Not so much a reply to the post, as a comment on the comments in this post.
It's starting to feel like a lot of comments on here and other social media outlets that are anecdotal about their experience with x model and y tool are astroturfing. They add almost zero value to the conversation.
These is a multi-billion dollar market and battleground, so im skeptical of anyone telling me that this isn't happening at a decent clip. I think moderators on the site should definitely consider how to approach this because it's devaluating this space as a place for actual discourse.
My mind also considers that this being one of Altman's old stomping grounds, he may place a higher value in winning here than elsewhere.
Hopped on the last thread a little late and couldn't get a meaningful discussion about this (Perhaps i'm just completely on the wrong foot):
Are these studies just showing that vitamin D is a good predictor of income (because race is a good predictor of income)? Now that the US is starting to have conversations about racial inequality, every time I see a hackernews or reddit post on vitamin D I am asking myself that question.
I have read several studies that link low income to higher mortality rates across several different diseases. [0]
And several other studies that link education levels (which are inherently linked to childhood wealth levels) to worse mortality rates as well.[1]
There is a link between lower vitamin d levels and skin color, with an obvious plausible explanation ( Melanin lowers skins ability to produce vitamin D).[2]
In the U.S. at least there is a strong link between income, education levels, and skin color. [3]
While I am hopeful that ongoing research will help us understand the mechanisms by which vitamin-D operates, I really worry that it is somehow a very well dressed red-herring. One one hand a promised panacea: vitamin d supplements, the other a complex economic and political problem that barely anyone can comprehend or are even willing to engage with.
One of the more damning studies shows that vitamin d supplementation is good enough to remove your deficiency, it has reproduced really poorly on any of the other correlated health effects.[4]
Are there any studies that someone can link that would alleviate my concerns? When these kind of population health studies are conducted (I am in no way familiar with how they are actually done), how are factors like income inequality and education level generally controlled for?
Are these studies just showing that vitamin D is a good predictor of income (because race is a good predictor of income)? Now that the US is starting to have conversations about racial inequality, every time I see a hackernews or reddit post on vitamin D I am asking myself that question.
I have read several studies that link low income to higher mortality rates across several different diseases. [0]
And several other studies that link education levels (which are inherently linked to childhood wealth levels) to worse mortality rates as well.[1]
There is a link between lower vitamin d levels and skin color, with an obvious plausible explanation ( Melanin lowers skins ability to produce vitamin D).[2]
In the U.S. at least there is a strong link between income, education levels, and skin color. [3]
While I am hopeful that ongoing research will help us understand the mechanisms by which vitamin-D operates, I really worry that it is somehow a very well dressed red-herring. One one hand a promised panacea: vitamin d supplements, the other a complex economic and political problem that barely anyone can comprehend or are even willing to engage with.
One of the more damning studies shows that vitamin d supplementation is good enough to remove your deficiency, it has reproduced really poorly on any of the other correlated health effects.[4]
Are there any studies that someone can link that would alleviate my concerns? When these kind of population health studies are conducted (I am in no way familiar with how they are actually done), how are factors like income inequality and education level generally controlled for?
If someone was 82, and a quality-of-life surgery is elected to be performed, it is always the patient and the doctors making that decision.
Surgeries can go wrong, they carry risk, heart surgery more so, heart surgery with an 82 year old even more so. Should we be holding the health care system accountable?
Even when the risks are known? Do we all of a sudden have the expectation that every open heart surgery will be successful and no one will die?
Hospitals shouldn't be rewarded for failures, but placing full blame on an organization with an impossible mandate seems a little bit unfair.
Err... sleep paralysis can be bad if you don't realize that its an instant gateway into a lucid dream. I had lucid dreams long before I realized this, but at some point in my life during a sleep paralysis event i realised it was a dream, and after that i could fly, have sex, and be magic for as long as i remembered i was dreaming. Have fun the next time you have sleep paralysis, its not awful, its awesome.
It's starting to feel like a lot of comments on here and other social media outlets that are anecdotal about their experience with x model and y tool are astroturfing. They add almost zero value to the conversation.
These is a multi-billion dollar market and battleground, so im skeptical of anyone telling me that this isn't happening at a decent clip. I think moderators on the site should definitely consider how to approach this because it's devaluating this space as a place for actual discourse.
My mind also considers that this being one of Altman's old stomping grounds, he may place a higher value in winning here than elsewhere.