Assorted Links

Thanks to Bryan Castañeda.

4 Replies to “Assorted Links”

  1. Am I reading it correctly the Vitamin D study recieved 100,000 IU a month? At once?

    Seth: Yes. Here’s a description: “Participants were randomly assigned to receive an initial dose of 200 000 IU oral vitamin D3, then 200 000 IU 1 month later, then 100 000 IU monthly (n = 161), or placebo administered in an identical dosing regimen (n = 161), for a total of 18 months.”An experimental design that assumes that all that matters is the blood level of Vitamin D3< /strong>

  2. This Vitamin D study was a poorly done should be ignored. They did not test for blood levels of Vitamin D which is essential as there is huge variation in people’s ability to absorb Vitamin D.

    Here is a better study:
    A controlled study of severely Vitamin D deficient women over 50 from Harlem were randomly selected to be supplemented. One group was supplemented to bring them up to moderately deficient. They had a 60% reduced risk of colds and influenza. Another group were supplemented to bring them up to optimum Vitamin D blood level and they had a 90% reduction in risk.

  3. “someone agrees with me that “correlation does not equal causation” is not great wisdom”: then you’re both wrong. The advice is offered to freshers for good reason.

    Seth: Correlations are useful. They provide evidence relevant to causation. The saying I disparage says roughly the opposite. How is that helpful?

Comments are closed.