Nicola Staff asked 4 hours ago
Your interpretation here is spot on, and this you were shown intuitively. It is a good example of how medicine is often proceeding on false assumptions in the design of research studies and therefore, the results will be flawed because there is an inherent bias through poor choices of conditions and variables relied on. It is often the case that because science is building on prior knowledge, flawed earlier work will be too heavily relied on as being the current best approach without looking from a fresh perspective to see whether even the past was done correctly. Given that there is heavy suppression of information and manipulations of all kinds to make poor decisions in study design for important health-related scientific investigations, this has led to many shortcomings in medical knowledge and advice to patients for maintaining health and well-being. And this keeps the research enterprise spinning its wheels, going down false avenues, and being done in a way that is underpowered, often focused on the wrong endpoints, as well as the materials and methods in other respects being flawed or inadequate to the task. But the bias resulting, at the end of the day, is "science has spoken" and that may or may not be a valid assumption. So we see taking a dose of 5000 to 10,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily for those with bone fractures to be a very worthwhile approach. Keep in mind, many people have inadequate diets for many, many, reasons and are thus not as good a match to those in clinical trials who are usually well cared for and representing a more healthy patient base in general, including their intake of vitamins and minerals. So some patients with fractures will benefit more than others, but the idea here is to provide this basic foundation for all because vitamin D3 is usually accessible at minimal cost, has many beneficial effects, and is thus well worth taking.
Please login or Register to submit your answer
