Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

Re:Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence by null_object on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @01:17PM (#24410491)

I’d also like specifics about the “not statistically significant” part - because otherwise there can be a suspicion of cherry-picking the available data. Which I felt, reading parts 2 and 3 of these blog posts, was definitely a possibility.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence by devaboone on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @01:21PM (#24410525)

I tried really really hard to put in all of the most significant studies on Vitamin D. Small, low-quality studies didn't make it in, but the major trials did.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence by harterrt on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @03:49PM (#24412295)

To start, I appreciate your effort on this post. It looks like it took a lot of work and it does a great job of explaining difficult topics like why controls are important.

That said, I don't think it's fair to characterize the COVID study as low-quality. It's worth mentioning contrary results, even if it's an exception that proves the rule.

[ Parent | on HN ]