COVID-19

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
7,257
Reaction score
1,267
How do those stats change when the enormous faded blue section gets added? Vast majority of flu data is extrapolated - none of this is. How about age and underlying health? How about in countries where any semblance of cleanliness is common?

This is an upper respiratory virus very similar to the flu and when it is all said and done I would bet the mortality is similar to those who catch the flu. Coronavirus has been around forever, we haven't even tried to make a vaccine b/c it is traditionally a mild affliction. Common sense theory out there that kids are not impacted by this thing b/c they have built corona immunity from years of exposure - the older and more removed from cesspools known as schools and daycares the less your body's ability to deal. Just like flu vaccines are never spot on but the exposure to the "cousin" if you will reduces the severity when faced with the real deal.

IMO - Normal healthy folks need to grow a sack and go about their lives while older and compromised health folks need to take normal flu season precautions. My folks should do what they always do and isolate from the world, me and my family don't need to change squat. We have an enormous population of walking dead that is only increasing - now we can't even play sports outside like golf b/c boomers gotta be "safe". Elite athletes need to run and hide from a mild illness (to them)? These folks have virtually no chance of anything but feeling crappy for a bit before back to 100%. Won't see the media follow up with a single person who tests positive with mild to no symptoms - only focus on the ICU cases and scare the crap out of everyone.

I mean - Fred Hoiberg YEAH HE HAS THE FLU!!!! WHAT A RELIEF. You dumbFs - he spread the flu to an entire arena and put tons of people at risk with a disease that kills TENS OF THOUSANDS IN THE US PER YEAR OF ALL AGES. Half a million people die of the flu around the world every damn year. Why is that a risk to be celebrated but this thing gets red carpet treatment? Snowflakes + Boomers = WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE

March 13, 2020 - my second post in this thread. My first one was asking where to go get exposed on my schedule so I could get on with my life. The "we didn't know" crowd can kick rocks.
 

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
11,165
Reaction score
6,215
To be clear: the Sperm Parameters study was conducted by the Miami Department of Urology with n=45 participants with no control group. This is what you qualify as ample fertility testing? Can you point me to the VRBPAC discussion on this study?
Why would that study require a control group? They would just be tracking the variability in mens sperm counts, which I'm sure is data that's already available.

Both of these studies I quoted were just the first results I grabbed for the time frame before the mandate. There are several others for both. Here's a different fertility one.


Over 2,100 participants. This studied the impact of fertility after receiving the covid vaccine and also contracting covid in both males and females. The only association was a temporary drop in fertility amongst men who caught covid.

Point of reference: the medical community stated that Ivermectin wasn't proven against treating C-19 despite 95 studies, 45 RCTs, and n=134,500 participants.
Ivermectin was never banned. If you wanted it and your doctor thought it might be effective or didn't care that it wouldn't be, you were free to use it.
Please answer these questions regarding the Pfizer-directed pregnancy study you linked:
1) Did you know that the Biden Admin announced the vax mandate on 9 SEP 2021, 10 months before this study completed in JUL 2022?
2) Do you see a conflict of interest in that the company that would benefit from selling the shot conducted this safety study? Yes or no?
3) Do you honestly believe that the Pfizer researchers had sufficient data in the middle of their study to confidently inform Biden admin of shot safety before the vax mandate declaration on 9 SEP?
4) Why do you believe that a study with n=350 is sufficient, robust, and clear evidence of shot safety?
5) Why do you think that only including pregnant women @ 24-34 weeks' gestation is sufficient for assessing shot safety for all pregnant women? What is the most dangerous trimester of pregnancy? (Answer: first). Were first trimester pregnancies included in the study (Answer: no)
6) I can't find where the results were posted - can you link me?
1) Here's a different one that was completed in February of 2021. 35,000+ pregnant women studied. Split between Pfizer and Moderna. 14% of the total being vaccinated before even becoming pregnant.


