6 ms·

185 experts. Over 100 medical doctors. Roughly 100 professors, including many of the most respected vitamin D experts in the world---check out the list of names

185 experts. Over 100 medical doctors. Roughly 100 professors, including many of the most respected vitamin D experts in the world---check out the list of names and qualifications yourself. Please read the link before posting about correlation or other opinions on the topic. The point is to note the aggregate credibility of the backers here. This is analogous to the open letter done for face masks last spring.

fareesh 6y ago
Isn't there a similarly sized letter asking for the regulator to look into their findings for Ivermectin?
- kpfleger 6y ago
  The FLCCC has been pushing Ivermectin, but I am not aware of an open letter analogous to this one or the similar one for masks that is signed by 100+ doctors & scientists. I have not personally read the Ivermectin literature, but I think the FLCCC's methodology is good. (Paul Marik of FLCCC is a signatory on this vitamin D letter, BTW.) But it's notable that no one has Ivermectin deficiency, whereas more than half of people have insufficient vitamin D, especially in winter, so increased D intake is justified even in the absence of this COVID19 pandemic.
  - fareesh 6y ago
    Not an open letter - but a manuscript of 30ish studies - I assumed there were probably ~3 doctors on each study.
irq11 6y ago
The open letter for face masks is a great example for why this kind of thing is dubious. All prior high-quality evidence disputed the claim: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/special-ep-masks https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/specia... The subsequent evidence of real-world effectiveness isn’t great: cases are skyrocketing around the northern hemisphere, and mask mandates aren’t making a difference. The only randomized controlled trial ever conducted for masks and covid was not able to detect any protective effect, yet was rejected from multiple journals because of “consensus”: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778 https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778 Science by signature count isn’t science; it’s a popularity contest. It’s perfectly fine to advocate for a belief, but nobody should pretend that they have the “scientific” argument simply because their signature list is longer.
- jiofih 6y ago
  > cases are skyrocketing And comments like yours are one of the reasons. The study shows that masks do little to protect the wearer - which is kind of obvious as it’s not going to filter incoming air very efficiently, that has never been the purpose of surgical masks. They don’t protect against airborne pathogens and every medical professional knows it. You need a crítica mass for masks to start reducing transmission rates. Mask use is nowhere near what it should have been, so you cannot take any conclusions out of that.
  - irq11 6y ago
    > Mask use is nowhere near what it should have been All available evidence shows that you’re wrong. Self-reported mask usage rates are over 90%, nationwide. Moreover, many of the places with the highest compliance rates (e.g. Los Angeles) have the fastest-growing case counts: https://delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast/?date=20201018&signalType=value&mode=overview&sensor=fb-survey-smoothed_wearing_mask&level=state https://delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast/?date=20201018&signalType=v... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/23/pandemic-data-chart-masks/%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943e4.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943e4.htm
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Because population density and culture are the other factors. In most cases, combined with limiting large groups and reducing the frequency of meetings, it is doing what it is intended to do - reduce the R0 factor. Even in LA. Every Internet pundit who can take one number and divide by another, announces they have proven something or other. Give it a rest.
      - irq11 6y ago
        There’s always an excuse, but there’s never any data backing your claims. Provide even a single shred of evidence that masks affect the R0 of the virus in the real world. Modeling studies and correlations observed in April don’t count: most of the papers published this year looked at areas where case counts subsequently skyrocketed in the fall. My personal favorite is the mask study from Jena, Germany in the spring, which only made it into a journal right as cases were reaching an all-time high in the same area: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117 https://gesundheit.jena.de/en/coronavirus https://gesundheit.jena.de/en/coronavirus
mc32 6y ago
Wait... A few months ago people laughed at the suggestion. It was "dangerous" to "deceive" people about Vit D and Covid. Wasn't Twitter suppressing this too? How do they punish themselves for misinformation? Now it comes out. I wonder how many other things will come to light.
- kpfleger 6y ago
  This has been a big problem. Some people labeled science on vitamin D & covid19 as misinformation, lumping vitamin D in with things that have little to no evidence even when the vitamin D evidence was mounting rapidly. Part of the point of this open letter is to show that many serious people agree that vitamin D should be used in the pandemic. The inappropriate suppression of this message is now the mis-information. This should be clear from reading the letter and its very few references carefully. See also the op-ed just posted to MedPage Today, and posted separately here on HackerNews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25680373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25680373
  - teorema 6y ago
    The problem IMHO is the attempt to regulate speech on the topic (or any topic really). It just illustrates the problems with it. I'm a little concerned about the appeal to authority element to this all...
- WalterGR 6y ago
  > A few months ago people laughed at the suggestion. It was "dangerous" to "deceive" people about Vit D and Covid. Who? Doctors or people on the internet? > Wasn't Twitter suppressing this too? I don't know. Were they? By "too" do you mean the unidentified people above? > How do they punish themselves for misinformation? How do they punish themselves for insinuations of possibly suppressing something? > Now it comes out. I wonder how many other things will come to light. Such as what?
  - funcDropShadow 6y ago
    > > A few months ago people laughed at the suggestion. It was "dangerous" to "deceive" people about Vit D and Covid. > Who? Doctors or people on the internet? Last automn, I asked a medical doctor about Vitamin D and CoVid19 and he told me that he gets a lot of emails about news in medicine, and that he deletes everything that mentions Vitamin D, because some claims about Vitamin D were refuted in the '90s. I was suprised to say the least.

