Paul Saladino· MD
Furthermore, in many other disease models, supplemental vitamin D has failed to show benefit while higher levels correlate with better outcomes.
Loading…
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.
Furthermore, in many other disease models, supplemental vitamin D has failed to show benefit while higher levels correlate with better outcomes.
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.
the danger of epidemiology we use epidemiology when it's all we've got but we have to acknowledge its limitations that epidemiologically in the observational studies those are the highest levels of vitamin D always do the best but as you're suggesting in the interventional studies with cardiovascular outcomes with psychiatric outcomes the common cold outcomes when we give people vitamin D they don't get the same benefits that appear to be suggested by the associational epidemiology