2) No. Do you think drug companies just develop drugs and then wait for the FDA to test them before they figure out if they're safe? Pfizer developed their vaccine then tested it to make sure it was safe. They made their data and methodology publicly available just like with any other drug they take to market.
3) Yes. The FDA approved the vaccines. It's not up to Pfizer to give Biden the go ahead.
4) I'm not a statistician. I don't have the knowledge to critique that aspect either way.
5) I believe that's actually because of the study I linked in point 1). That study didn't have enough pregnancies carried to completion yet because 13.5% were pre pregnancy, 30% first trimester, and 43% in second trimester meant only ≈800 had actually given birth so far. So they supplemented it with this Pfizer study that was mostly late term pregnancies so they could study the babies sooner too.
6) It's still listed as ongoing. Maybe they're checking back in with the infants? The required reporting deadline isn't until 7/15/2023.
 

irishff1014

Well-known member
Messages
22,516
Reaction score
4,669
His humor on the Colbert Report was to mercilessly make fun of conservatives by imitating them. If anything he's toned that back to do some interviewing out of his Colbert Report persona. You'd rather he be more partisan?

One of my favorite videos from him was his munchma quchi. That is funny I don’t care who you are.
 

sixstar

Well-known member
Messages
700
Reaction score
996
Why would that study require a control group? They would just be tracking the variability in mens sperm counts, which I'm sure is data that's already available.

Because the sample size was too small. And because control groups help benchmark and contextualize results.
But mainly because mandating a shot requires intense scientific vigor to ensure that the product is safe. An uncontrolled trial with n=45 is not that.

The researchers even stated as much:
The limitations of the study include the small number of men enrolled; limited generalizability beyond young, healthy men; short follow-up; and lack of a control group. In addition, while semen analysis is the foundation of male fertility evaluation, it is an imperfect predictor of fertility potential.

You tried to use that study to prove that the government conducted fertility studies prior to the vax mandate. That study wouldn't qualify.

Both of these studies I quoted were just the first results I grabbed for the time frame before the mandate. There are several others for both. Here's a different fertility one.


Over 2,100 participants. This studied the impact of fertility after receiving the covid vaccine and also contracting covid in both males and females. The only association was a temporary drop in fertility amongst men who caught covid.

This study is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Vax mandate declaration: SEP 2021
Study published: JAN 2022


Ivermectin was never banned. If you wanted it and your doctor thought it might be effective or didn't care that it wouldn't be, you were free to use it.

Objectively false. Here are some stories from FL, TX, IL, TX, VA, and AK.



1) Here's a different one that was completed in February of 2021. 35,000+ pregnant women studied. Split between Pfizer and Moderna. 14% of the total being vaccinated before even becoming pregnant.


This is not a study. It is an observation using unrelated systems, V-Safe and VAERS. It compared the number of V-Safe enrollees vs. VAERS reports - there's no correlation between the two.

First - do you believe that VAERS is a reliable source of vaccine safety information, yes or no?

Second - the study did not mention the VAERS URF (under-reporting factor), which is estimated between 31x - 99x based on two studies I could find (I trust the 31x much more since it used Pfizer trial data and provided the methodology for calculating URF). Maybe you can find some better data on URF, but to simply ignore it is bad science.
  1. https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/defa...ion/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
  2. https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe...d/adf864_0490c898f7514df4b6fbc5935da07322.pdf
The only way the medical community would ever use this study is if they wanted to shortcut the traditional methods for ensuring safety. And so here we are, back at shortcuts.

2) No. Do you think drug companies just develop drugs and then wait for the FDA to test them before they figure out if they're safe? Pfizer developed their vaccine then tested it to make sure it was safe. They made their data and methodology publicly available just like with any other drug they take to market.

Firstly, no, that's not how drug safety testing works.
Secondly, no, they didn't make their data and methods publicly available. The FDA and Pfizer tried to hide the trial results until they were forced to disclose them.

3) Yes. The FDA approved the vaccines. It's not up to Pfizer to give Biden the go ahead.

Your bias clouds objectivity. No, mid-trial data cannot inform policy. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

4) I'm not a statistician. I don't have the knowledge to critique that aspect either way.

The objectively answer, again, is no. n=350 is not sufficient data to base a mandate upon.

5) I believe that's actually because of the study I linked in point 1). That study didn't have enough pregnancies carried to completion yet because 13.5% were pre pregnancy, 30% first trimester, and 43% in second trimester meant only ≈800 had actually given birth so far. So they supplemented it with this Pfizer study that was mostly late term pregnancies so they could study the babies sooner too.

