You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
- Apr 3, 2020
It does fit a bell curve naturally. I already demonstrated so, #294.I'm saying data like this should fit a bell curve naturally.
Your analogy isn't very apt. A better one might be that if Toyota did 40 tests of fuel efficiency and came up with a range of 10-70 mpg, one might have weak confidence in the reliability of Toyota's tests. Although, of course, it is a poor comparison because the ease of controlling data of a standardised piece of machinery in set test conditions against human individuals with all their diversity in the real world.If you got a car that's rated as 30 miles per gallon and you're getting 13 mpg, would you be satisfied by Ford or Toyota saying that's just standard deviation? Because that's within the standard deviation of those 41 studies. The point is that vitamin studies are done rather poorly (which experts in the field have said) and that's why the data points are all over the place. Sure, you aren't going to get the same result every time obviously, but very little is done in these studies to control the many variables and each study may have their own different methods obviously.
The way to control for wide variation is a higher n value. 41 studies is a lot of studies; it is reasonable to think the average should be reasonable even with high variation as some miscalculate high and others low. Well, that is basically the point of averaging full stop.
Secondly, remember cherry picking? Why are you arguing these 41 studes are necessarily poor and should be effectively discounted, and yet you'll argue that a single study also from the low quality vitamin studies world is good enough to argue that 2000 IU can't maintain 30 ng/ml plasma vitamin D? Do you not get the inconsistency there?
This sounds like bullshit. There is a longstanding principle that doctors are free to prescribe what they like irrespective of government guidelines (at least in your and my countries): they just need to have an adequate scientific / medical rationale should anything go wrong and they have to defend their actions. This is why Dr. Medcram Creator can post YouTube videos suggesting people could take completely unproven zinc and quercetin without a professional disciplinary. This principle precisely underpins all that HCQ that you're so fond of being handed out like candy, because HCQ surely isn't government recommended for Covid-19. So why haven't all those doctors across the world been forced to quit too?And doctors having to quit their positions to prescribe stuff like steroids for covid because of official guidelines is a good thing? Using your medical knowledge to figure out a solution to a problem is now discouraged?
We in the world of science and medicine like to be very careful about the difference between "possibly", "probably", and "(almost) certainly". Partly because accuracy is supposed to be important, and partly so that the malevolent or ignorant have less room to screw with people's understanding of reality.What's wrong with saying what something is thought to be when there is no established beyond reasonable doubt information?
Looking at the CDC, I think the issue here is you misunderstand what "airborne" means. In the vernacular sense, it means anything through the air. However, airborne in terms of infections refers to a specific form of small-diameter particle which can diffuse a long way. The CDC had long since accepted the splattering around of larger size droplets with lower spread which are also, in the vernacular sense, "airborne". Hence social distancing and masks. So the long and short of this is that your self-congratulation is actually based on nothing but a misconception of technical jargon.And from articles about CDC and recommending masks April 3, it wasn't because of the virus being airborne, it was due to asymptomatic transmission. That, again, I knew nearly a month beforehand from a Michael Osterholm interview. The CDC is like the last one to the party. Surely if a normal citizen can figure out this stuff, the CDC can.
When you say "backed by no science", this is technically true in a narrow sense and yet also misleading. The point of the "rule of 6" was to provide a pragmatic system to give the public some social contact whilst dissuading them from more problematic gatherings. Thus whilst one could say it was not specifically backed by science, it was consistent with science, for social application to mitigate spread. As it is also a politicised system for influencing human social behaviour, nor is that in process or intent equivalent to a scientific report produced by a dedicated expert panel.The UK's guidelines have also been asinine like the "rule of 6" applying to outdoors that was backed by literally no science whatsoever. One of the hospitals I work at still has letters across so many windows saying "wash your hands" when that doesn't do much of anything. I still only wash my hands before eating lunch and after the bathroom because the virus barely spreads via contact surfaces.
I do however find your angry, slash and burn, ad hominem attacks on the CDC, UK government and NHS advice quite funny. That's a weirdly huge amount of hostility against organisations just for them having a different view on daily, recommended intake of vitamin D from your own.
So where did you get the idea that nearly all the studies on early HCQ administration were beneficial, when that's plainly not true? You either came to that conclusion on your own, or you borrowed someone else's opinion. Either way, it was a terrible assessment of the evidence.I told you I didn't use any of the graphs from that website, I only use it as a database for looking at the studies.
No, they are designed to stop vitamin D deficiency. You need to understand that "deficiency" is in many ways an arbitrary value: it represents an estimated point where there is a significantly increased (how much increased?) risk and individual may have a chance of health problems - therefore many people below the deficiency value will not have significant health problems despite being technically deficient according to that semi-arbitrary deficiency value.Doesn't change any of the facts that the recommendations are set to stop the very worst side effects of vitamin d deficiency, that's what the flow chart in the official UK recommendations is telling people. It's basically do you have any of these ricket-like symptoms? Yes, take vitamin d supplement. No, you're fine.
Again, the key question becomes: where is the point where higher vitamin D concentrations are likely to stop supplying any significant health benefit? This is unknown. But there is evidence it's not that much higher than deficiency, and we know it's very hard to see benefits beyond a level that is below the common blood plasma recommendation of 50 nmol/L (20 ng/ml). Studies suggest 30-40 nmol/L may be the point the benefit starts plateauing, as improved health outcomes with supplementation for people with baseline of 40 nmol/L or higher is extremely hard to identify.