadosed huge amounts over long time periods (usually many times 10k IU daily) have built up potentially problematic amounts of D3.
For anyone who is curious, the NIH's daily upper limit for adults of Vitamin D is 4000IU https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-Consumer/ . (I assume that mrandish already knows this, this is for others' benefit).
I should have included it as it's something people should know. As you likely already know, there is a lot of excellent research on this topic and, as is often found, there is a range of recommendations within a broader consensus of credible expert groups. Different govt agencies and relevant professional medical associations have released official guidelines in different nations and timeframes. Some find the 4k IU upper threshold may be somewhat too low based on more recent research data (a few, mostly older ones, are even lower than 4k).
All generally agree adverse consequences are rare and that it's not usually possible to get "too much" D from sunlight alone since it's naturally regulated in otherwise healthy people (but other non-D potential negatives from excess sun exposure still apply). Overdoing dietary supplementation is still possible since D can build up over time in the body if sustained supplementation dosing dramatically exceeds an individual's needs and natural clearing rate (which can vary based on age, mass, health condition, gender, complexion, ethnicity, some medications, etc). There are also a small number of individuals who seem to be unusually sensitive to sustained excess D supplementation but this also appears to be rare.
As always any substance, even H2O, can cause adverse reactions if consumed in substantial excess of a given individual's tolerance and clearing rate. Given the primary audience, I was assuming (perhaps naively), HN readers were more likely to actually do the necessary due diligence to verify and appropriately adapt any generalized advice for their context.
Regarding D3 dietary supplmentation in light of current CV19 concerns, I suggest everyone considering it as part of their risk mitigation approach still balance the likely benefits against the possible risks on an individual basis. IMHO, supplementing an otherwise healthy child would be unnecessary and likely inappropriate unless medically advised.
My mother is in her 90s, overweight, pre-diabetic and walks only with a cane. So, based on her weight, age, gender, conditions and elevated risk of serious harm from CV19, I suggested starting on a somewhat higher D3 dose and we've gradually tapered it down over months to avoid any excess buildup. As an additional precaution, I've also had her supplementing K2 because sustained excess D3 supplementation can effect the relative balance of these for her. I also took photos of the labels of her current supplementation (calcium, multi-vitamin, etc) and checked the literature for the combined total amounts for adverse potential interactions. All while keeping her gerontologist apprised at every step via email on what she's taking and our reasoning. To ensure she's taking the supplements correctly I check in with her specifically about the supplements every week. I also have taken over buying the supplements and have automatic subscriptions being delivered at the appropriate frequency as well as getting her a daily pill minder to help ensure she doesn't forget and miss a dose or double dose by accident. I'm also having a variety of healthier prepared hot meals that she enjoys delivered to her on a regular schedule to assist her in weight loss and sustaining a more balanced diet.
Hopefully, everyone exercises similar diligence as good health is only partly in our control, so we shouldn't leave that which can so easily be managed to chance. However, even positive steps toward good health must be balanced in light of individually unique risks, preferences, priorities and life satisfaction. There are some things she could be doing to be healthier but sometimes she makes a conscious choice to not adopt them. Simply being alive isn't always the same as living as happily as possible. It's her life and she should live it as she chooses (self-autonomy can be vital to happiness too). I try not to chide her on health choices but rather to ensure she's able to make fully informed choices (which sometimes includes the choice to not choose). There's a fine line between caring concern and being overbearing. I never want to slip into implying she bears a duty to live her life (or stay alive) for the benefit of those who love her. That means supporting her freedom to fully enjoy the few 'guilty little pleasures' that she chooses - especially in the twilight of a life so well-lived. Anything less wouldn't be returning the unconditional love she has given us.
> 1000 IU for children <1 year on enriched formula and 1500 IU for breastfed children older than 6 months, 3000 IU for children >1 year of age, and around 8000 IU for young adults and thereafter.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541280/
Dead Comment
There have been three RCT I know of. Another calcifediol study showed a big impact. An oral supplement study on hospitalized patients did not. Presumably because oral supplements take a while to change levels whereas calcifediol does not.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/
But in the study where it does not work, it's an oral supplement given after hospitalization. Oral vitamin D takes a while to elevate blood levels so the fact that such regimen doesn't work, doesn't prove much.