No, that study neither proves or disproves causal link because the datasets are unrelated.

6) It's still listed as ongoing. Maybe they're checking back in with the infants? The required reporting deadline isn't until 7/15/2023.

Correct - glad you found that answer. So, obviously, that study could not have been used as a scientific basis for vax mandates in SEP 2021.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2024!
Messages
26,417
Reaction score
8,769
His humor on the Colbert Report was to mercilessly make fun of conservatives by imitating them. If anything he's toned that back to do some interviewing out of his Colbert Report persona. You'd rather he be more partisan?

Colbert was actually funny playing as an over the top, aloof right wing nut though. As a Late Show guy he just comes off as a cynical prick with mediocre jokes.
Stewart has done great things for our veterans & 9/11 survivors. I’ll leave it at that.
John's a pretty good man, all things considered. His dedication to the 9/11 survivors is exemplary. Way funnier than Trevor Noah, but Craig Kilborn will always be my favorite Daily Show host.

Just found this, two of the best.
 
Last edited:

sixstar

Well-known member
Messages
700
Reaction score
996
Speaking of cutting corners, can someone please answer these 4 questions for me? I'm generally curious in your responses.

1) Why did Pfizer, in 2020, only accept fax or phone calls for reporting Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) during the vax safety trial study? Why didn't they provide a traceable mechanism that assured data provenance with a record trail? No email? No website? No digital records? Nothing traceable? When is the last time you only accepted a fax or phone call for important information that you needed to document? This is taken straight from their trial documents:

1678385762268.png

2) Were you aware that 8 of the 152 Pfizer test sites accounted for 79.3% of the excluded test subjects, while 95 of the sites excluded the results 0 test subjects? The probability of that type of extreme distribution in a randomized and controlled trial is < 0.00001. Why would a randomized and controlled trial produce such anomalous exclusions at such few test sites? Are you concerned that these anomalous exclusions were specifically selected to generate a better study outcome?

1678387080038.png

3) Did you know that during the Pfizer test that placebo arms were tested for COVID infection at a much higher rate than those who received the shot, and that the probability of this unequal testing in a randomized and controlled trial is 0.000063? Why would a randomized and controlled trial produce such anomalous bias in favor of the treatment arm by over-testing placebo arms with high-cycle PCRs? Did you forget that the EUA was based on case prevention and not on severe outcomes because of MSM gaslighting?

1678387129696.png

4) Are you aware that the vax trials did not perform basic assays and procedures to confirm that the shots were not contaminated? Did you know that a recent study demonstrated that the mRNA shots contain 20-35% expression vector and that the DNA contamination ranges from 8.19-11.3 ng/ul with 23-55ng/ul of mRNA, which is several orders of magnitude ( > 100x) over the the EMAs limit of 330ng/mg? Did you know that, if this is confirmed, it means that the shots could potentially result in genomic integration with human body bacteria? While the results are preliminary, why weren't these basic assays and procedures conducted prior to vax mandates?

 

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
8,475
Reaction score
3,487
Do not read this Twitter thread unless you are willing to be pissed off afterwards.

 

IRISHDODGER

Blue Chip Recruit
Messages
5,159
Reaction score
2,809
And, not coincidentally; Pfizer just acquired SeaGen. I had no idea their vaccine brought in the revenue reported. In the past, vaccines were not deemed ideal money makers b/c patients only received one shot per year vs an oral medication that requires at least one does per day every day.
 

sixstar

Well-known member
Messages
700
Reaction score
996
So actual adverse events were categorized as misinformation because they would cause vaccine hesitancy?

So many people worshipping at the altar of big pharma. It's not about health.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
47,376
Reaction score
8,823
I’m just taking it in and am still processing the last few years if honest,… but the third user comment did strike me because I had the same exact thought as I read through it,… although in a different context than climate,… this doesn’t seem to be the first time this playbook has been used
 
Last edited:

notredomer23

Staph Member
Messages
14,950
Reaction score
10,183
Just a general comment on the healthcare industry being gutted… not gonna comment on mandates or what… but spent 12 hours in the ER from 3 pm to 3 am yesterday with the GF who got a fluke injury and broke her tibia and fibula while we visit Miami. The staff that was there was incredible, but was so short staffed to the point I had to assist the doctor while he was suturing her leg. Long, brutal day.
 

