Interesting article published in Lancet: Vitamin D for COVID-19: a case to answer?

Discusses the merits of Vitamin D as a tool against Covid-19. Then near the end they call for random blind trials giving 400 - 1000 iu of Vitamin D to the drug arm and none to the control arm. That level of intake will raise most people's 25-hydroxy D blood level by 4 to 10 ng/ml. 30 ng/ml is considered "sufficient" and 40-50 ng/ml is recommended by the American Endocrine Society.

Those trial are certain to "prove" Vitamin D does not protect people from Covid-19, because that low a level of Vitamin D protects nobody from anything but rickets. I don't know what's wrong with these authors. This is like giving 1/10th the usual dose of dexamethasone to people and then saying it doesn't help. And I don't know why Lancet would publish it.

The one random blind Vitamin D drug trial we have that showed it was 25 TIMES as good at keeping patients from needing the ICU used the much higher dose of Vitamin D. A dose that would give most people about the same blood levels as 5000 iu/day.

I have seen this same problem in trial after trial: RECOVERY in the UK gave patients toxic overdoses of hydroxychloroquine, and then stopped the trial because it was harming them. Same thing for a trial in Brazil. Heart problems because they were using something like a 20 fold overdose of chloroquine.

Can all of these researchers not read the literature and do simple math?