The problem is that vitamin D absorption is one of those things linked to ethnicity. It is very basic and undisputed science that lower melanin in skin = higher vitamin D absorption. No European educational institution or government wants to publicise research highlighting that ethnic groups indigenous to the northern hemisphere are more suited to the natural environment they are endemic too, and less likely to have vitamin D problems. Of course, the Vitamin D deficiency in people unsuited to non-indigenous European residents will naturally disadvantage them over time in nature.

https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-skin-melanin-an-inhi...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4272394/

To give balance to reinforce that i'm purely speaking from a scientific-rational viewpoint, in Australia the government is trying to discourage people from being in the sun at all due to Australia (primarily european ethnic) having one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, due to also not being suited to their natural environment.

https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/types-of-cancer... "the incidence of skin cancer is one of the highest in the world, two to three times the rates in Canada, the US and the UK."

The USA approach is quite different though - pills for everyone! Buy your vitamin D plastic chips and watch the stock market go up!

> No European educational institution or government wants to publicise research highlighting that ethnic groups etc

This is just not true and sounds like some weird dog whistle:

https://ambulance.libguides.com/c.php?g=677734&p=4854430

From there is the following study which concludes “ Greater risk of severe COVID-19 in Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic populations is not explained by cardiometabolic, socioeconomic or behavioural factors, or by 25(OH)-vitamin D status” — so part of the reason this viewpoint isn’t getting more traction is simply that it doesn’t seem to be true

https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/42/3/451/5859581

In conclusion: “race realism” requires you to ignore the actual scientific data, as usual.

The parent comment here said publicise, not publish. The studies will go ahead, but you won't see the mainstream media putting this on the front page.

The reason is that it's too sensitive. Look at the massive argument and tension that was generated just from someone pointing out that certain skin types are not suited to certain environments (melanin skin to north europe, non-melanin skin to australia) - nobody who values their political or academia career will want to touch this one, so the problem will get worse and worse, silently. It could even end up impacting educational and career outcomes in certain parts of the population that would appear to be racial characteristics because the science impacting those traits is a forbidden subject... which ironically makes people more racist.

“How coronavirus tore through Britain's ethnic minorities”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52894225

“Socio-economic inequality means we're more likely to catch the virus, while our biology means we're more likely to die”

Literally just the first link that 10s of Googling found.

> from someone point internet out that certain skin types are not suited to certain environments

That’s because this is a crassly overloaded dog whistle statement.

“Ethnic minorities should supplement Vitamin D in winter” and “pale people should wear sunscreen in Australia” are in no way controversial or sensitive statements in science or academia or in the media. Trying to morph those into an argument that black people “aren’t suited for” Northern Europe is the racist, non-scientific bullshit people lose their positions for.

1.) At this point, it is not "recently invented". It is long term known.

2.) Vitamin D deficiency is affecting you negatively, but not enough to claim that people are "living in an environment they are not suited to". That is absurdly exaggerated claim, especially given all the various reasons why people in history died.

3.) Racism is causing way more suffering then overall vitamin D deficiency.

You're being uncharitable, which is part of the problem. These supplements are "recently invented" in terms of evolutionary history and it's not clear how well they work, compared to actual sun exposure.

"Not suited to" may be a contentious choice of words, but "not adapted to" is plain fact. Not being adapted to an environment confers disadvantages. Perhaps these disadvantages are minor, certainly in this case they are not lethal (in isolation), but from a healthcare perspective, they are important to take into consideration.

Consider that jumping at every opportunity to scold someone choosing their words unwisely does nothing to actually fight racism, but could indirectly harm those people you are intending to help. After all, why would a true racist care about the health outcomes of the races they ostensibly despise? Why would anyone risk investigating genetic differences in medicine, when the payoff is an accusation of racism by well-meaning but uneducated laymen?

> Why would anyone risk investigating genetic differences in medicine, when the payoff is an accusation of racism by well-meaning but uneducated laymen?

You are replying in a thread that above has a link to a great deal of race-specific research done on just Covid-19. There is a large amount of race-specific medicinal research. There is a huge amount of scientific research into medical and sociological factors that pertain to race. You will find it in seconds if you Google for it. Many standard heart-health guides will factor in your ethnicity.

To suggest there isn’t, and there’s some kind of conspiracy is just a form of tired “race realism” bullshit. Just more suggesting that “if we let the facts speak” we’d find some races are superior to others.

People are maladapted to live almost everywhere, which is why we wear warm clothes and sun protection. This whole thing is a racist trope to give cover to the idea that people of colour don’t “belong” in places.

I didn't mean to say that there isn't any race-specific research, but that there is a risk of being called a racist (or a "race realist") associated with doing such research, especially when it gets attention from sensationalist media and keyboard warriors on social media.

Therefore, if there is such a risk, it must have a chilling effect on actual research and on public health relations, even if doesn't outright prevent it from happening at all.