PerthDomer

Well-known member
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
417
Just a general comment on the healthcare industry being gutted… not gonna comment on mandates or what… but spent 12 hours in the ER from 3 pm to 3 am yesterday with the GF who got a fluke injury and broke her tibia and fibula while we visit Miami. The staff that was there was incredible, but was so short staffed to the point I had to assist the doctor while he was suturing her leg. Long, brutal day.

The pandemic just sped up some trends that have always existed. The ER system generally is always overwhelmed. Pre pandemic you'd see non urgent patients sit for 12+ hours.

It has a few drivers

1. Consolidation of ED groups by Private Equity. Nurses and docs cost money. These groups know that they don't really suffer loss if patients wait longer, so they've cut staffing as much as possible.

2. Reduced access to primary care. Primary care isn't great to go into financially. As medical school has gotten more expensive, it's harder to go into these fields (vs making more in a more procedurally oriented field). If people can't be seen in primary care they go to the ED.

3. To add insult to injury, COVID pushed a lot of nurses to quit, especially in the ED and ICU. The amount of death and suffering pushed a lot of people to reexamine life goals/priorities etc.

4. While better, COVID still kills more people annually than the flu. So you've got an added patient load on top of the baseline load.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
12,310
Reaction score
2,510
Just a general comment on the healthcare industry being gutted… not gonna comment on mandates or what… but spent 12 hours in the ER from 3 pm to 3 am yesterday with the GF who got a fluke injury and broke her tibia and fibula while we visit Miami. The staff that was there was incredible, but was so short staffed to the point I had to assist the doctor while he was suturing her leg. Long, brutal day.
Ouch! I broke my tib/fib in grade school. That was not fun.
 

sixstar

Well-known member
Messages
700
Reaction score
996
Question: why didn't COVID decision makers ever advocate for taking Vit D? Why didn't Fauci or Walensky, or any major Public Health figurehead suggest dosing Vit D for protection from COVID? It's cheap, accessible, virtually harmless, and effective.

We should all be enraged. We are victims of targeted PSYOPS and pharma-purchased big government collusion. They used you as pawns in their greed; your life means nothing to them when there is money to be made.

A recent study on Vit D's effectiveness at preventing severe COVID and COVID death shows a better RRR than any of the recommended treatments to include vax, remdesivir, molnupiravir, paxlovid, and vents.

1681744831034.png

And this is consistent with the 100+ other studies on Vit-D.
 

PerthDomer

Well-known member
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
417
Question: why didn't COVID decision makers ever advocate for taking Vit D? Why didn't Fauci or Walensky, or any major Public Health figurehead suggest dosing Vit D for protection from COVID? It's cheap, accessible, virtually harmless, and effective.

We should all be enraged. We are victims of targeted PSYOPS and pharma-purchased big government collusion. They used you as pawns in their greed; your life means nothing to them when there is money to be made.

A recent study on Vit D's effectiveness at preventing severe COVID and COVID death shows a better RRR than any of the recommended treatments to include vax, remdesivir, molnupiravir, paxlovid, and vents.

View attachment 3053343

And this is consistent with the 100+ other studies on Vit-D.

I do critical care. For any critically ill patient, they are likely to have low vitamin D. Every study that looks at intervening to normalize vitamin D doesn't help. The conclusion is generally that vitamin D is a marker for illness severity/poor health before admission, but giving vitamin D doesn't help.

This has popped up in a number of fields. The data behind general vitamin D supplementation for outpatients is really weak.
 

PerthDomer

Well-known member
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
417
By your statements, prophylactic Vit D supplements would be beneficial in general. So why not recommend it?

And I just posted a link to more than 100 treatment studies on Vit D, showing substantial benefit in aggregate. You can read through each one - please tell me where they are incorrect. Feel free to post additional studies on Vit D / COVID treatment if they aren't in that list.


Let's be specific here. Which studies specifically did you use to make the determination of Vit D treatment efficacy? And if you say that all of your data came from on-the-job application, I would love to hear more about the treatment regimen that you administered and any aggregate data results that you can provide.

