- Messages
- 1,926
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- The term "big boned" lol repeatedly told this growing up!
Very interesting though and as I prefer my mushrooms raw I will let them sunbathe a bit before eating! I couldn't take a Vitamin D supplement as it made be feel dizzy and sick within 48hrs. But no you are right, it will more than likely not help those of us already in the race.Sadly he is using the same statistical methodology as the NHs which is Hazard Ratios and Relative Risk which ends up being interpreted that 76% of people being treated with Vitamin D will escape diabetes. Sounds inmpressive, but he does at least give the number to treat as being 30 to save one perrson, so 29 will not be saved.
Yes Vitamin D is vital to all of us especially in the temperate climes. But if this theory is valid then there would be a noticeable difference between those in temperate zones vs those where there is sufficient sunlight to boost vitamin D. There would also be a difference between those on a plant based vegetarian diet vs omnivores since the vegetable D is not as bioavailable as the animal sourced version (D2 vs D3 and also the low levels of plant based K2.
Mushrooms are a very good source of D but not if they are cooked. They are best when left to fester in sunlight which boosts the D levels. My GP refuses to provide cholecalciferol for me even though I am almost housebound now. My chemist does sell a small spray bottle of D3 but at £20 a bottle but I see their website is offering another one at around £10 so I suspect the price they quoted me is for the NHS supplied one that my wife used to get on scrip.. However there is a disclaimer on the cheaper one in that they do not guarantee the quality since it is not under their control.
But the evidence is for those likely to get to T2D stage, but does not seem to help those of us already in the race.
Relative risk should be banned, as it is the smoke and mirrors used to exaggerate usually tortured confounded data. If I earn £100.00 and someone says you are going to get a 10% pay increase, I expected my pay to be £110.00 (absolute amount), the relative 10% might be £101.00. This nonsense should not be acceptable.If the Number to Treat is 30 then that is 3% which is more realistic than the 76% claimed in the video. I find that in general, the Relative Risk is about 10x exaggeration of the actual benefit.
Indeed. The other problems I see are that the restrictred trials on only prediabetics is being extended to the general public but this makes it no longer relative since the conditions are different. Secondly the assumption is made that prediabetes always progresses to full blown diabetes (100%). RR only works if the data sets are homogenous and there us usually a set of tests that must be applied to test this ad this info seems to be missing. You can only compare like for like. The last issue I have is that the results are amortised over 3 years but that does not mean the RR is reduced by the time period. The risk is due to D3 vs No D3 not how long you take it.Relative risk should be banned, as it is the smoke and mirrors used to exaggerate usually tortured confounded data. If I earn £100.00 and someone says you are going to get a 10% pay increase, I expected my pay to be £110.00 (absolute amount), the relative 10% might be £101.00. This nonsense should not be acceptable.
Why are we talking about relative risk when the paper the video is referencing talks about uses absolute risk?Relative risk should be banned, as it is the smoke and mirrors used to exaggerate usually tortured confounded data. If I earn £100.00 and someone says you are going to get a 10% pay increase, I expected my pay to be £110.00 (absolute amount), the relative 10% might be £101.00. This nonsense should not be acceptable.
When someone in a video is claiming a 76% success rate then it is wise to be suspicious.Why are we talking about relative risk when the paper the video is referencing talks about uses absolute risk?
IndeedQuite a few years ago I was diagnosed as vitamin D deficient. It wasn't surprising really - I'd moved from 53N to 56N and whilst I was spending as much time outside I was rather more wrapped up due to a change in activity. I started taking Vitamin D brought on Amazon - the GP could only offer it in with calcium. My last order was for 365 tablets of 4000iu D3 plus some K2, and it was £22 - pence per day.
Once established on the tablets I felt better and got many fewer migraine-like headaches. However I still recently developed T2.
It's good to see a serious critique of one of Dr Campbells videos. He made a big name for himself during lockdown, and I wonder how many people think he is a doctor of medicine such as a GP? He is actually a PhD. "My PhD focused on the development of open learning resources for nurses nationally and internationally." Not sure how much statistics is in that thesis.
The problem is that he is putting out information that is profoundly distorted, It is clear to me that he is prone to over exaggeration and his messages could be considered harmful. in this case taking vit D is probably worthwhile and only hurts the pocketbook if it is not needed.I concur. John Campbell is not a medic but a nurse and academic. Nothing wrong with that of course - I too am a (now retired) nurse and academic. In fact we did the same CertEd course in the late 80s. But certainly many of his followers believe him to be a clinician.