You are demonstrating that there indeed is such a risk, by suggesting that I'm one step away from proclaiming the superiority of the white race. You're not doing anyone any favors with that.

You won't see the mainstream media publicize any non-vaccine solution because they're in the business of fear-mongering and because they have a chummy relationship with big pharma.

Plenty of mainstream media has reported about the Vitamin D findings.

There's a greater risk in Asians? Japan has had 20k deaths or 1 in 60k, vs USA which is currently at 1 in 1200

People always make up random excuses like

"Japan locked down more" No they didn't. In fact they've been practically unlocked since June.

"Japan doesn't test as much" That wouldn't hide a raise in the death rate overall.

"Japanese people wear masks" Restaurants, coffeeshops, and bars are full (yes, they are) and those people are not wearing masks. They do wear them elsewhere (trains, busses, stores, outside...)

In any case, that Asians are of "Greater Risk of severe COVID-19" doesn't seem to fit the facts at least in Japan.

> There's a greater risk in Asians

“Asian” in the UK generally means South Asian. Either way you are arguing with the data collected in a study by stating a series of observations about a different country.

Bro, the exact website you quoted (not same page) has an entire section of information about melanin, ethnic groups, and vitamin D:

What is my skin type? Skin types that are more sensitive to ultraviolet (UV) radiation burn more quickly and are at a greater risk of skin cancer.

All skin types can be damaged by too much UV radiation. Skin types that are more sensitive to UV radiation burn more quickly and are at a greater risk of skin cancer.

People with naturally very dark skin (usually skin type V or VI) still need to take care in the sun even though they may rarely, if ever, get sunburnt. The larger amount of melanin in very dark skin provides natural protection from UV radiation. This means the risk of skin cancer is lower.

Eye damage can occur regardless of skin type. High levels of UV radiation have also been linked to harmful effects on the immune system.

Vitamin D deficiency may be a greater health concern for people with naturally very dark skin, as it is more difficult for people with this skin type to make vitamin D.

FWIW, I've seen the NHS mention it quite a few times. Example:

> People with dark skin, such as those of African, African-Caribbean or south Asian origin, will need to spend longer in the sun to produce the same amount of vitamin D as someone with lighter skin.

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/how-to-get-vitamin...

It can be mentioned as a footnote, because it is scientific fact.

However, given the vastly higher death rates among people with darker skin, it should be shouted from the rooftops.

Unfortunately, this would put into question the narrative that anything but systemic racism may be to blame.

Furthermore, pointing out that people with darker skin are not adapted to live up north could easily be misconstrued as an anti-immigration stance.

“Far-right quacks are pushing unproven treatment for COVID” makes for a juicy headline.

So, who wants to be the first to put their reputation on the line?

> Furthermore, pointing out that people with darker skin are not adapted to live up north could easily be misconstrued as an anti-immigration stance.

True. That can easily happen. Reason enough to not push that angle, at least not directly. There are other ways of phrasing that.

Besides, for humans, there's no longer such a thing as "being adapted" to the environment, at least not in that limited sense. This is not an Earth versus Mars thing, it's just a matter of latitude.

If natural abilities were such a big factor, we wouldn't need clothes in Norway or Canada to survive in those places, in winter. But we do. Plus heating.

Humans are not "adapted" to live in all environments on Earth, at least not without tools, which includes clothing. So, if your skin is light and you are in an area with high insolation, cover up more and try to spend less time in the sun. Add some sunscreen too. If the skin is darker, do the opposite. Add some supplements as needed. Done. Adapted to the environment.

Telling people that they "need to adapt or face consequences" would be even more dangerous than pointing out that they aren't adapted.

Of course that's a highly uncharitable representation of what you propose, but you would have to expect that kind of treatment.

Glad I'm not the only one who thought this.

Furthermore, this article by two Australian academics, published in an outlet considered leftist, is basically about why Australians have such high rates of skin cancer, and includes the quote:

Why us? Most Australians (and Kiwis) have the wrong type of skin for their environment. Basically, through migration, our two countries have been populated by many people with fair skin whose ancestors come from much less sunny climates. Lack of protective pigmentation leaves skin cells especially vulnerable to the DNA-damaging rays from the sun.

During human evolution, our early hominid ancestors in Africa lost their covering of body hair and developed pigmented skins, presumably as protection against the harsh tropical sun. With subsequent migration out of Africa into Europe, the protective benefits of dark skin became less important for survival and were likely a hindrance to effective vitamin D production. There was selective pressure for less pigmented skin with more distance from the equator.

In contrast, those who migrated out of Africa to Asia, Australia and the islands of Melanesia were constantly exposed to sunlight. So they retained their protective pigmentation. This explains why the recent European migrants to the Americas and Oceania arrived in the “new worlds” with skin types poorly suited to their new environments. This was in stark contrast to the well-adapted skin of the indigenous inhabitants.

https://theconversation.com/why-does-australia-have-so-much-...