A site that aggregates all studies without regard to study type/quality isn't going to be accurate. They're also big hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin fans which clearly didn't work. Real doctors/scientists let their work stand in the literature and don't hide behind anonymity

For general ICU patients pre covid here's the RCT that stopped ICU usage of vitamin D as empiric therapy.


For covid here's a few




This one shows benefit at 14 days that dissappears at 28.

Some meta analysis show benefit, but when you look at the included trials some are pretty crappy. "RCT" without a control group, retrospective stuff, etc. We do have a lot of meds that work vs. COVID now but theyre generally either antivirals or immunosuppresants.
 

sixstar

Well-known member
Messages
700
Reaction score
996
A site that aggregates all studies without regard to study type/quality isn't going to be accurate.

The site is just a repo of studies. You can view each individual study independently if you want to assess the quality of each study; the links are provided in full transparency. In aggregate, the hundreds of studies show statistically significant benefit.

They're also big hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin fans which clearly didn't work. Real doctors/scientists let their work stand in the literature and don't hide behind anonymity

"They" aren't fans of anything. They are providing links to studies - both positive and negative - for COVID treatment options. They are simply referencing works of other researchers and providing transparent links to each with high-level aggregate dashboard data.

You say that HCQ and IVM clearly didn't work. Based on what? I'm not sure how you selectively choose which studies you believe and which you don't. How do you discount the 45 IVM RCTs that in aggregate show statistically significant treatment benefit? Which studies did you use to determine that outcome, and why don't the other studies qualify for consideration?

And why was remdesivir standard of care when studies showed it provided even less benefit than HCQ?

For general ICU patients pre covid here's the RCT that stopped ICU usage of vitamin D as empiric therapy.


Who specifically stopped ICU usage of Vit D based on a single, narrowly scoped study?

For covid here's a few


The site I linked already listed that study and includes it in the aggregated data. Why do you ignore all the green surrounding the red? The study that you linked looks to be an extreme outlier.

1681761048850.png


The site I linked already listed that study and includes it in the aggregated data. Why do you ignore all the green surrounding the red?

1681760984778.png


This one shows benefit at 14 days that dissappears at 28.

Interesting that you chose this article from this author. This study narrowly analyzed the effects of a single high dose.

The same author subsequently published studies on prophylactic Vit-D supplementation, showing significant benefits:

So the same author concludes that Vit D works if used to treat prophylactically but not in a single high dose. Now reference the first article you posted. Single high dose. Looks like consistent results. Is it the Vit D, or is it the treatment method?

you are a doctor. I'm sure you understand that the treatment method plays a large part in the efficacy of the treatment, yes?

I don't feel like you are arguing in good faith. It looks like you are cherry picking studies that support your bias rather than objectively reviewing all of the studies that have been conducted.

Some meta analysis show benefit, but when you look at the included trials some are pretty crappy. "RCT" without a control group, retrospective stuff, etc. We do have a lot of meds that work vs. COVID now but theyre generally either antivirals or immunosuppresants.

Specifically, which trials are "pretty crappy"? List them and give your reasons, otherwise it looks like you are making things up to support your point.


I see that toronto keeps liking posts that align with his beliefs, regardless of the quality of the argument.
 

Attachments

  • 1681760338694.png
    1681760338694.png
    161.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 1681760314333.png
    1681760314333.png
    124.1 KB · Views: 1
  • 1681760114240.png
    1681760114240.png
    121.2 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
11,165
Reaction score
6,215
By your statements, prophylactic Vit D supplements would be beneficial in general. So why not recommend it?

And I just posted a link to more than 100 treatment studies on Vit D, showing substantial benefit in aggregate. You can read through each one - please tell me where they are incorrect. Feel free to post additional studies on Vit D / COVID treatment if they aren't in that list.


Let's be specific here. Which studies specifically did you use to make the determination of Vit D treatment efficacy? And if you say that all of your data came from on-the-job application, I would love to hear more about the treatment regimen that you administered and any aggregate data results that you can provide.

