3 ms·
I can't speak for all fact checkers, but I'd suspect that sometimes they might be more nuance provider, or in other words: reality checkers. For example, it wo
by didibus 6y ago
I can't speak for all fact checkers, but I'd suspect that sometimes they might be more nuance provider, or in other words: reality checkers.
For example, it would be exaggerated to believe that vitamin D can cure Covid and prevent its spread.
It would also be a bad idea to start high dosing vitamin D unmonitored.
The kind of misunderstanding of the impact and influence of such thing is often an issue when layman hear about medical and other scientific research. So I think a lot of people get worried of some people overblowing things and taking gambles. Science doesn't put its faith in anything, but sometimes layman will put their faith in preliminary results from a few studies.
And another thing is, the science will change over time, and might contradict itself as well, and the layman will again begin to lose faith, because they make it about faith and beliefs, and that's dangerous.
- ColanR 6y ago> nuance provider, or in other words: reality checkers If that were the case, they would be far less emphatic. In fact, since the science can "contradict itself", they seem to be saying far more than they can justify. > It would also be a bad idea to start high dosing vitamin D unmonitored. I think when it's compared to the risk of contracting covid, 1000IU / day of vitamin D is justified. > exaggerated to believe that vitamin D can...prevent its spread Would it? I think we're finding that vitamin D is probably more effective than face masks. > layman will again begin to lose faith Lose faith in the ability of scientists to solve the problem, or lose faith in the PR folks that (demonstrably, sometimes obviously) don't tell the truth? Science is only 'about faith and beliefs' when the layman is told to believe specific people, or blindly obey the experts.