Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Vitamin D and covid

Options
2»

Replies

  • thesawyerbunch
    thesawyerbunch Posts: 22 Member
    edited June 2023
    Options
    I've been megadosing vitamin C, D, etc. for years, and guess what? I haven't even had the sniffles in years. I never caught COVID, either. Oh, and I didn't (and never will) take the jab, and I didn't wear the mask. I built up my immune system and let it do its job. So, yes, I fully believe that vitamins are key to staying healthy.

    PS: I don't know who that Campbell guy is.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,960 Member
    Options
    thesawyerbunch wrote: »
    I've been megadosing vitamin C, D, etc. for years, and guess what? I haven't even had the sniffles in years. I never caught COVID, either. Oh, and I didn't (and never will) take the jab, and I didn't wear the mask. I built up my immune system and let it do its job. So, yes, I fully believe that vitamins are key to staying healthy.

    PS: I don't know who that Campbell guy is.

    I'm going to repeat myself re vitamin D and flu and COVID shots, and add that I have been megadosing vitamin C since 1999.

    So I have a long history of believing that vitamins are important. But so is getting credible news sources during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, and changing behavior accordingly.

    Where did you live that you were able to get away with not wearing a mask?
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've been taking vitamin D since I moved back to Massachusetts from South Florida in 2011. I've had two COVID vaxes and two boosters.

    I'd been anti-flu vax for myself since I had a bad reaction when I was in the military in the 90s, but started getting it again in 2020 or 2021 when credible news sources stressed the importance of the flu vax amid the pandemic. No reactions.
  • kcole0619
    kcole0619 Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Here's the study.
    https://mdpi.com/1424-8247/16/1/130
    Dr. Campbell wasn't interpreting what he thought the study said per se, only repeating what this study actually found.

    I think it's instructive to actually read this "study" and use our critical thinking skills to evaluate a few items:
    • What are the authors' credentials?
    • What study type is this?
    • What is the study quality?
    • Is MDPI a reputable source?
    Authors' credentials: A small group of internal medicine doctors with no apparent expertise in epidemiology or virology Study type: They did the equivalent of a Google search of articles and picked a few
    "The search string that we used retrieved 78 bibliographic citations.... Finally, only five studies were included in this meta-W."
    Study Quality: Of the handful of research they selected most were of small sample size
    "Three out of five studies had a small sample size of patients."
    Reputable Source?: MDPI has noted reputation issues and even been listed as a "predatory publisher"
    Predatory publishers are publications that exploit the academic publishing system for financial gain, often at the expense of rigorous scientific standards and ethical principles.

    Examples of reliability issues
    Read the list of 'Evaluation and controversies' including:
    • Inclusion in Beall's list of predatory publishing companies
      "MDPI's warehouse journals contain hundreds of lightly-reviewed articles that are mainly written and published for promotion and tenure purposes rather than to communicate science."
    • Resignations of editors
      In August 2018, 10 senior editors (including the editor-in-chief) of the journal Nutrients resigned, alleging that MDPI forced the replacement of the editor-in-chief because of his high editorial standards and for resisting pressure to "accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance."

      In 2021, five members of the editorial board of the journal Vaccines resigned after Vaccines published a controversial article that misused data to reach the incorrect conclusion that vaccines against COVID-19 had no clear benefit.
      ...and so on...
    • Withdrawals of support by faculties and universities
    • Inclusion in Early Warning List of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
    • Perception of Hungarian researchers
    • Assessments in the Nordic countries
    • Concerns over papers connected to a research paper mill
    • 2023 Clarivate delistings
    • Controversial articles
    My personal evaluation
    Outside of Dr. Campbell's own reliability issues, which I don't cover above, the 'study' that he's quoting to support his own ideas (i.e. confirmation bias) has issues with the limited qualifications of the authors and noted issues by the publisher including sufficient peer-review and overall reliability and reputation.

    #CaveatEmptor
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,967 Member
    edited July 2023
    Options
    I agree. When he began to cherry pick data to support his "believes" that's when I stopped watching him.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,960 Member
    Options
    @kcole0619 thanks for taking the time to write that up, appreciated!
  • chris_in_cal
    chris_in_cal Posts: 2,236 Member
    Options
    kcole0619 wrote: »
    Here's the study.
    ...
    #CaveatEmptor

    Great post. Nice job. Thanks.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,967 Member
    Options
    One of my go to reference Doctors and this video talks about the validity of nutritional science in general.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=KDY7XYmb6nI&t=29s

    Nutrition science is entirely unreliable

Categories