Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AlchemistCamp 2135 days ago
> There's been suspicion the D+C19 relationship is explicitly suppressed by various forces.

Why would anyone want to suppress that kind of information?

1 comments

Some point the figure at big pharma. I've no evidence of any foul play, but the pharma industry would lose money if a large fraction of their revenue comes from drugs to treat conditions that are at least in part the consequence of inadequate vitamin D.

There seems to be more to it than that. Probably partially lack of belief that anything so simple, cheap, and easy could be such a help. I believe a similar skepticism surrounded mask use (and still does for a minority of folks).

And lack of the medical system (notably doctors) receiving much training in micronutrients.

And some amount of conservatism on the part of the bodies that do things like set RDAs. The IoM (now NAM) in the US was clearly being very conservative in its setting of the UL and its refusal to up the RDA when its statistical mistake in setting it was pointed out. And in the UK the recent NICE study was super-conservative (some would say narrow-minded) to only consider peer reviewed & published studies when it did a rapid review of D for C19 evidence.

But all this is just wild speculation to give you some idea since you asked. I would love to read the behind the scenes expose someday. Meantime I'm limiting myself to the evidence not looking into the conspiracy theories.