4 ms·
what you conveniently leave out, of course, is all the other quack science that did, in fact, turn out to be harmful. this wasn’t "don’t tell them about the vit
by sussmannbaka 4y ago
what you conveniently leave out, of course, is all the other quack science that did, in fact, turn out to be harmful. this wasn’t "don’t tell them about the vitamin d!", this was "don’t make unsubstantiated claims". the claim is substantiated now.
In 2020 virtually everything was someone’s secret solution to covid that the man was suppressing.
- blurbleblurble 4y agoThere was enough pre-existing theory to suggest that vitamin D could be beneficial, and enough preliminary data suggesting that it was beneficial, that several government bodies and public health officials did strongly recommend mass vitamin D supplementation as a low risk intervention. Aside from that, some places already supplement milk with vitamin D because the effects of insufficiency have been known for many decades. The language of uninformed skepticism really bothers me. Using terms like "quack science" and "crank". What does that do? It just heaps stigma into an already complex and messy conversation that really needs nuance, thoughtfulness and care. For what? To distinguish yourself as smart? To me that kind of language just comes off as reductionist.
- codefreeordie 4y agoIndeed, there was a great deal of evidence to support usage of vitamin D from the get-go, including the actually-settled science that lower levels of vitamin D are associated with worse outcomes in tons of other respiratory illnesses. Despite this fact, it was "The Science" that vitamin D was not to he taken and "COVID Disinformation" to suggest otherwise.