> It is: Negative, Unproductive, Antagonist, non Factual and frankly futile (unless provocative).
The comment gives clear reasoning and makes claims about the contents of the paper that are supported by reading the paper. To call it "non-factual" is simply incorrect. The word "futile" is nonsensical in this context.
You used three different words to complain that the comment critiques the study. There is nothing wrong with such critique in comments here, and indeed a healthy community requires that critique can rise to the top where it's warranted.
> Have you done an experiment lately to show counter proof? Beside claims what else do you have!
This is completely logically irrelevant, and suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of logic. Pointing out that a study is flawed does not require providing evidence for the opposite of the study's conclusion.
> This paper is very positive
A paper being "positive" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its finding is correct, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its methodology is valid, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it accurately reports what was actually observed (i.e. whether any kind of fraud was involved).
> It is in fact (by personal experience)...
It is fundamentally impossible to know those things "by personal experience". That's why studies exist.
This was meant for Gwerbret (but he deleted the comment). Now is to whom may concern :)
Standing by your words you think this paper is shady and you are questioning the work and results behind it.
Moreover your comment somehow is on the very top it misleading the users or at least ridiculing the paper.
Answering to you: It is indeed very much connected to the LEVELS of Vit D not the absence of it. You fail to understand and acknowledge the importance of the results (even though you already know and confirm the benefits of Vit D).
Regulating the levels of it (keeping them higher then average) it prevents health issues by regulating many biological functions/pathways, raising the immunity and lifespan in general. This is the real cure which prevent incredibly terrible future health issues and suffering.
Edit: Just for this effort, this paper deserves Credit. Bravo.
> Just for this effort, this paper deserves Credit. Bravo.
I just went out and did a study myself. But I got 10,000 people, and 100% of the participants gave usable data, with a full record of every action taken, and every possible result. My study shows with 99.99% confidence that vit D is actually _bad_ for you. I hope you will congratulate my positive result (saving people from the dangerous effects of vit D !!) Or at the very least, congratulate me for my effort.
Obviously I completely fabricated that. Do you see how _claiming_ something doesn't mean it's true? Can you see the many red flags in my paragraph above? The other posters are pointing out similar red flags in the main article that's been shared.
I think the strongest criticism is just that being short of just about anything would cause significant effects. being short of water, calories, any vitamin, protein, etc.
Wanting to agree with a study’s conclusions and so ignoring its weaknesses and red flags is bad scientific practice, further reinforcing the comment questioning the value of this publication
Maybe you are right, on ignoring a study weaknesses and red flags is bad scientific practice.
Is that I have been involved personally so long in this topic, that I know for a fact that the results are Good. As I also know many good studies being ridiculed and buried on purpose. No one in the scientific community would dare to criticize a paper in that way. Constructive criticism is connected to intellectual, educated minds, all the rest deserves the same coin or being ignored.
I still don´t understand why that comment on top, (I have seen this to many times).
