(R&D)Pharma products cost $ to be sure. But they have passed some measure of efficacy prior to marketing approval. We can certainly quibble about how “effective “ some approved meds actually are. But there’s no comparison with supplements.
The only thing you’re guaranteed to have, by taking supplement…
(R&D)Pharma products cost $ to be sure. But they have passed some measure of efficacy prior to marketing approval. We can certainly quibble about how “effective “ some approved meds actually are. But there’s no comparison with supplements.
The only thing you’re guaranteed to have, by taking supplements, is expensive urine.
The really hilarious part is when people shun the stuff that has shown some measure of efficacy, whilst embracing all the garbage that hasn’t.
Your broad-brush criticism of nutritional supplements is clueless. Many may be useless or worse, but not all of them.
If you want your immune system to work properly, you need 50 ng/mL or more circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Other than by ingesting calcifediol (which is 25-hydroxyvitamin D), your options in attaining this are either proper vitamin D3 supplementation, as Prof. Wimalawansa recommends: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#00-how-much or such high levels of UV-B skin exposure, all year round, that you would unreasonably raise your risk of skin cancer. (Of course you could also do some of both.)
Some people reject supplements because they believe that everything they need is in a "balanced diet". The exception is vitamin D3, since there is almost no vitamin D3 in food, fortified or not.
The choice is between supplementation - about a gram every 22 years for 70 kg body weight without obesity - or lots of UV-B skin exposure on ideally white skin. Those with black skin would need to be out in the African sun most of the day, without much in the way of clothing, to attain 50 ng/mL.
This is so simple that many people think it can't be true. They should read the research.
So….”many (supplements) may be useless or worse”….but not Vit D, you say? Well, I’m not opposed to the notion that there are exceptions to rules. But I AM opposed to making claims without proper evidence. And while absence of evidence of benefit is not evidence of absence of benefit, it’s certainly not evidence of PRESENCE of benefit either.
You seem like a real vitamin D pusher. So if there’s evidence that shows vitamin D is ready for prime time, I’m all ears.
Some rando Prof W pushing vit D for your “immune system”, absent proper evidence, is advice I’d put on par with something I might get from a used car salesman. Derogatory insinuations are as intended.
I HAVE read the research you’ve supplied. Let’s just say my threshold for quality of evidence is almost infinitely higher than yours.
Not sure what you mean by red herring.
(R&D)Pharma products cost $ to be sure. But they have passed some measure of efficacy prior to marketing approval. We can certainly quibble about how “effective “ some approved meds actually are. But there’s no comparison with supplements.
The only thing you’re guaranteed to have, by taking supplements, is expensive urine.
The really hilarious part is when people shun the stuff that has shown some measure of efficacy, whilst embracing all the garbage that hasn’t.
Your broad-brush criticism of nutritional supplements is clueless. Many may be useless or worse, but not all of them.
If you want your immune system to work properly, you need 50 ng/mL or more circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Other than by ingesting calcifediol (which is 25-hydroxyvitamin D), your options in attaining this are either proper vitamin D3 supplementation, as Prof. Wimalawansa recommends: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/#00-how-much or such high levels of UV-B skin exposure, all year round, that you would unreasonably raise your risk of skin cancer. (Of course you could also do some of both.)
Some people reject supplements because they believe that everything they need is in a "balanced diet". The exception is vitamin D3, since there is almost no vitamin D3 in food, fortified or not.
The choice is between supplementation - about a gram every 22 years for 70 kg body weight without obesity - or lots of UV-B skin exposure on ideally white skin. Those with black skin would need to be out in the African sun most of the day, without much in the way of clothing, to attain 50 ng/mL.
This is so simple that many people think it can't be true. They should read the research.
So….”many (supplements) may be useless or worse”….but not Vit D, you say? Well, I’m not opposed to the notion that there are exceptions to rules. But I AM opposed to making claims without proper evidence. And while absence of evidence of benefit is not evidence of absence of benefit, it’s certainly not evidence of PRESENCE of benefit either.
You seem like a real vitamin D pusher. So if there’s evidence that shows vitamin D is ready for prime time, I’m all ears.
Some rando Prof W pushing vit D for your “immune system”, absent proper evidence, is advice I’d put on par with something I might get from a used car salesman. Derogatory insinuations are as intended.
I HAVE read the research you’ve supplied. Let’s just say my threshold for quality of evidence is almost infinitely higher than yours.