3 ms·
The article says something too broad to be true (that if you're a programmer, you need to take vitamin D). However, a clinical trial would be overkill: you migh
by ralmeida 14y ago
The article says something too broad to be true (that if you're a programmer, you need to take vitamin D). However, a clinical trial would be overkill: you might need a clinical trial to determine if, say, cell phones are bad for you, but you don't need a clinical test to determine that 100% of people who stop breathing die. Where do you draw the line? Also, it spends a great deal of effort to make a statistically meaningful clinical test.
This could all be solved if, instead of prescribing supplements based on profession, the article's tone were more like "Hey, vitamin D defficiency is a thing and your lifestyle favors it. Go get yourself checked out and mention this to your doctor."
- streptomycin 14y agoOf course there is a line to be drawn, but I think that dietary supplements certainly should be tested in clinical trials. Otherwise, there is no way to know if they work or not. This is typically how drugs/supplements are evaluated.
- ralmeida 14y agoSure, but clinically testing a supplement to see if it works is not the same thing as doing a clinical test to conclude that taking a "working" vitamin D supplement is good for you if you have vitamin D defficiency.
- streptomycin 14y agoThose would be different stages of clinical trials.