My point stands, the average Josephine or Jo takes for example the WHO / IARC claim that eating 50 grams of bacon will increase the risk of colon cancer by 18% to mean a real 18 more cases per 100 - simply put that is a lie, there is no other word for it. Additionally one has to accept the methods, bias etc. Was an RCT double blinded of many persons some on bacon only and others on a standard diet to compare results. The food frequency questionaires are just the beginning of the limitations of such studies, then saying things like Pizza is meat, ignoring what goes with the bacon (it will always have some carbs such as fries, rice, potatoes, pasta etc). After a while and seeing studies taken apart by the likes of Zoe Harcombe and Bart Kay, studies can show what the authors / backers want.Why are we talking about relative risk when the paper the video is referencing talks about uses absolute risk?
I don't disagree. But the study refers to absolute risk not relative risk (apparently). It's a metastudy of three RCTs on different doses of Vitamin D.My point stands, the average Josephine or Jo takes for example the WHO / IARC claim that eating 50 grams of bacon will increase the risk of colon cancer by 18% to mean a real 18 more cases per 100 - simply put that is a lie, there is no other word for it. Additionally one has to accept the methods, bias etc. Was an RCT double blinded of many persons some on bacon only and others on a standard diet to compare results. The food frequency questionaires are just the beginning of the limitations of such studies, then saying things like Pizza is meat, ignoring what goes with the bacon (it will always have some carbs such as fries, rice, potatoes, pasta etc). After a while and seeing studies taken apart by the likes of Zoe Harcombe and Bart Kay, studies can show what the authors / backers want.
Limitations include:Three randomized trials were included, which tested cholecalciferol, 20 000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, versus matching placebos.
and my own addition:a) Studies of people with prediabetes do not apply to the general population
b) Trials may not have been powered for safety outcomes.
And you believe the number. All of this is the context of the nonsense around staying out of the sun, splashing on sun screen and taking a pill. I would prefer adequate natural dosing of sun exposure, focusing on foods with vitamin d and topping up as needed. Metastudies drive me nuts, as depending on the statistical engine used you can make 10 insignificant (statistically) studies appear significant - more slight of hand. So much wrong there again, with P values and signal to noise just being ignored. The most telling thing is that we now have the most amount of data at our finger tips and yet the advice does not correlate with either common sense or better outcomes compared to what our grand parents saw. My view is that Vitamin D is vital and a priority, consider how this was viewed over the last 2 to 3 years.I don't disagree. But the study refers to absolute risk not relative risk (apparently). It's a metastudy of three RCTs on different doses of Vitamin D.
Limitations include:
and my own addition:
c) It's pay-walled so it cannot be evaluated properly
I didn't say if I believed the number or not. I can't evaluate that because the study is hidden behind a paywall. I said that the study purports to be talking about absolute risk not relative riskAnd you believe the number. All of this is the context of the nonsense around staying out of the sun, splashing on sun screen and taking a pill. I would prefer adequate natural dosing of sun exposure, focusing on foods with vitamin d and topping up as needed. Metastudies drive me nuts, as depending on the statistical engine used you can make 10 insignificant (statistically) studies appear significant - more slight of hand. So much wrong there again, with P values and signal to noise just being ignored. The most telling thing is that we now have the most amount of data at our finger tips and yet the advice does not correlate with either common sense or better outcomes compared to what our grand parents saw. My view is that Vitamin D is vital and a priority, consider how this was viewed over the last 2 to 3 years.
The study only had relative (RR) values. It was the video that is claiming absolute values, and there is suspicion that the absolute risk ends up much higher than the RR values in the report. So I strongly suspect the way the presenter has worked out his figures. To claim 76% success rate from a meta study is wrong. The meta study I found for this group of prediabetes published in 2020 found no atrong correlation for vitamin D supplementation. There is no other meta study showing for this group that i could find in my searches.I don't disagree. But the study refers to absolute risk not relative risk (apparently). It's a metastudy of three RCTs on different doses of Vitamin D.
Limitations include:
and my own addition:
c) It's pay-walled so it cannot be evaluated properly
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.Seems i was right to be suspicious. Others also find his claims to be off the mark.