The parent comment here said publicise, not publish. The studies will go ahead, but you won't see the mainstream media putting this on the front page.

The reason is that it's too sensitive. Look at the massive argument and tension that was generated just from someone pointing out that certain skin types are not suited to certain environments (melanin skin to north europe, non-melanin skin to australia) - nobody who values their political or academia career will want to touch this one, so the problem will get worse and worse, silently. It could even end up impacting educational and career outcomes in certain parts of the population that would appear to be racial characteristics because the science impacting those traits is a forbidden subject... which ironically makes people more racist.

“How coronavirus tore through Britain's ethnic minorities”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52894225

“Socio-economic inequality means we're more likely to catch the virus, while our biology means we're more likely to die”

Literally just the first link that 10s of Googling found.

> from someone point internet out that certain skin types are not suited to certain environments

That’s because this is a crassly overloaded dog whistle statement.

“Ethnic minorities should supplement Vitamin D in winter” and “pale people should wear sunscreen in Australia” are in no way controversial or sensitive statements in science or academia or in the media. Trying to morph those into an argument that black people “aren’t suited for” Northern Europe is the racist, non-scientific bullshit people lose their positions for.

1.) At this point, it is not "recently invented". It is long term known.

2.) Vitamin D deficiency is affecting you negatively, but not enough to claim that people are "living in an environment they are not suited to". That is absurdly exaggerated claim, especially given all the various reasons why people in history died.

3.) Racism is causing way more suffering then overall vitamin D deficiency.

You're being uncharitable, which is part of the problem. These supplements are "recently invented" in terms of evolutionary history and it's not clear how well they work, compared to actual sun exposure.

"Not suited to" may be a contentious choice of words, but "not adapted to" is plain fact. Not being adapted to an environment confers disadvantages. Perhaps these disadvantages are minor, certainly in this case they are not lethal (in isolation), but from a healthcare perspective, they are important to take into consideration.

Consider that jumping at every opportunity to scold someone choosing their words unwisely does nothing to actually fight racism, but could indirectly harm those people you are intending to help. After all, why would a true racist care about the health outcomes of the races they ostensibly despise? Why would anyone risk investigating genetic differences in medicine, when the payoff is an accusation of racism by well-meaning but uneducated laymen?

> Why would anyone risk investigating genetic differences in medicine, when the payoff is an accusation of racism by well-meaning but uneducated laymen?

You are replying in a thread that above has a link to a great deal of race-specific research done on just Covid-19. There is a large amount of race-specific medicinal research. There is a huge amount of scientific research into medical and sociological factors that pertain to race. You will find it in seconds if you Google for it. Many standard heart-health guides will factor in your ethnicity.

To suggest there isn’t, and there’s some kind of conspiracy is just a form of tired “race realism” bullshit. Just more suggesting that “if we let the facts speak” we’d find some races are superior to others.

People are maladapted to live almost everywhere, which is why we wear warm clothes and sun protection. This whole thing is a racist trope to give cover to the idea that people of colour don’t “belong” in places.

I didn't mean to say that there isn't any race-specific research, but that there is a risk of being called a racist (or a "race realist") associated with doing such research, especially when it gets attention from sensationalist media and keyboard warriors on social media.

Therefore, if there is such a risk, it must have a chilling effect on actual research and on public health relations, even if doesn't outright prevent it from happening at all.

You are demonstrating that there indeed is such a risk, by suggesting that I'm one step away from proclaiming the superiority of the white race. You're not doing anyone any favors with that.

You won't see the mainstream media publicize any non-vaccine solution because they're in the business of fear-mongering and because they have a chummy relationship with big pharma.

Plenty of mainstream media has reported about the Vitamin D findings.

There's a greater risk in Asians? Japan has had 20k deaths or 1 in 60k, vs USA which is currently at 1 in 1200

People always make up random excuses like

"Japan locked down more" No they didn't. In fact they've been practically unlocked since June.

"Japan doesn't test as much" That wouldn't hide a raise in the death rate overall.

"Japanese people wear masks" Restaurants, coffeeshops, and bars are full (yes, they are) and those people are not wearing masks. They do wear them elsewhere (trains, busses, stores, outside...)

In any case, that Asians are of "Greater Risk of severe COVID-19" doesn't seem to fit the facts at least in Japan.

> There's a greater risk in Asians

“Asian” in the UK generally means South Asian. Either way you are arguing with the data collected in a study by stating a series of observations about a different country.