Figure 1 =/= a bell curve.
You're right, it is not a bell curve. But that's because it is not an appropriate frequency distribution graph (histogram) to be able to form a bell curve. For much the same reason if you want to measure the distance between two points, a ruler is better than a set of weighing scales.
It was never not useful if you actually look at the data we have instead of cherry picking the few studies that said otherwise (and almost all of those, if not all, are late stage treatment or have shit P values).
I guess you've also forgotten the explanation of what a p value represents that I supplied.
So all you do is look at official guidelines. It took CDC until August for them to say it was airborne IIRC,
I'm trying to get across to you the fact there is a substantial body of literature underpinning the decisions of people who write official guidelines. See below.
And the CDC was implicitly saying covid-19 was very likely to be airborne the minute it advised everyone to wear a mask. It may well have held off on an official confirmation until properly scientifically established beyond reasonable doubt, even if it was the working assumption months previously.
I was never using individual studies from the beginning. Look at all the early stage studies, the vast vast vast vast majority of them say it has a benefit, you'd have to cherry pick to only list the few (if there even are any) that show no benefit or worse, then you might have one or two total left that doesn't have a shit P value.
I wrote a very long series of posts that explained just how wrong you were, because you'd been using a website that maliciously misrepresented studies to suggest HCQ was beneficial when in fact these studies had found it ineffective. Or if you hadn't been using this website, you had almost certainly been following some doofus who had trusted it, or had otherwise mightily fucked up in a similar fashion on their own initiative.
-You keep saying 400 IU is all you need. That's all you need to prevent rickets.
Actually, the evidence suggests the majority of children don't even that much to avoid rickets. The average dietary intake for UK children was found to be 80-160 IUs per day, and yet the incidence of rickets in the UK is just 0.5 per 100,000. 80-160 IUs is the average daily intake range for adults, too, and yet the average blood plasma concentration of Vit D was over 40 nmol/L, above the range studies associate with health deficits.
The UK's scientific advisors looked through the studies and evidence, and concluded that 400 IUs per day on average would ensure 97.5% of the population were into the range where there was no observable health deficits, as compared to the 80% from taking 80-160 IUs.
And lots more. But more to the point, the 2016 review on vitamin D conducted by the UK authorities cites a truly staggering
over 500 papers. (I estimated by the number of studies cited on one page - 18, multiplied by the number of full pages with references - 30). It is thus somehwat bemusing to see you pop in with a couple of studies from the Journal of Dodgy Bullshit and the opinion of Dr John Campbell as if that's somehow superior than a report based on
>500 papers conducted by an expert panel.