I guess the real question is whether you'll wish you had been taking vitamin D if you get Covid-19. While this could end up being placebo, there's some compelling evidence that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Dead Comment
There are enough "long hauler" cases where you still should, though.
From the authors of one of the cited papers. I.e. if you are in generally poor health already, COVID-19 is more likely to kill you.
> The presence of fat in a meal with which a vitamin D-3 supplement is taken significantly enhances absorption of the supplement [1]
1 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25441954
Edit: here is the article https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
Why?
I’m not saying the opposite is true, but there is evidence for a inverse relationship between respiratory infections and vitamin D levels. We should all believe things for reasons, what reason do you have for discounting the possibility?
Eldery can't produce it from sunlight either. This information doesn't help them.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/open-access-editors-r...
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/be...
I would treat this paper with, at most, the same skepticism as a preprint. Vitamin D supplementation is so easy and inexpensive, that if this correlation is truly that strong, I'd expect to see it in The Lancet or Nature or any one of the other mainstream journals.
It's best to have journals that are owned by the community, but these take time to grow into venues that administrators respect: we can publish some work there, but it's not enough for building a competitive academic CV.
Considering this article: it's just a comment, and to me it looks like something an expert can easily tear apart. A well-established researcher wouldn't publish such a comment in an MDPI journal (as one of the other comments suggests).
[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021436 [2] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/10/16/th...
If not much money or effort has been put into a 'treatment' you have reasons to sceptical, don't you think? It's like working in the financial services and someone is trying to sell you a $10 e-book that will make you rich in 1 year. It could do the trick but I bet you would be sceptical.
Testing/clinical trials usually cost a lot and even if the treatment it's not great, at least you have some hard data that you can rely on.
Prescription drugs need a prescription because they have potentially dangerous side effects. Often you don’t get a wanted effect without potential side effects.
OTC drugs are usually extremely cheap (hence why you could think the medical community dislikes cheap medication). The fact that you don’t need a medical professional to get them makes them a target for the alternative medicine crowd.
In the end it’s also the fault of patients for simply asking for simple cures. My doctor uses every occasion to tell me that I should do more sports, but that would mean that I would actually need to put effort in my health.
Example of YouTube saying they will ban vit. c videos using the "misinformation" label: https://twitter.com/i/status/1252676099169038337
Vit. c is known to be a potent immune booster. So this is a real head scratcher.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...
Every 6 months or so, you donate blood and as part of the process you get run-of-the-mill bloodwork report emailed to you a few days later.
You'd have to make sure you weren't creating an incentive for sick people to donate blood just for the lab work, but otherwise it seems like it would be an excellent perk for donating blood.
I would definitely be more incentivized to give blood if it gave me a run down of various nutrients just from a curiosity point of view.
E.g. what are my selenium levels compared to the general population?
I'm guessing this may not be economically feasible though. Additionally, you have the issue that people who can't afford health insurance would be literally selling their body for healthcare. Strictly speaking, it might be better than the alternative, but it's still not good that it's even necessary to consider something like this.
And second that, would happily donate in exchange for curiousity-fulfilling bloodwork.
Deleted Comment
Firewall is the perfect term. Everyone knows the industry is ripe to be turned upside down in the absense of a public option. What surprises me is that Walmart and Amazon still haven't attacked it head-on.
e.g. privatemdlabs.com (I'm not recommending this site - just giving it as an example. Though I have used it before without issue, there may be other companies providing better/more competitive services in this field)
There's a lively debate around various cancer screening initiatives, which often don't have any good evidence that they overall do more good than harm. The same mechanisms are true for lots of other medical tests.
Ultimately a medical test should be treated like any other medical intervention: Only do it if you have scientific evidence that it helps the patient.
Being familiar with what tests I need to run and what the acceptable ranges are, there is literally no reason for me to go through the doctor appointment firewall anymore.
Around/after Thanksgiving, many of the online test mongers discount tests heavily, so it's not a bad idea to stock up for the year on lab work orders, as they don't expire.
Most online providers give you the choice of labs to use.
About every third ad i see on instagram is for some startup’s health measurement test.
The whole system is set up to fix things after they go wrong, not to prevent them in the first place.
By all means, I'd rather have that data on myself than not. But I can see why the doctors wouldn't be too crazy about it.
Dead Comment