3 ms·

Attack the research, not the author.

• volkl48 5y ago
  They didn't conduct a study on subjects, it's a literature review. The author's repeatedly demonstrated inability to discern valid information from not makes them fundamentally incapable of conducting such a review. Whether that's out of malice or incompetence, the result is the same. -------- They've repeatedly promoted debunked information and fraudulent studies on their Twitter, and a quick skim of the sources for this paper indicates that they've cited such "studies" in this paper. For example, the "Dr. Mercola" previously exposed as a fraud is...cited here, citation #84. And what a shock, his "study" was also published in this same journal and remains unretracted by it.
  • impendingchange 5y ago
    From the Abstract: "Results: One population study and seven clinical studies were identified, which reported D3 blood levels preinfection or on the day of hospital admission. The two independent datasets showed a negative Pearson correlation of D3 levels and mortality risk (r(17) = −0.4154, p = 0.0770/r(13) = −0.4886, p = 0.0646). For the combined data, median (IQR) D3 levels were 23.2 ng/mL (17.4–26.8), and a significant Pearson correlation was observed (r(32) = −0.3989, p = 0.0194). Regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 ng/mL D3. Conclusions: The datasets provide strong evidence that low D3 is a predictor rather than just a side effect of the infection." A review of studies on subjects.