Womp womp
 

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
11,165
Reaction score
6,215
Food and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

COVID-19 and nutrition for health​

  • To help cope with stress that may be related to the pandemic, take care of your body including good nutrition, as part of self-care.
  • Dietary supplements aren’t meant to treat or prevent COVID-19. Certain vitamins and mineralsexternal icon (e.g., Vitamins C and D, zinc) may have effects on how our immune system works to fight off infections, as well as inflammation and swelling.

Womp womp
 

sixstar

Well-known member
Messages
700
Reaction score
996

Womp womp

An instagram interview? "I would not mind recommending ... Vit-D"

Okay, now show me where public health guidance recommended Vit D. Where are the commercials saying "Dose on Vit D and consider getting a vax"?

Dietary supplements aren’t meant to treat or prevent COVID-19

Womp womp what? That statement directly contradicts numerous scientific studies and trials.
 
Last edited:

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
8,475
Reaction score
3,487

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
2,194
I see that toronto keeps liking posts that align with his beliefs, regardless of the quality of the argument.

I like them because it's not worth having the same discussion we've had numerous times before. From my perspective being upset that the head of the response team was not advocating for vitamin D more during the pandemic is incredibly immaterial to the overall discussion. I did read through the study on the 191 people in Indonesia and found the line below to interesting as you claimed that it was more effective at preventing severe covid than a vaccine yet the actual people behind the study did not come to that same conclusion. I don't think any doctor worth their salt would not advocate for people to have sufficient levels of vitamin D. I wonder where the studies are on proper hydration levels or how malnourished people fared with covid hospitalizations.

We strongly suggest achieving sufficient vitamin D status, which may serve as an important adjuvant strategy to improve clinical outcomes before vaccines become widely available.

In the end, I don't personally believe aggregating studies/articles that often are not peer reviewed together with different control groups and attributes to be appropriate. It's been awhile since I've done a proper study, but I know my professors would have laughed me out of the room if I just took 100 studies and put their results together and threw down an average result. I will take Perth's views on this as he's in the profession and can articulate more intelligently than I can. If you want to be upset that the chief medical advisor to the president didn't advocate for taking a multivitamin with more vitamin D in it....knock yourself out.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2024!
Messages
26,417
Reaction score
8,769
Some physicians were aware of the Vitamin D link to COVID at least in early 2021 or sooner. We were told by our family physician that the more severe cases they were seeing were coming from patients with Vit D deficiencies, and that data had been corroborated with a large number of offices in their parent chain.
 

sixstar

Well-known member
Messages
700
Reaction score
996
From my perspective being upset that the head of the response team was not advocating for vitamin D more during the pandemic is incredibly immaterial to the overall discussion.
it is immaterial to you that the government pushed experimental drugs over natural options when natural options were proven to provide significant defense against severe COVID?

I did read through the study on the 191 people in Indonesia and found the line below to interesting as you claimed that it was more effective at preventing severe covid than a vaccine yet the actual people behind the study did not come to that same conclusion.

don't read conclusion summaries - look at the data. The data from their study shows that the Vit D regimen out-performed protection provided by shots, yes or no?

now look at the other Vit D studies, individually and in aggregate. Now look at the UK HSA data. The data shows that Vit D out-performs protection provided by shots, yes or no?

I don't think any doctor worth their salt would not advocate for people to have sufficient levels of vitamin D. I wonder where the studies are on proper hydration levels or how malnourished people fared with covid hospitalizations.

so, then why didn't public health prioritize messaging for healthy lifestyles over pharmaceutical interventions?

In the end, I don't personally believe aggregating studies/articles that often are not peer reviewed together with different control groups and attributes to be appropriate.

it's called meta-analysis, and it's extremely common in medical research.

also, aggregation isn't the point of the site. the site serves as a repo of all studies and provides dashboard-level aggregate data. links are provided to each study so you can read the merits of each one for yourself. finally, an pre-print is marked as such, and you can filter those out. transparency at its finest.

It's been awhile since I've done a proper study, but I know my professors would have laughed me out of the room if I just took 100 studies and put their results together and threw down an average result.

that's why results are also provided on the individual study level.

If you want to be upset that the chief medical advisor to the president didn't advocate for taking a multivitamin with more vitamin D in it....knock yourself out.

certainly, and vice versa. i just prefer not hiding my head and pretending that big government and big pharma had my best interests in mind.
 

