Wordcels condemn vitamin D

The "evidence" base for vitamin D is observational.
https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1815533088069357769

First problem: the correct dose of vitamin D is more than twice the "safe" dose, meaning essentially no study will give you anywhere near enough.

 Second problem: I'm told much of what's sold as vit D in america isn't vit D at all. Else it's mixed with so many poisons it will cause more problems than it can solve. Do these studies test their vitamin D supplies themselves? The very idea is laughable. Bureaucrats? Do work? lel

 This is because vitamin D supplements are not well absorbed by the body. My wife had low vitamin D for years. She took supplements, with no change in status, and the doctors started giving her vitamin D shots at regular intervals which also accomplished nothing. I did some research, bought a UV-B light, and magically, her years of deficiency were solved in a month. Supplemental D3, cholecalciferol, is essentially rat poison that does nothing but leech calcium from one's bones.
https://twitter.com/lesliedouglasx/status/1815542835032252674

 No, you gullible peasant. What you were taking was not cholecalciferol, it was rat poison. That's why it acted like rat poison. See also: the stuff in olive oil jugs at the american supermarket is not olive oil. 

  

 Devils know the sun is sacred, and encourage you, as far as they credibly can, to avoid anything involving the sun.

 

 Third problem: cremiux straight up lies about the study. "highly convincing evidence of [...] highly significant results" becomes "basically no evidence"

 "randomised controlled trials reported a nominally statistically significant summary result for [...] 13 of the 57 outcomes"

 Since the 57 outcomes were a grab bag of random hypotheses, you would expect most results to be null.
 The ellipses elide the word [only] as the authors are trying to suggest that usefully affecting 13 medical outcomes is somehow a bad thing. 

 

 Fourth problem: vitamin D is cheap. Indeed if it's sunny and your environs aren't flooded with violent commoners, you can get it without spending any money at all. You don't get industry bribes for suggesting anyone use vitamin D. On the contrary. Means, motive, opportunity: assume corruption, scientific fraud, unless corruption has been specifically falsified in every particular.

 

 Naturally the meta-analysis is basically innumerate and doesn't mention magnitudes of the dose, or does so buried in the fine print somewhere else I can't be arsed to read.

 Numbers, for those of you who are numerate: the original observation that tipped everyone (in this cycle) off to the benefits of vitamin D was dosing folk with an average of 30,000 IU per day. The "safe" dose is 4000. Approaching a factor of ten. 

 Thus what this meta-analysis in fact proves is that, if you know that 10,000 IU is medicinal and you respond to this by giving folk 2000, nothing much happens. Yeah, uh, no shit.