(April 2, 2021 at 5:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You can also get enough vitamin D from a few servings of

In the us...

bread
breakfast cereal
rice
corn meal 
noodles 
milk
yogurt
margarine
fruit juice

There's a funny story to it, GRAS ingredients make producers and consumers lose their shit. Even if there's no reason to do it, even if it might not be safe, if one guy markets the fact that he put GRAS in his shit, and you don't put GRAS in your shit, the other guy has the market. Baby formula is a case study in the marketability of additives. If any of my kids try the unmodified products, they think the taste is off. That's how ubiquitous fortification is in the us. We've done so much of it for so long we all believe that the foods taste like that normally.

As someone who underwent treatment for low vitamin D last year I'd like to share this little nugget...

Vitamin D deficiency


Also known as: hypovitaminosis D

• OVERVIEW
  
• SYMPTOMS
  
• DIAGNOSIS
  
• TREATMENT
  

Very little vitamin D in the body causing impairment in bodily functions including bone mineralization.

Very common (More than 3 million cases per year in US)

Treatment from medical professional advised

Often requires lab test or imaging

Can last several months or years

More common in females

Can be dangerous or life threatening if untreated

Family history may increase likelihood
*******
See that second line that states it's a very common thing?  Do you see the family history thing?  Do you see the more common in females thing?  And not common since, or because of COVID.  And for me it's not a lack of sunshine...I live in TX we get plenty of sunshine.

Being anemic and lacking in B12 along with the start of osteoporosis led to the additional bloodwork. I took prescription strength D and had B12 injections for six months and now am taking OTC supplements.

Yer an idiot to conclude that lockdowns lead to being lacking in vitamin D and therefore increasing the spread of COVID.

The price of Citrical with D3 keeps going up.  But only the best for my gal.

(March 30, 2021 at 5:04 pm)jasonelijah Wrote: Just saying if you do get it you most likely will not die. I did get my vaccine b/c I'm diabetic but I'm just paranoid.

This is dangerous nonsense, and why 550,000 and counting have died. 

I am also not likely to die in a passenger jet crash, but that doesn't mean the pilots, traffic controllers, mechanics, or jet designers should simply do nothing. Nor does it mean passengers should ignore safety advice.

550,000 deaths are still not a small number.

(April 1, 2021 at 2:17 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Mermaid

Quote:Well, to date 540 thousand Americans (and climbing) are dead because of it

It is actually very hard to estimate how many people died because of COVID-19, rather than with COVID-19.

That is not correct. Where are you getting your information from?

(April 2, 2021 at 9:24 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(April 2, 2021 at 5:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You can also get enough vitamin D from a few servings of

In the us...

bread
breakfast cereal
rice
corn meal 
noodles 
milk
yogurt
margarine
fruit juice

There's a funny story to it, GRAS ingredients make producers and consumers lose their shit.  Even if there's no reason to do it, even if it might not be safe, if one guy markets the fact that he put GRAS in his shit, and you don't put GRAS in your shit, the other guy has the market.  Baby formula is a case study in the marketability of additives.  If any of my kids try the unmodified products, they think the taste is off.  That's how ubiquitous fortification is in the us.  We've done so much of it for so long we all believe that the foods taste like that normally.

Not to mention Beef and Cheese (as if Americans aren't eating a ton of either of those)

Ranjr Wrote:There is only science, forget the hard and soft horsecock bullshit.

Not all science is equal. Social sciences are, on average, significantly less reliable than natural sciences. Social sciences are dealing with things that are significantly harder to study. And they tend to be done by people, congrationalitions to the exceptions, without much grounding in mathematics and the methodology of science.
And sometimes science is clear, other times it is not.
Science is clear that global warming is real and is at least partly anthropogenic. Is it mostly anthropogenic? Well, that's where science is no longer clear. In order to assume the CO2 we are releasing is responsible for the warming we have observed, you need to assume there is a positive feedback loop between the increase of greenhouse gasses (including CO2 and wate vapor) and the temperature, and that the positive feedback loop increases the effect of CO2 by around 3 times. And the only evidence we have of that are the computer models. And we have no reason to think those computer models are accurate. To the contrary, the vast majority of climate computer models predict the long-wave infrared radiation from Earth will decrease as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, but the satellite data shows it has been increasing over time. If the climate computer models are wrong about the infrared radiation, why assume they are right about the effects of CO2 on the temperature? And if the current global warming is mostly anthropogenic, what, if anything, should be done about it? That's where the hard science ends, and soft science and politics begins.
Science is clear that LDL cholesterol causes heart attacks, as there are multiple drugs (most famously statins) that demonstrably cure heart disease by decreasing the LDL cholesterol. The claim that saturated fat causes heart disease is probably true, but it is less certain. The claim that the DHA omega-3-acid, found in fish and algae, decrease the risk of heart attacks is... controversial among scientists. The claim that ALA, the omega-3-acid prevalent in the vast majority of foods marketed as being rich in omega-3-acids, can somehow decrease the risk of heart attacks... is probably false.
Computer science is clear that computer malware exists and is sometimes dangerous. It is also clear that any real algorithm for detecting malware has many false positives, which sometimes have very bad consequences. Do antivirus programs do more good than harm... the computer science stops being clear here.
Not everything being marked under science is equally certain. You need to actually look into it to see what the evidence actually points to.

