"Alternative" voices have been saying this about Vitamin D3 since the start of this whole mess. Is it really a surprise that most people living outside of our biological niche (warm, near-equator climates) lack this fundamental micro-nutrient and have so many health problems as a result? No, but what's surprising is how we still lack understanding of basic factors to good health - sunshine, nutrient-rich foods, regular exercise and adequate sleep. Now imagine if our healthcare resources were focused on that and other preventative lifestyle interventions. We might not even have a so-called pandemic on our hands.
The factor under that surprise is some difficulty in clarity in discriminating contexts - with relevance to the cheap sarcastic formulas like "using crystals for broken bones" and the opposite "treating [literal] disease with a scalpel". Messy world, plus "man with a hammer" syndrome, equals confused agents.
I thought it was intriguing that Arizona was hit hard with the Covid rate increase back when summer hit them (and everyone retreated indoors away from the sun and into the chilled air).
Two "independent researchers" with zero academic affiliations, neither of which seems to have any other recent publications, publishing in a poorly regarded journal with questionable standards don't exactly inspire a great deal of confidence in their results.
-------
In addition I see one of the authors's Twitter promoting other discredited research and retracted/removed papers over the past year, such as the now infamous "Dr. Mercola".
I don't see any reason to think this author is capable of actually conducting a review of this topic, given that they are clearly easily misled by misinformation on the topic (to be charitable).
They didn't conduct a study on subjects, it's a literature review.
The author's repeatedly demonstrated inability to discern valid information from not makes them fundamentally incapable of conducting such a review. Whether that's out of malice or incompetence, the result is the same.
--------
They've repeatedly promoted debunked information and fraudulent studies on their Twitter, and a quick skim of the sources for this paper indicates that they've cited such "studies" in this paper.
For example, the "Dr. Mercola" previously exposed as a fraud is...cited here, citation #84. And what a shock, his "study" was also published in this same journal and remains unretracted by it.
"Results: One population study and seven clinical studies were identified, which reported D3 blood levels preinfection or on the day of hospital admission. The two independent datasets showed a negative Pearson correlation of D3 levels and mortality risk (r(17) = −0.4154, p = 0.0770/r(13) = −0.4886, p = 0.0646). For the combined data, median (IQR) D3 levels were 23.2 ng/mL (17.4–26.8), and a significant Pearson correlation was observed (r(32) = −0.3989, p = 0.0194). Regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 ng/mL D3. Conclusions: The datasets provide strong evidence that low D3 is a predictor rather than just a side effect of the infection."
9 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 36.8 ms ] threadThe factor under that surprise is some difficulty in clarity in discriminating contexts - with relevance to the cheap sarcastic formulas like "using crystals for broken bones" and the opposite "treating [literal] disease with a scalpel". Messy world, plus "man with a hammer" syndrome, equals confused agents.
-------
In addition I see one of the authors's Twitter promoting other discredited research and retracted/removed papers over the past year, such as the now infamous "Dr. Mercola".
https://mobile.twitter.com/bernd_glauner/status/127549493530...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/24/technology/joseph-mercola...
I don't see any reason to think this author is capable of actually conducting a review of this topic, given that they are clearly easily misled by misinformation on the topic (to be charitable).
The author's repeatedly demonstrated inability to discern valid information from not makes them fundamentally incapable of conducting such a review. Whether that's out of malice or incompetence, the result is the same.
--------
They've repeatedly promoted debunked information and fraudulent studies on their Twitter, and a quick skim of the sources for this paper indicates that they've cited such "studies" in this paper.
For example, the "Dr. Mercola" previously exposed as a fraud is...cited here, citation #84. And what a shock, his "study" was also published in this same journal and remains unretracted by it.
"Results: One population study and seven clinical studies were identified, which reported D3 blood levels preinfection or on the day of hospital admission. The two independent datasets showed a negative Pearson correlation of D3 levels and mortality risk (r(17) = −0.4154, p = 0.0770/r(13) = −0.4886, p = 0.0646). For the combined data, median (IQR) D3 levels were 23.2 ng/mL (17.4–26.8), and a significant Pearson correlation was observed (r(32) = −0.3989, p = 0.0194). Regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 ng/mL D3. Conclusions: The datasets provide strong evidence that low D3 is a predictor rather than just a side effect of the infection."
A review of studies on subjects.