The difference is that it's a shift in perspective. It's acceptable to say that white people aren't suited to live in Australia. It's not acceptable to say that black people aren't suited to live in the UK, for example.

The same website the OP links to, which is an Australian site, has a page that includes the text, "Vitamin D deficiency may be a greater health concern for people with naturally very dark skin, as it is more difficult for people with this skin type to make vitamin D.".

It's unclear why an Australian site would be going into the question of who is "suited to" live in the UK.

My point is that the Australian perspective on the matter invites no controversy.

The indigenous population of Australia is dark-skinned and has access to all the sun it needs in order to stay Vitamin-D sufficient.

Coincidentally, the COVID-19 mortality rates in Australia are low as well, though some might prefer to chalk that up to the strict lockdowns.

I mean, the low case rates could be due to the lockdowns, not sure about mortality rates unless you're comparing it to places where the ICUs have become overwhelmed.

> No European educational institution or government wants to publicise research highlighting that ethnic groups indigenous to the northern hemisphere are more suited to the natural environment they are endemic too

“The problem” is more likely to be the existence of studies finding low vitamin D in African people who live in African countries and American native people who live in America, making your theory that people should live where they came from pretty suspect as a solution.

As a public health message, “black people need to be careful about sunburn” has presumably been considered more important than “black people have low vitamin D”, because of the widespread false belief that people with dark skin are immune to skin cancer.

it's not like most people live in a natural environment these days anyway.. saying a modern human is rationality unsuited to a place is skipping over the part where the built environment most people live in is created by and for us, and who it suits is independent of latitude.

Wonder if there is also a connection with the declining popularity of cow's milk, which is typically fortified with vitamins A & D. In primary school, cow's milk have become less common due to increased awareness that different ethnic groups have different tolerances for lactose. Unfortunately, it appears the groups that would benefit the most from more vitamin D are also the ones most likely to be lactose intolerant, and thus not drinking the milk fortified with vitamin D.

You can find plant milk and even orange juice with vitamin D added.

> I am honestly completely shocked that we haven't seen governments and the media increasing people's awareness of this issue.

The fact that it hasn't been picked up by journalists and public health officials should rather be reason for you to be skeptical of early research cherry-picked by random programmers on the internet... the same people that were blowing up HN with hydroxychloroquine stories just a few months ago.

When I was reading it in the spring I was skeptical for exactly those reasons, but it quickly became clear with even the smallest bit of research that it was well accepted the Vitamin D deficiency was linked with worsened effects from common viruses and that the vast majority of people in my region were deficient.

Most of the people I've seen mentioning it recently have been medical and scientists on other sites.

Haven't been sick more than a day at a time since reading about it around 2010.

In fairness what the media deeds important and accepts as truth is as cherry-picked by some random newsroom editor.

That's why you see things like the Iraq war everyday on tv and then never again. People are still blowing themselves up over there. There is always a bigger story with a greater theme that uses daily news stories to paint a broader picture.

People who seek out truth themselves are more likely to find it.

> I am honestly completely shocked that we haven't seen governments and the media increasing people's awareness of this issue.

Same, and in the UK at least we got this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55108613

I remember this back from April and lots of evidence back then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSXNGc7pfs

Yes. I won't be surprised if we eventually determine that advocating Vitamin D supplements would have been one of the most beneficial strategies we could have implemented. But it's a "drug", and therefore "unethical" to recommend without years of studies even though we know that it has effectively zero risk.

I don’t think that’s really the blocker here. Vitamin D supplementation is very low risk and the risks are well known. I’ve seen at least one study that I can recall saying exactly that—the correlation is there and vitamin D is safe and basically risk free so we should be supplementing it in at least the at-risk population immediately.

Vitamin D taken orally needs to bind with Calcium or Mg.

Sun Lamps may be a better option for the at risk group.

Are sun lamps sufficient to enhance Vitamin D production? They're mainly used for their psychological effects.

Elderly can't produce vitamin D.

Not particularly. They tend to have faulty liver more often though preventing them from producing enough cholesterol, and need more to handle the general cell damage, so less remains in the skin to synthesize vitamin D...

You can overdose on vitamin D and it can have significant side effects.

More or less anything that can have a positive effect on your health can have a negative effect if done wrong. If something has no possible negative effects it probably doesn’t do anything at all.

You can overdose on water but we still tell folks to drink several glasses a day, because most people don't get enough. That a tiny few are sensitive or go nuts with it shouldn't stop helping everyone else.

> But it's a "drug"

It is. It is not like other 'vitamins' and shouldn't even be called that way. It's a hormone. It is fat soluble, it will linger for quite a while.

> even though we know that it has effectively zero risk

Not true. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/taking-too-mu...

Most people don't consistently take it in high doses for it to become a serious problem. It doesn't mean it's without risks.

It's typically not treated as a "drug", but as a supplement, and widely recommended even outside covid.