PerthDomer

Well-known member
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
417
it is immaterial to you that the government pushed experimental drugs over natural options when natural options were proven to provide significant defense against severe COVID?



don't read conclusion summaries - look at the data. The data from their study shows that the Vit D regimen out-performed protection provided by shots, yes or no?

now look at the other Vit D studies, individually and in aggregate. Now look at the UK HSA data. The data shows that Vit D out-performs protection provided by shots, yes or no?



so, then why didn't public health prioritize messaging for healthy lifestyles over pharmaceutical interventions?



it's called meta-analysis, and it's extremely common in medical research.

also, aggregation isn't the point of the site. the site serves as a repo of all studies and provides dashboard-level aggregate data. links are provided to each study so you can read the merits of each one for yourself. finally, an pre-print is marked as such, and you can filter those out. transparency at its finest.



that's why results are also provided on the individual study level.



certainly, and vice versa. i just prefer not hiding my head and pretending that big government and big pharma had my best interests in mind.


Again, this aggregates studies without regard to quality, or type (it counts retrospective data as equivalent to an RCT). This site is garbage.

Part of the reason people go to medical school is to be able to tell which studies look reasonably done, and how clear the evidence is on various things.

Examples in critical care include steroids in sepsis/ARDS. Evidence is mixed across the board, and different people will do different things looking at the same data.

In medicine generally, the more careful studies we've done on vitamin D for various things in primary care (not related to COVID) the more we've found supplementing based on testing doesn't help. Medical guidelines have moved against it over time based on more carefully done prospective studies (vs the retrospective stuff we had before RCT's were done).
 

sixstar

Well-known member
Messages
700
Reaction score
996
Again, this aggregates studies without regard to quality, or type (it counts retrospective data as equivalent to an RCT). This site is garbage.

The site is garbage? You are emotionally compromised. Now ask yourself why you are so resistant to admitting that there are RCTs showing consistent benefit in Vit-D.

Here are all the RCTs, with aggregates limited to only the RCTs. The site provides full links to each study. See those bars? Those are the primary outcomes for each study with CIs, on a study-by-study basis. Please tell me why the site is garbage.

1681840832134.png

Now, tell me specifically why Bychinin is an invalid DB RCT. How about Domazet? Singh?

You can find the source for each study on the site, but you already knew that.

You are arguing in bad faith by focusing on the aggregation rather than on the studies themselves. You are discounting studies based on an aggregation site rather than reading and critiquing the studies on their own merit.

Part of the reason people go to medical school is to be able to tell which studies look reasonably done, and how clear the evidence is on various things.

Yet you, as a doctor, published terrible arguments in your previous post. Why is it that a non-med professional like me can easily call out your supposedly trained eye?

  • You claimed that ICU usage of vitamin D stopped based on a single narrowly-scoped study.
  • You said the site is garbage even though you provided two studies listed on the site, one of which was the most extreme outlier in the table. That would be fine, if you would recognize the other studies with contradicting outcomes. But you didn't.
    • Further, FYSA WRT Murai: the study showed 49% worse outcomes in mortality with Vit-D, but it wasn't statistically significant due to the low number of events (p=0.43). However, the study showed 48% statistically significant (p =0.09) improvement for ventilation.
    • Mariana's primary outcome (mortality) was not statistically significant either (p=0.45), but you had no issues posting that. Why?
  • You posted a third study in your argument that only looked a single high dosage, when that same author published two studies on the benefit of bolus Vit-D.
Don't try to play credentialism trump card with me. Let's debate on the merit of data and facts.

In medicine generally, the more careful studies we've done on vitamin D for various things in primary care (not related to COVID) the more we've found supplementing based on testing doesn't help.

Crazy how it shows benefit for COVID though, huh?
 
