4 ms·
> The "correlation is not causation!!" bromide, while useful to understand in context, is overused. Maybe then we should take a look at an actual double blind
by credit_guy 5y ago
> The "correlation is not causation!!" bromide, while useful to understand in context, is overused.
Maybe then we should take a look at an actual double blind randomized controlled trial. Preferably one with thousands of participants. Luckily, exactly such a trial just ended. It lasted 5 years, it started in 2016 and ended in 2021. It considered acute respiratory infections; Covid was not one at the beginning of the trial, but was by the end of it.
Here's the conclusion:
Monthly bolus doses of 60 000 IU of vitamin D did not reduce the overall risk of acute respiratory tract infection, but could slightly reduce the duration of symptoms in the general population. These findings suggest that routine vitamin D supplementation of a population that is largely vitamin D replete is unlikely to have a clinically relevant effect on acute respiratory tract infection.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(20)30380-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...
- anotherboffin 5y agoFor me the key words in this conclusion are “[…] largely vitamin D replete” but for example, during winter in the Northern hemisphere, are we as a population really Vit. D replete?
- gpderetta 5y agoMy understanding that, at least in the UK, vitamine D deficiency is relatively common. As someone born and raised in sunny southern Europe, my GP prescribed Vitamin D supplements to take indefinitely because I had a deficiency after ten years in the UK. Anecdotally they seemed to improve both my mood and my general health.
- incrudible 5y agoThis is in Australia, the placebo group had no deficiency in the first place. By contrast, deficiency is commonplace in the northern hemisphere during winter. Furthermore, other studies suggest that daily supplementation is superior to monthly boluses, as far as I remember.