• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

This is rather interesting...

bulkbiker said:
Not sure I'd use an organisation with so few medics on the board as evidence of anything.. (not that I think medics are the be all and end all) but this mob seem to be pretty much focussed on "climate change" politics.
Click to expand...
I think this list of reviewers used by the organistion I linked to have medical connections
healthfeedback.org

Community

Reviewers Guest contributors Scientists, you can help create a better informed society. Become a reviewer today! Apply here
healthfeedback.org healthfeedback.org
 
Oldvatr said:
Indeed

John Campbell - Science Feedback

healthfeedback.org healthfeedback.org
Seems i was right to be suspicious. Others also find his claims to be off the mark.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure of the impartiality of of Health Feedback and Science Feedback.
They are one of 7 of Facebook's 'fact-checking' partners in the USA. Given the one-track record of Facebook over the last 3 years that is a damning partnership to anyone who prefers open debate.
In addition they received what's termed a 'microgrant' from The Credibility Coalition, a left-of-centre journalistic organization funded by the Google News Initiative, Facebook Journalism Project, and Twitter. Google and Twitter also had an embarrassing record of one-sided, biased, corporate-sponsored content (until Elon took over Twitter).

One can find anomalies in just about anything if you're prepared to dig around a little. Thing is, most people, not on here though, only reference their preferred sources, which are usually main stream, and as such, tend to be in the pocket of the highest bidder.

The thing is, we should listen to and read a wide variety of information and then make our own minds up for the benefit and our loved ones. Unfortunately, because there has been increasing bias some of the less well known publications and sources come over as somewhat crackpot.
 
Jo_the_boat said:
I'm not sure of the impartiality of of Health Feedback and Science Feedback.
They are one of 7 of Facebook's 'fact-checking' partners in the USA. Given the one-track record of Facebook over the last 3 years that is a damning partnership to anyone who prefers open debate.
In addition they received what's termed a 'microgrant' from The Credibility Coalition, a left-of-centre journalistic organization funded by the Google News Initiative, Facebook Journalism Project, and Twitter. Google and Twitter also had an embarrassing record of one-sided, biased, corporate-sponsored content (until Elon took over Twitter).

One can find anomalies in just about anything if you're prepared to dig around a little. Thing is, most people, not on here though, only reference their preferred sources, which are usually main stream, and as such, tend to be in the pocket of the highest bidder.

The thing is, we should listen to and read a wide variety of information and then make our own minds up for the benefit and our loved ones. Unfortunately, because there has been increasing bias some of the less well known publications and sources come over as somewhat crackpot.
Click to expand...
I see we go down different rabbit holea. I am more swayed by the research papers I linked which postdate the John campbell video. The paper he splashes on the screen in the T2d video is owned by the main author, and is not backed up by an organisation. That suggests an agenda of the author, and there is question if the paper exists in any archive or if it has been peer reviewed. That is not the usual pathway for a study report of repute. do you have a copy of the video paper we could read and digest? I linked to a report with the same title in Post#9, but it does not support the claims in the video. It is also by a different author.
 
Here is a paper that seems to back up the video claims

The trial has 3 cohort groups. all prediabetic. Group A is given Vit D and Calcium supplements. group B is calcium only, and group C is on placebo. Thre is a 2 year follow up and all three cohorts have reduced to around 25% of the intervention start.. The groups had normal diabetes reduction control (medication and lifestyle). at the 28month review, all three groups showed a progression rate to diabetes that is compatible with the general trend in the location, but the abstract claims major improvement due to vitamin D.

The other point made in the body of the report is that BMI of group A decreased from baseline and increased for group C. Homa R improved in Group A but that may well be due to the drop in BMI. There was a decrease in CRP in group A showing Vit D may be reducing overall inflammation (not unexpected) but trigs increased. These effects may well be due to the normal diabetes care plans in place, and these possible confounders are not discussed. The report does not document how HbA1c changed.

Group-A IPD had significantly lower progression to diabetes
compared with Group-B (6/55 vs. 13/49; p = 0.04),
Note Group C (placebo group) had 6/32 so is this really significant given there was no control over what interventions were also happening in the 2 years and the small sample sizes

The paper is prospective and is not a full blown study. It is a look see..
 
Oldvatr said:
Here is a paper that seems to back up the video claims

The trial has 3 cohort groups. all prediabetic. Group A is given Vit D and Calcium supplements. group B is calcium only, and group C is on placebo. Thre is a 2 year follow up and all three cohorts have reduced to around 25% of the intervention start.. The groups had normal diabetes reduction control (medication and lifestyle). at the 28month review, all three groups showed a progression rate to diabetes that is compatible with the general trend in the location, but the abstract claims major improvement due to vitamin D.

The other point made in the body of the report is that BMI of group A decreased from baseline and increased for group C. Homa R improved in Group A but that may well be due to the drop in BMI. There was a decrease in CRP in group A showing Vit D may be reducing overall inflammation (not unexpected) but trigs increased. These effects may well be due to the normal diabetes care plans in place, and these possible confounders are not discussed. The report does not document how HbA1c changed.

Group-A IPD had significantly lower progression to diabetes
compared with Group-B (6/55 vs. 13/49; p = 0.04),
Note Group C (placebo group) had 6/32 so is this really significant given there was no control over what interventions were also happening in the 2 years and the small sample sizes

The paper is prospective and is not a full blown study. It is a look see..
Click to expand...
The link doesn't work for me.
 
It is a working link but it is to Elsevier who often paywall their publications
Here is the paper in archive
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Vitamin-D supplementation in prediabetes reduced progression to type 2 diabetes and was associated with decreased insulin resistance and systemic inflammation: an open label randomized prospective study from Eastern India - PubMed

Vitamin-D supplementation in vitamin-D insufficient/deficient prediabetes individuals is associated with significantly lower progression to diabetes (6/55 vs. 13/49; p=0.04) and higher reversal to normoglycemia (23/55 vs. 10/49; p=0.02), associated with decreased insulin resistance and systemic...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It is a 2014 paper, and the more recent papers I linked in this thread do not substantiate their findings.

A copy is also accesible here
www.sciencedirect.com

Vitamin-D supplementation in prediabetes reduced progression to type 2 diabetes and was associated with decreased insulin resistance and systemic inflammation: An open label randomized prospective study from Eastern India

Vitamin-D supplementation in vitamin-D insufficient/deficient prediabetes individuals is associated with significantly lower progression to diabetes (…
www.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com
 
Last edited:
Back
Top