It's not hard to reach statistical significance at all with small samples and logistic regression. What's hard is to see a meaningful result once you add in numerous 'control' variables
The HCQ proponents would argue precisely the opposite. And vitamin D has a long, long history of being touted as a cure for every disease under the sun and failing to show a benefit in rigorous RCTs
-
-
In fact, taking the most robust evidence from a large systematic review of thousands of patients on vitamin D prior to the pandemic, there is a modest reduction in the rate of respiratory infections with vit D supplementation, but no benefit to any hard outcomes like death
-
But, and this is crucial, I don't think we can take it as writ that evidence applying to RTIs, which are caused by a plethora of viruses, will be true for COVID-19. So we need evidence - GOOD evidence - or we're mostly just flying blind
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It doesn't matter who says what, and what claims were wrong. Each claim should be evaluated independently in light of the evidence, then assess the risks and maximize expected outcome. Good summary of current evidence: https://github.com/GShotwell/vitamin_d_covid …
-
That website just cites the exact same evidence we've been discussing, but in a different form. And I agree - that is precisely my point
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.