Oh good grief. The UK Science Advisory Committee on Nutrition.
SACN advises on nutrition and related health matters. It advises the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) and other UK government organisations.
www.gov.uk
And from your source:
- There is a paucity of data on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on immune modulation. Evidence from observational studies is inconsistent and may also be confounded by other factors that affect autoimmune disease and allergic disorders. The data are insufficient to draw firm conclusions.
- RCTs do not generally show a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on infectious disease risk.
- Data on vitamin D and any non-musculoskeletal health outcome were considered to be insufficient at this time to inform the setting of DRVs for vitamin D.
So yes, the recommendations are just for bone health because they didn't find anything else to be sufficient. And the tons of data showing vitamin d is most likely has an important relationship with covid outcomes can't even get them to do the "better safe than sorry" approach for taking more vitamin d (which is harmless) during a pandemic? Or the fact that there's studies prior to this document showing that vitamin d is 6 times more effective than the actual flu vaccine is preventing the flu. But, I guess the data is insufficient...
Cited from nowhere in particular...
It was literally copied from there word for word. And the page has references to the actual studies they pulled the info from. Plus, your source didn't disprove it because they didn't even provide an average. Your source can be using the same exact data and presented it differently.
Well, here's the funny thing about "attacking the argument". I took the time to explain the perfectly good scientific rationale for why remdesivir was investigated, and why your opinion was therefore wrong. In response, you have advanced no scientific argument at all, just restated some vague complaints and made unsubstantiated claims about "money".
So if you don't have an argument, and just want to ***** and moan instead, I will write you comments dismissing your bitching and moaning.
I provided a very legit argument on why it shouldn't have been tested so early ahead of other treatments. Giving an antiviral in a hospital setting makes sense how? You should be doing that very early on. Remdesivir never showed any promise against other viruses in its history. Remdesivir is a "new" drug in the sense that it's never really been given to people outside of trials so its safety is rather unknown. Remdesivir is very expensive and the supply of it was low so you couldn't treat everyone with it in the period of time that would make sense (very early infection). You'd have to save it for the bad cases, but that means waiting which isn't good thing to do with an antiviral. There are plenty of other drugs and treatments that could be hypothesized to work from looking at similar diseases like SARS and MERS and organized pneumonia that would make much more sense to test on covid.
The more studies the better. I like more studies. Admittedly, some of them are a load of crap, but such is life.
And you really don't have the luxury of that in a pandemic.
How would you know? You don't even know how to look for it.
Yet, I'm still waiting on you sourcing a study that showed it doesn't work that you claimed. Not even the official agencies had said that it does or doesn't work, but you jumped to the conclusion already.
They weren't initially tested on kids. They were initially tested on adults. And now we have data from millions of adults so we have a better idea what to watch out for, they are now being tested on children to make sure they are safe for them too.
And by the time the vaccine would be approved for kids and considering the very low community transmission (it's only getting lower and lower), it will be hard to make a case that the vaccines will be more beneficial for kids. There's already the stories of heart inflammation on people under 30 coming out now. If there is some bad side effect for kids, you won't really know until millions are vaccinated. And if say a few kids do actually die from the vaccine, are you even sure you saved more life than you harmed? If 3 kids die, that's about 200 years of life lost and how many kids are going to infect at-risk people when their transmission rate is very low and the amount of virus is so low in the community?
Yeah... tell you what, why don't go back and check the arguments actually made, and then come back with something that makes sense.
We test stuff to begin with because we see patterns in things, something humans are very good at noticing. It does make sense, just not the strongest sense obviously.
Nobody has the covid-19 vaccine forced on them, you know.
Yet... It's looking like my job is gonna force vaccines if they find it's legal. Some colleges are already forcing vaccines.
And that is still the consensus.
He is showing justifiable skepticism; such is the difference between "proven" and "most likely based on current knowledge".
Actually, it does mean something. The problem is where people find the consensus doesn't agree with them, in which case they start slagging it off.
I mean, people like you are the perfect example. You sit there and act like you know it all and that you're the true disciple of science, and then you sign up to a load of half-baked bullshit. Then when faced with science that tells you otherwise, the only answer to the cognitive dissonance of wanting to believe you're scientific and yet supporting stuff science doesn't actually agree with is to attack scientists as being somehow corrupt.
Consensus doesn't make something true. And the messaging really wanted to hammer home the lab theory was basically impossible; directly from the 1st article "It is absolutely 100% impossible that SARS-CoV-2 was made in a laboratory."
The lab argument was not some conspiracy level bullshit, it was a legit possibility but the messaging was not saying that. Again, I don't really care too much if it was a lab accident or natural because that doesn't help the problem at hand at all. Though it could be helpful to in the long run to thoroughly try to find the origin so the "next one" could be possibly averted. Shutting people down taking about the lab theory was not science in the least.
Which things have I said that have been wrong again? HCQ was probably my biggest misstep and even then I was never "it's a miracle drug that cures covid". The most I put into the HCQ "stock" was that I think it does help a bit, so little that I said you can substitute it with other even safer zinc ionophores way back when were discussing it months ago. Why not try this thing that you ingest everyday in fruits and vegetables with zinc and vitamin c? It's not gonna do you any harm.
Again, I was ahead of all the bullshit claims about getting covid from surface contacts, the bullshit reinfection stories, the bullshit variant stories (now Pfizer vaccine shows 90% effectiveness against the super SCARY DOUBLE!!! Indian variant). I even freaking predicted when restrictions were gonna be removed completely.