Nomad Wrote:It's not that hard, with the proliferation of journals around, some will publish any nonsense.

Fortunately, however, journals that publish nonsense do not stay for long.

Nomad Wrote:the average secondary school student would beat you for smarts

As far as I know, almost no secondary school student has published papers about linguistics, and very few have about computer science.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:You can also get enough vitamin D from

See what I have written below...

arewethereyet Wrote:Yer an idiot to conclude that lockdowns lead to being lacking in vitamin D and therefore increasing the spread of COVID.

Dude... OK, let's say, for the sake of argument, that I was arguing for forcing people to go vegan in order to protect them from eating too much saturated fat? What would you tell me? You would probably say something like "Forcing people to be vegan without educating them about nutrition will lead to B12 deficiency, which is already common, to increase significantly. Furthermore, given that people who go vegan without knowing much nutrition tend to consume stuff such as coconut milk, the saturated fat consumption may even increase.", right? And that would be a valid argument. And saying "Well, it is possible to be a vegan and not be B12 deficient." or even "Most of the people will not become B12 deficient."... would not be valid counter-arguments. Now, replace "forcing people to vegan" with "lockdown", "Vitamin B12" with "Vitamin D", "saturated fat consumption" with "COVID infections"... and I think you will understand how silly you sound.

Mermaid Wrote:That is not correct. Where are you getting your information from?

If 540 thousand Americans died from COVID in 2020, then the excess mortality in 2020 would be at least 540 thousand. But it isn't.

The numbers aren't all in.

You are trying to make the facts fit your theory.  It doesn't work that way Skippy.


PolitiFact | Chart comparing 2020 US death toll with previous years is flawed, uses incomplete data

Chart comparing 2020 US death toll with previous years is flawed, uses incomplete data

(April 3, 2021 at 6:23 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

Mermaid Wrote:That is not correct. Where are you getting your information from?

If 540 thousand Americans died from COVID in 2020, then the excess mortality in 2020 would be at least 540 thousand. But it isn't.

There are other factors involved here. Like lockdowns. I don't know about you, but I haven't had any virus in over a year. Flu deaths are way down, and others from other aspects of lockdowns. 
Is that what you mean?

(April 3, 2021 at 6:23 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: Not all science is equal. Social sciences are, on average, significantly less reliable than natural sciences. Social sciences are dealing with things that are significantly harder to study. And they tend to be done by people, congrationalitions to the exceptions, without much grounding in mathematics and the methodology of science.
And sometimes science is clear, other times it is not.
Science is clear that global warming is real and is at least partly anthropogenic. Is it mostly anthropogenic? Well, that's where science is no longer clear. In order to assume the CO2 we are releasing is responsible for the warming we have observed, you need to assume there is a positive feedback loop between the increase of greenhouse gasses (including CO2 and wate vapor) and the temperature, and that the positive feedback loop increases the effect of CO2 by around 3 times. And the only evidence we have of that are the computer models. And we have no reason to think those computer models are accurate. To the contrary, the vast majority of climate computer models predict the long-wave infrared radiation from Earth will decrease as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, but the satellite data shows it has been increasing over time. If the climate computer models are wrong about the infrared radiation, why assume they are right about the effects of CO2 on the temperature? And if the current global warming is mostly anthropogenic, what, if anything, should be done about it? That's where the hard science ends, and soft science and politics begins.
Science is clear that LDL cholesterol causes heart attacks, as there are multiple drugs (most famously statins) that demonstrably cure heart disease by decreasing the LDL cholesterol. The claim that saturated fat causes heart disease is probably true, but it is less certain. The claim that the DHA omega-3-acid, found in fish and algae, decrease the risk of heart attacks is... controversial among scientists. The claim that ALA, the omega-3-acid prevalent in the vast majority of foods marketed as being rich in omega-3-acids, can somehow decrease the risk of heart attacks... is probably false.
Computer science is clear that computer malware exists and is sometimes dangerous. It is also clear that any real algorithm for detecting malware has many false positives, which sometimes have very bad consequences. Do antivirus programs do more good than harm... the computer science stops being clear here.
Not everything being marked under science is equally certain. You need to actually look into it to see what the evidence actually points to.

Thanks for typing that out.  It rambles and overreaches.  But thanks and keep trying.