Share this comment
CAUSALITY Your sections on this beg for more. For example, a big U. of Calgary/Exeter study youtube.com/shorts/9l_F… estimates a 40% less risk for dementia with vitamin D supplementation. Is that not de facto causality? How could it ever be excluded- or like most D science - ignored??
CAUSALITY Your sections on this beg for more. For example, a big U. of Calgary/Exeter study https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9l_F2HX-DZE estimates a 40% less risk for dementia with vitamin D supplementation. Is that not de facto causality? How could it ever be excluded- or like most D science - ignored??
It hasn't been ignored. I've seen it in at least four physician newsletters I subscribe to and at least as many press accounts. The woman in the video says "vitamin D is associated with..." Which is another word for an observational study. Such studies are not conclusive, and she says so. She is correct. If you haven't read it, take a look at this essay I wrote a few years back on observational studies: https://www.proteinpower.com/observational-studies-2/ I wrote this post because I was getting so many inquiries about the latest observational study that popped up in the press. What it takes to show causality is a randomized controlled trial. Even those have to be replicated before anyone can say with decent probability that a specific dose of vitamin D prevents cognitive decline.
I consider that study to be an ideational vaccine. Given that the paper identifies a risk of 40% for dementia 'associated' with D insufficiency, I do get the idea - get some D. With sugar I realize I should do without it. These mental vaccinations' only side effect tends to be health? A way to survive in a milieu of collapsing medical authorities, yet rising AI that supplants authority with AGI as a lifetime resource?