The 1500 RCT's are actually only 31 studies from what I can see. Those studies are do not all overlap either, they are all over the spectrum (D3 and flu, D3 and mortality, D3 and having children with Asthma).
While good sources for specifics, there is a lot of wiggle room for follow up in some of these spaces where the results amount to a single study.
I think the summaries speak for themselves:
> "Vitamin D ... ... did reduce cancer death by 16%"
> "Vitamin D did not reduce the risk of cancer"
Seems like more research is needed here in these specific areas along with what exact version of D3 we are talking about (they are not all manufactured or extracted the same) and if supporting nutrients/lifestyles effect anything.
I think the article just makes the good point that D3 isn't the magic bullet to any and all sickness without really being able to specify with a high level of certainly what it does help with.
Part of the issue is that many vitamin and other health indicators are highly correlated with other things like income status, race, and other significant conflating factors.
D3 also is related to being outside , which would influence the means of infection: lower initial viral load changes outcome.
While good sources for specifics, there is a lot of wiggle room for follow up in some of these spaces where the results amount to a single study.
I think the summaries speak for themselves:
> "Vitamin D ... ... did reduce cancer death by 16%"
> "Vitamin D did not reduce the risk of cancer"
Seems like more research is needed here in these specific areas along with what exact version of D3 we are talking about (they are not all manufactured or extracted the same) and if supporting nutrients/lifestyles effect anything.
I think the article just makes the good point that D3 isn't the magic bullet to any and all sickness without really being able to specify with a high level of certainly what it does help with.