Last edited:

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
2,194
it is immaterial to you that the government pushed experimental drugs over natural options when natural options were proven to provide significant defense against severe COVID?



don't read conclusion summaries - look at the data. The data from their study shows that the Vit D regimen out-performed protection provided by shots, yes or no?

now look at the other Vit D studies, individually and in aggregate. Now look at the UK HSA data. The data shows that Vit D out-performs protection provided by shots, yes or no?



so, then why didn't public health prioritize messaging for healthy lifestyles over pharmaceutical interventions?



it's called meta-analysis, and it's extremely common in medical research.

also, aggregation isn't the point of the site. the site serves as a repo of all studies and provides dashboard-level aggregate data. links are provided to each study so you can read the merits of each one for yourself. finally, an pre-print is marked as such, and you can filter those out. transparency at its finest.



that's why results are also provided on the individual study level.



certainly, and vice versa. i just prefer not hiding my head and pretending that big government and big pharma had my best interests in mind.
Do you go to car shows that tout improved safety measures and ask them why they aren't pushing seat belt wearing? Way more effective at preventing serious injury than the angle of the airbags. This is the same with vitamin D vs vaccines. Again, if you studied whether a dehydrated person with COVID receiving fluids had a larger positive outcome than a vaccinated person it wouldn't be surprising.

Would it really be expected to have the head of the response team to trumpet out general health guidelines? I am appalled that Fauci has not been saying how important it is to get a good night's sleep.

I am not talking about any government in particular, it is not in any governments best interest to have an unhealthy population. Whether it's a dictatorship or commune, the best resource is the people that provide the utility and there is still no country in the world that has stopped vaccinations. You need to ask yourself what the most reasonable outcome is, 1) there is a conspiracy being pushed by every government in the world to hide the true impacts of vaccinations that will surely lead to negative impacts 2) The government doesn't give a shit about you and wants you to work for the country as soon as possible.

I have no doubt vitamin D is a crucial to someone's health, but we live in a nice time where you can actually have multiple things that improve your health. I don't remember giving up my access to vitamins when I got vaccinated.
 

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
11,165
Reaction score
6,215
Do you go to car shows that tout improved safety measures and ask them why they aren't pushing seat belt wearing? Way more effective at preventing serious injury than the angle of the airbags. This is the same with vitamin D vs vaccines. Again, if you studied whether a dehydrated person with COVID receiving fluids had a larger positive outcome than a vaccinated person it wouldn't be surprising.

Would it really be expected to have the head of the response team to trumpet out general health guidelines? I am appalled that Fauci has not been saying how important it is to get a good night's sleep.

I am not talking about any government in particular, it is not in any governments best interest to have an unhealthy population. Whether it's a dictatorship or commune, the best resource is the people that provide the utility and there is still no country in the world that has stopped vaccinations. You need to ask yourself what the most reasonable outcome is, 1) there is a conspiracy being pushed by every government in the world to hide the true impacts of vaccinations that will surely lead to negative impacts 2) The government doesn't give a shit about you and wants you to work for the country as soon as possible.

I have no doubt vitamin D is a crucial to someone's health, but we live in a nice time where you can actually have multiple things that improve your health. I don't remember giving up my access to vitamins when I got vaccinated.
Speak for yourself. I was completely flummoxed until Dr Fauci told me I’m supposed to wipe my ass after I shit.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
2,194
wat. lol?



Because the government went all-in on vaccines, remdesivir, paxlovid, and molnupiravir while ignoring and defaming cheaper alternatives.

public health has a responsibility to provide the best medical advice that it can, regardless of how inconvenient that advice may be. how many ads did you see about eating healthy, losing weight, and taking vitamins vs. getting a shot and wearing a mask?



how can government corruption be binary when gender isn't?



nobody is arguing about the government taking away access to vitamins. slow down, vortex.
Because people were literally going to farm stores to buy horsepaste because of what some substack enlightenment folks were telling people. But, yes the government is the one pushing profit motives and not those with merch/donation links on their sites.

Because an adult is supposed to be taking care of themselves, it's kind of accepted that to be a healthy individual diet and exercise are important. It's like going to your mechanic and complaining he didn't tell you that you needed to put gas in your car to drive it.

Never said government corruption is binary, just said where are the countries that are outlawing vaccines if they are so dangerous. Show me a country or chief medical officer of any political background that has stopped the vaccinations against covid.

That is what we call hyperbole buddy.
Speak for yourself. I was completely flummoxed until Dr Fauci told me I’m supposed to wipe my ass after I shit.

I find it criminal that Dr. Fauci didn't tell me to take vitamin C supplements and now I have scurvy. Stupid science man couldn't even make I more healthier.
 
Top