The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
epidemiologically in the observational studies those with 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 with 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
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.
Some have speculated that it might be less the vitamin D the higher vitamin D levels in those individuals and more what they're doing to achieve high levels of vitamin D if they're doing it without supplementation namely just being outside and being active