4 ms·
>” To paraphrase "the data isn't wrong, but it contradicts dogmatically held beliefs, and so a strict regime of pills and treatments are required first before i
by mint2 4y ago
>” To paraphrase "the data isn't wrong, but it contradicts dogmatically held beliefs, and so a strict regime of pills and treatments are required first before indulging in this heresy".”
That rephrasing in itself can be describe as a dogmatic belief that supplements are bad/conspiracy. It’s a dogmatism pile.
Eat sun exposed mushrooms if vitamin d pills aren’t ones cup of tea, but in northern climes relying on sun for vitamin d is not realistic much of the year.
- astrange 4y agoThe issue described in the article seems to be that sunlight does a lot more than produce Vitamin D - thinking a natural process is the same as taking exactly one chemical by mouth is the kind of modernist nutrition science that gets overturned later.
- trompetenaccoun 4y agoThere is no empirical evidence the pills do anything. Did you read the article? It's likely one of those spurious correlation type of situations. Being outdoors or having sun exposure, maybe living healthier lifestyles... whatever it is it corresponds with higher vitamin D levels, that's all. It's a bit much claiming those suspicious of pill pushing are part of the actual cult. If someone thinks taking vitamin D pills is necessary they're the one who has to provide the evidence, not the other way around.