3 ms·
I thought the opposite: It campaigns against vitamin D as if it were a wolf in sheep's clothes. I've seen the author (and her partner) post and link about the d
by ajhurliman 6y ago
I thought the opposite: It campaigns against vitamin D as if it were a wolf in sheep's clothes. I've seen the author (and her partner) post and link about the dangers of vitamin D for a while now and it seems very unscientific to come at a subject with your mind already made up.
The author has clearly made up their mind about vitamin D and now they've made it duty to lobby on behalf of that belief, but I don't think they're capable of honest, unbiased science regarding this subject anymore.
- mola 6y agohuh? They did the research, reached conclusions, and inform the public. That's what scientists should do. Why do you think they first decided they don't like vitamin D, and only then cherry picked research to prove it? Anyway, If you are an informed enough, you don't have to believe them, you can just read all the research they provided, and see for yourself. Otherwise, all you can do is trust them. Or not.
- conorh 6y agoI think the idea of these articles was to help make people more informed consumers. As Deva says: > Finally, no one needs to blindly believe what I say - or what anyone else says - about Vitamin D. You can and should critically evaluate the evidence for yourself. Below I have listed out some of the most important RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs, with summaries and links. When looking at meta-analyses, Cochrane always provides top quality reviews, and I often look to them first for quality analyses and thoughtful interpretations.
- Shorel 6y agoI think something important we are missing is that vitamin D effects seem to be quite different when the vitamin is produced by the body and when it is taken orally. It is a lot less effective when taken orally. This study doesn't mention this important distinction.