4 ms·
> Unsurprisingly there's no direct clinical evidence. "We searched for trials and didn't find any" Unsurprisingly, there haven't been any (completed) trials o
by gridlockd 6y ago
> Unsurprisingly there's no direct clinical evidence.
"We searched for trials and didn't find any"
Unsurprisingly, there haven't been any (completed) trials on this particular combination of novel disease and possible prevention/treatment yet.
I'm concerned that people conflate "no evidence for efficacy" with "it doesn't work" instead of "we don't know if it works". You always start out with "no evidence".
There are studies that put serum Vitamin D levels against COVID-19 outcomes and they show a highly significant correlation. That's not "causal evidence", but it should put you on alert, you shouldn't be waiting for 2021 for possible Vitamin-D trials to complete.
As the authors of that review are saying, you should be supplementing anyway, whether there is a causal relationship or not.
- jansan 6y agoYou would see tons of research going on if there was more money to be made with Vitamin D.
- trekrich 6y agovery true.
- emmelaich 6y agoNot so sure. Vitamin D is cheap to make.
- 0-_-0 6y agoI don't see why, since vitamin D is not patentable. If you spend the money on research others can make money from it making you lose out. Same reason why herbs are not researched even though they've been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years: you can't patent a plant.
- DanBC 6y ago> There are studies that put serum Vitamin D levels against COVID-19 outcomes and they show a highly significant correlation Until they correct for socio-economic factors it's a potentially misleading bit of data.