We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
they don't do this you take the people you divide them into two groups you give one group of placebo you give one group usually a very low dose somewhere between two to four thousand IU daily but we don't actually know what the level goes to
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
one of my biggest criticisms of vitamin D trials and why I think we don't have an answer as to whether supplemental vitamin D is valuable is they don't do this you take the people you divide them into two groups you give one group of placebo you give one group usually a very low dose somewhere between two to 4,000 IU daily but we don't actually know what the level goes to
one of the problems with the vitamin D trials is that they're all garbage, right? Because they all just give people a given dose. They don't measure the response. They don't measure compliance. A vitamin D trial should be done based on target level, not target dose.
this by the way is why I think all these vitamin D trials the mega trials are so flawed is they're always doing it on the basis of a they're they're taking too low a dose and they're doing it based on dose not level