4 ms·

This recently published study suggests vitD supplements alone provide some protection, even for acute cases. It’s a small sample population (n=75) and a pre-pri

by navi0 6y ago

This recently published study suggests vitD supplements alone provide some protection, even for acute cases. It’s a small sample population (n=75) and a pre-print, but it looks convincing to me (non-scientist, non-medical professional): “Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission... Of the patients treated with calcifediol, none died, and all were discharged, without complications. The 13 patients not treated with calcifediol, who were not admitted to the ICU, were discharged. Of the 13 patients admitted to the ICU, two died and the remaining 11 were discharged.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076020302764 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602... Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24390451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24390451

acqq 6y ago
That link has only one comment. Actual discussion with 390 comments is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366006 and my comment there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24366933 In short, my problem with that paper is: "The whole paper contains neither raw data nor any graphs and only means and standard deviations" Given small number of people in the study, it's not clear that there aren't some problems that aren't visible when reporting the means which would be obvious when looking at the actual data. Even the randomized studies aren't "true" automatically: the process of randomization can have issues itself, and that should be also possible to check.