4 ms·

This very post references a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial. It's an intervention over 5+ years that showed 22% reduction in autoimmune disea

This very post references a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial. It's an intervention over 5+ years that showed 22% reduction in autoimmune disease, not a correlative study.

legulere 5y ago
It’s a study wether vitamin D prevents cancer and cardiovascular diseases: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01169259 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01169259 The results are negative: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30415629/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30415629/ What you see here is that combing through the data to see wether anything shows a publishable correlation. It’s better than a correlation in the general population, but can be also spurious. Here is the article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35082139/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35082139/ It’s important to observe that “omega 3 fatty acid supplementation with or without vitamin D reduced the autoimmune disease rate by 15% (not statistically significant)”. If vitamin D reduced autoimmune diseases you would expect omega 3 + vitamin D to have similar results than just vitamin D
- sooheon 5y ago
  > Here is the article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35082139/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35082139/ It’s important to observe that “omega 3 fatty acid supplementation with or without vitamin D reduced the autoimmune disease rate by 15% (not statistically significant)”. There are two endpoints measured, and you chose to quote the statistically insignificant result, rather than the significant one. Though I agree, p-hacking is always an issue. OTOH, plenty of biological discoveries come from unintended observations. As long as they replicate, nothing's off limits -- you wouldn't disbelieve penicillin because it wasn't discovered in a pre-registered trial. > If vitamin D reduced autoimmune diseases you would expect omega 3 + vitamin D to have similar results than just vitamin D It did. D only hazard ratio: .68, D+omega3 hazard ratio .69

This very post references a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial. It's an intervention over 5+ years that showed 22% reduction in autoimmune disease, not a correlative study.

legulere 5y ago

It’s a study wether vitamin D prevents cancer and cardiovascular diseases: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01169259 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01169259 The results are negative: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30415629/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30415629/ What you see here is that combing through the data to see wether anything shows a publishable correlation. It’s better than a correlation in the general population, but can be also spurious. Here is the article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35082139/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35082139/ It’s important to observe that “omega 3 fatty acid supplementation with or without vitamin D reduced the autoimmune disease rate by 15% (not statistically significant)”. If vitamin D reduced autoimmune diseases you would expect omega 3 + vitamin D to have similar results than just vitamin D

sooheon 5y ago
> Here is the article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35082139/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35082139/ It’s important to observe that “omega 3 fatty acid supplementation with or without vitamin D reduced the autoimmune disease rate by 15% (not statistically significant)”. There are two endpoints measured, and you chose to quote the statistically insignificant result, rather than the significant one. Though I agree, p-hacking is always an issue. OTOH, plenty of biological discoveries come from unintended observations. As long as they replicate, nothing's off limits -- you wouldn't disbelieve penicillin because it wasn't discovered in a pre-registered trial. > If vitamin D reduced autoimmune diseases you would expect omega 3 + vitamin D to have similar results than just vitamin D It did. D only hazard ratio: .68, D+omega3 hazard ratio .69