4 ms·

It doesn’t seem like they controlled for any other variable at all - even time. From the paper: “Various literature databases like PubMed and Google Scholar wer

It doesn’t seem like they controlled for any other variable at all - even time. From the paper: “Various literature databases like PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to find the mean of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels in different states and union territories of India”. I would have to assume not all those studies were done at the same time. This would maybe be a great elevator pitch to get some resources. Not sure if that’s the intent. Relatedly, have there been proper double-blind studies for vitamin d injections & COVID outcomes? I would guess there’s not a lot of interest given other substances that have better “method of action” hypotheses. Or maybe it’s just lack of funding (hence we see an article like this every month or so)?

sieabahlpark 6y ago
> It doesn’t seem like they controlled for any other variable at all - even time. Yet this post is still popular on HN. Makes you think just how many other headlines are just so completely wrong hidden behind terrible studies. 100% of scientists agree with who guarantees their paychecks
lolc 6y ago
> Relatedly, have there been proper double-blind studies for vitamin d injections & COVID outcomes? I think there was a study that saw improved clinical outcomes when a metabolized version of vitamin D was administered. Don't know where to find it though.
- speakeron 6y ago
  It was this one from the Reina Sofia University Hospital in Spain (high dose of Calcifediol significantly reduced need for ICU treatment): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076020302764 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602...