Interesting study on longer term consequences of COVID-19

@humy said
How would you know that the studies that contradict your theory contradict your theory because they "do not give enough vitamin D to do any good"? How much is "enough vitamin D" to do that "any good"? Is that scientifically determined and, if so, how was that measured? You are talking BS.

no study ever proves anything

false. And even if that was true then that means no study has ever proven your theory nor proven me wrong; You cannot have it both ways.

No study has ever proven anything. You need to take a stats class and see that nothing is ever proven true, simply that there is evidence to support.

How much vitamin D? The amount given in the Spanish study.

@eladar said
You need to take a stats class and see that nothing is ever proven true, simply that there is evidence to support.

What is often informally called "scientific proof" by scientists (example; https://www.google.co.uk/[WORD TOO LONG] "The groundbreaking work undertaken by Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor on binary pulsar systems provided the first scientific proof of the existence of gravitational waves" ), which means "overwhelming evidence" (as opposed to absolute proof), which is what I am obviously talking about here even if you are not, consists of that "evidence to support", idiot!
Give any example of scientific proof i.e. overwhelming evidence that does NOT consist of "evidence to support"
But if you are talking about pure maths/deductive proof, yes.
But this isn't pure maths or pure deduction but rather SCIENCE and the word "proof" for science is often given a different and more informal meaning than for maths or formal logic; it means what is often called by scientists SCIENTIFIC proof, which means overwhelming evidence, and means the evidence is so strong as to indicate it EXTREMELY unlikely, not impossible, that the theory is false.
If you mean pure maths or pure deductive proof, you are just being evasive via play of semantics.

No study has ever proven anything.

As I said before, if that's true then your Spanish study does NOT prove your theory correct. So why did you bother mentioning it as if it doesn't prove me wrong and doesn't prove your theory right?

How much vitamin D? The amount given in the Spanish study.

Show us your source of information the amount used was always less in the other studies that contradict your theory than in the Spanish study...
If you cannot do that, we all know why.

@humy said
What is often informally called "scientific proof" by scientists (example; https://www.google.co.uk/[WORD TOO LONG] "The groundbreaking work undertaken by Russell Hulse and Joseph T ...[text shortened]... es that contradict your theory than in the Spanish study...
If you cannot do that, we all know why.

It is up to you to produce the study that says vitamin D does not help save lives.

Find this study of yours and tell me that amount of vitamin D used.

You are the one who claims that studies claim vitamin D does not work. Produce that study.

@eladar said
It is up to you to produce the study that says vitamin D does not help save lives.

No it isn't. That's because I never claimed or implied this simplistic sweeping claim of "vitamin D does not help save lives" and with not even a mention of covid there or any other defined context. This is yet another one of your new straw mans.

@humy said
No it isn't. That's because I never claimed or implied this simplistic sweeping claim of "vitamin D does not help save lives" and with not even a mention of covid there or any other defined context. This is yet another one of your new straw mans.

Produce the study that says that Spanish study is incorrect.

@eladar said
Produce the study that says that Spanish study is incorrect.

I don't have to show its "incorrect", only that we shouldn't automatically assume its conclusions correct, at least not until we have seen other evidence including from opposing studies.
I have already pointed out there are studies with larger sample sizes thus more reliable and which show statistical results at odds with what the statistics of the Spanish study hint of.
Perhaps if the Spanish study either was the only study done on this or at least there were no other studies that hint of the opposite conclusion, then we may rationally assume that Spanish study conclusion probably correct albeit with the caveat that its conclusion is unreliable because its sample size is small.
But there are other studies with evidence that DO suggest the opposite conclusion and it would be stupid to ignore them before drawing our own conclusions.
Cherry picking only studies that appear to support a conclusion while ignoring like you do studies that appear to contradict that conclusion means we should assume that conclusion unreliable until if or when the evidence of the studies that appear to contradict that conclusion are ALSO taken into account.

@humy said
I don't have to show its "incorrect", only that we shouldn't automatically assume its conclusions correct, at least not until we have seen other evidence including from opposing studies.
I have already pointed out there are studies with larger sample sizes thus more reliable and which show statistical results at odds with what the statistics of the Spanish study hint of.
Perh ...[text shortened]... n the evidence of the studies that appear to contradict that conclusion are ALSO taken into account.

So you are saying that there is evidence that vitamin D taken at high levels saves live and prevents people for being put in the ICU.

Nice

Why has there been no major study? Because big money is not behind it. Big money is behind the vaccines. So you are stuck believing what big money tells you to believe.

@eladar said

Why has there been no major study?

There has been some major studies on this, but unfortunately not yet any with randomized controls that would settle the issue once and for all. In the mean time we cannot rationally conclude vit D significantly helps with covid outcomes.

@humy said
There has been some major studies on this, but unfortunately not yet any with randomized controls that would settle the issue once and for all. In the mean time we cannot rationally conclude vit D significantly helps with covid outcomes.

lol

You are a good serf to your masters.

Seriously, it takes huge amounts of money to run large studies. The only people who would put up that kind of money are rich people who stand to make money if the study comes out right for them.

So you are stuck believing studies funded by people who benefit from the outcome of the study. That is your science.

@eladar said
Seriously, it takes huge amounts of money to run large studies. The only people who would put up that kind of money are rich people who stand to make money if the study comes out right for them.

So you are stuck believing studies funded by people who benefit from the outcome of the study. That is your science.

Much, albeit not all, of the funding for science research comes from people who aren't particularly rich and/or tax payers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science
"...Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agencies; often known as research councils). A smaller amount of scientific research is funded by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria, and AIDS.

According to OECD, more than 60% of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government.[1]
..."

Was the Spanish study you cited funded by the rich?

@humy said
Much, albeit not all, of the funding for science research comes from people who aren't particularly rich and/or tax payers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science
"...Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agen ...[text shortened]... ely by universities and government.[1]
..."

Was the Spanish study you cited funded by the rich?

Was the Spanish Study large enough to be considered a good enough study to say that vitamin D helps save lives when it comes to covid?

No, why? There was not enough funding.

@eladar said
Was the Spanish Study large enough to be considered a good enough study to say that vitamin D helps save lives when it comes to covid?

Show a link to it and state the number of people sampled according to that link.
+ correlation doesn't equate with causation. If the study wasn't with randomized controls then it wouldn't have establish causation.

@humy said
Show a link to it and state the number of people sampled according to that link.
+ correlation doesn't equate with causation. If the study wasn't with randomized controls then it wouldn't have establish causation.

It was randomized and a treatment was applied.

You do know what that means?

@eladar said
It was randomized and a treatment was applied.

link please