51–60 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have done 1000 IU for a few months with no impact on chronic insomnia.
The recommendation is 5,000 to 10,000 iu. 1,000 is what the label on the bottle says.
185 experts. Over 100 medical doctors. Roughly 100 professors, including many of the most respected vitamin D experts in the world---check out the list of names and qualifications yourself. Please read the link before posting about correlation or other opinions on the topic. The point is to note the aggregate credibility of the backers here. This is analogous to the open letter done for face masks last spring.
A few months ago people laughed at the suggestion. It was "dangerous" to "deceive" people about Vit D and Covid.
Wasn't Twitter suppressing this too? How do they punish themselves for misinformation?
Now it comes out. I wonder how many other things will come to light.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open letter for face masks is a great example for why this kind of thing is dubious. All prior high-quality evidence disputed the claim: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/specia... The subsequent evidence of real-world effectiveness isn’t great: cases are skyrocketing around the northern hemisphere, and mask mandates aren’t making a difference. The only randomized controlled trial ever conduct…
Science is built on consensus Also the fact that mask mandates are poorly enforced, or that masks arent a replacement for other forms of prevention, or that some materials dont offer the same level of prevention dont change the fact that masks work
No it's not. It's built on hypothesis and experiments (empiricism).
Just because the nazi party banned "jewish" physics doesn't mean that "jewish" science wasn't science.
You think science is a democracy? If 51% of scientists say the earth is flat, then it's flat? You think each nation has their own version of science built on consense of their own scientists?
185 experts. Over 100 medical doctors. Roughly 100 professors, including many of the most respected vitamin D experts in the world---check out the list of names and qualifications yourself. Please read the link before posting about correlation or other opinions on the topic. The point is to note the aggregate credibility of the backers here. This is analogous to the open letter done for face masks last spring.
Isn't there a similarly sized letter asking for the regulator to look into their findings for Ivermectin?
I have not personally read the Ivermectin literature, but I think the FLCCC's methodology is good. (Paul Marik of FLCCC is a signatory on this vitamin D letter, BTW.) But it's notable that no one has Ivermectin deficiency, whereas more than half of people have insufficient vitamin D, especially in winter, so increased D intake is justified even in the absence of this COVID19 pandemic.
185 experts. Over 100 medical doctors. Roughly 100 professors, including many of the most respected vitamin D experts in the world---check out the list of names and qualifications yourself. Please read the link before posting about correlation or other opinions on the topic. The point is to note the aggregate credibility of the backers here. This is analogous to the open letter done for face masks last spring.
Wait... A few months ago people laughed at the suggestion. It was "dangerous" to "deceive" people about Vit D and Covid. Wasn't Twitter suppressing this too? How do they punish themselves for misinformation? Now it comes out. I wonder how many other things will come to light.
See also the op-ed just posted to MedPage Today, and posted separately here on HackerNews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25680373
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean - there's more truth to this than people want to admit. It's a harsh way to phrase that it's practically abusive to make people live at certain latitudes where they can't absorb the amount of sun that creates vitamin-d adequate for their body. Of course the way to combat this is just identifying deficiency and prescribing the right amount.
Sunlight activates hundreds of genes, do you think vitamin d is the only variable in this equation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open letter for face masks is a great example for why this kind of thing is dubious. All prior high-quality evidence disputed the claim: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/specia... The subsequent evidence of real-world effectiveness isn’t great: cases are skyrocketing around the northern hemisphere, and mask mandates aren’t making a difference. The only randomized controlled trial ever conduct…
Science is built on consensus Also the fact that mask mandates are poorly enforced, or that masks arent a replacement for other forms of prevention, or that some materials dont offer the same level of prevention dont change the fact that masks work
That's definitely the messaging public representatives use when communicating science issues to the general public. It's very effective at getting compliance across a society where our instinct is to look to our peers to figure out how to behave.
As others have said, what has made science effective at being a vehicle of growth and change is that it is empirical / evidence based. New ideas slowly diffuse and get accepted as evidence grows for their support (which can take a long while).
Decision making by evidence is also pretty much the opposite of natural human group behavior. I recommend reading/listening to some of the newer research on human psychology of groups. It pretty concretely shows that people consistently choose group harmony + stability over converging on the truth / correctness. Basically in a group we value getting along with each other a lot more (being in agreement / having consensus) than we value knowing what really is happening. Also, scientists being humans are not immune to this behavior either which is why evidence based progress is slow and can be resisted by established groups for lengthy periods.