fareesh 6y ago

Isn't there a similarly sized letter asking for the regulator to look into their findings for Ivermectin?

kpfleger 6y ago
The FLCCC has been pushing Ivermectin, but I am not aware of an open letter analogous to this one or the similar one for masks that is signed by 100+ doctors & scientists. I have not personally read the Ivermectin literature, but I think the FLCCC's methodology is good. (Paul Marik of FLCCC is a signatory on this vitamin D letter, BTW.) But it's notable that no one has Ivermectin deficiency, whereas more than half of people have insufficient vitamin D, especially in winter, so increased D intake is justified even in the absence of this COVID19 pandemic.
- fareesh 6y ago
  Not an open letter - but a manuscript of 30ish studies - I assumed there were probably ~3 doctors on each study.

irq11 6y ago

The open letter for face masks is a great example for why this kind of thing is dubious. All prior high-quality evidence disputed the claim: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/special-ep-masks https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/specia... The subsequent evidence of real-world effectiveness isn’t great: cases are skyrocketing around the northern hemisphere, and mask mandates aren’t making a difference. The only randomized controlled trial ever conducted for masks and covid was not able to detect any protective effect, yet was rejected from multiple journals because of “consensus”: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778 https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89778 Science by signature count isn’t science; it’s a popularity contest. It’s perfectly fine to advocate for a belief, but nobody should pretend that they have the “scientific” argument simply because their signature list is longer.

jiofih 6y ago
> cases are skyrocketing And comments like yours are one of the reasons. The study shows that masks do little to protect the wearer - which is kind of obvious as it’s not going to filter incoming air very efficiently, that has never been the purpose of surgical masks. They don’t protect against airborne pathogens and every medical professional knows it. You need a crítica mass for masks to start reducing transmission rates. Mask use is nowhere near what it should have been, so you cannot take any conclusions out of that.
- irq11 6y ago
  > Mask use is nowhere near what it should have been All available evidence shows that you’re wrong. Self-reported mask usage rates are over 90%, nationwide. Moreover, many of the places with the highest compliance rates (e.g. Los Angeles) have the fastest-growing case counts: https://delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast/?date=20201018&signalType=value&mode=overview&sensor=fb-survey-smoothed_wearing_mask&level=state https://delphi.cmu.edu/covidcast/?date=20201018&signalType=v... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/23/pandemic-data-chart-masks/%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943e4.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943e4.htm
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Because population density and culture are the other factors. In most cases, combined with limiting large groups and reducing the frequency of meetings, it is doing what it is intended to do - reduce the R0 factor. Even in LA. Every Internet pundit who can take one number and divide by another, announces they have proven something or other. Give it a rest.
    - irq11 6y ago
      There’s always an excuse, but there’s never any data backing your claims. Provide even a single shred of evidence that masks affect the R0 of the virus in the real world. Modeling studies and correlations observed in April don’t count: most of the papers published this year looked at areas where case counts subsequently skyrocketed in the fall. My personal favorite is the mask study from Jena, Germany in the spring, which only made it into a journal right as cases were reaching an all-time high in the same area: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2015954117 https://gesundheit.jena.de/en/coronavirus https://gesundheit.jena.de/en/coronavirus

mc32 6y ago

Wait... A few months ago people laughed at the suggestion. It was "dangerous" to "deceive" people about Vit D and Covid. Wasn't Twitter suppressing this too? How do they punish themselves for misinformation? Now it comes out. I wonder how many other things will come to light.

kpfleger 6y ago
This has been a big problem. Some people labeled science on vitamin D & covid19 as misinformation, lumping vitamin D in with things that have little to no evidence even when the vitamin D evidence was mounting rapidly. Part of the point of this open letter is to show that many serious people agree that vitamin D should be used in the pandemic. The inappropriate suppression of this message is now the mis-information. This should be clear from reading the letter and its very few references carefully. See also the op-ed just posted to MedPage Today, and posted separately here on HackerNews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25680373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25680373
- teorema 6y ago
  The problem IMHO is the attempt to regulate speech on the topic (or any topic really). It just illustrates the problems with it. I'm a little concerned about the appeal to authority element to this all...
WalterGR 6y ago
> A few months ago people laughed at the suggestion. It was "dangerous" to "deceive" people about Vit D and Covid. Who? Doctors or people on the internet? > Wasn't Twitter suppressing this too? I don't know. Were they? By "too" do you mean the unidentified people above? > How do they punish themselves for misinformation? How do they punish themselves for insinuations of possibly suppressing something? > Now it comes out. I wonder how many other things will come to light. Such as what?
- funcDropShadow 6y ago
  > > A few months ago people laughed at the suggestion. It was "dangerous" to "deceive" people about Vit D and Covid. > Who? Doctors or people on the internet? Last automn, I asked a medical doctor about Vitamin D and CoVid19 and he told me that he gets a lot of emails about news in medicine, and that he deletes everything that mentions Vitamin D, because some claims about Vitamin D were refuted in the '90s. I was suprised to say the least.