So where is the proper clinical trial data?
It costs £10 to register a domain and post cherry picked, unverified figures and a youtube link.
That doesn't make any of it true.
Without proper, randomised, controlled trials its absolutely impossible to say either way.
All 3 sources i linked to discuss the evidence.
Your comment on $10 websites
by the way The DBPCT may be "gold standard " in a perfect world, but may sometimes (often) be of dubious quality in the real world - for many reasons, and its not the only source of valuable clinical evidence
If you disgree with the above statement then perhaps you should take a deep look at yourself and stop posting on here until you understand better
All 3 sources i linked to discuss the evidence.
Your comment on $10 websites
by the way The DBPCT may be "gold standard " in a perfect world, but may sometimes (often) be of dubious quality in the real world - for many reasons, and its not the only source of valuable clinical evidence
If you disgree with the above statement then perhaps you should take a deep look at yourself and stop posting on here until you understand better
Again nonsense. The data is all over the shop, no properly randomised or controlled trials, no standard phases of dosage. Its nothing but an anecdotal mess with no attempt at all to look at interactions with other diseases and medications.
Cherry picked nonsense a 12 year old would put into a school report and get a C grade.
It meets none of the criteria for any clinical trial anywhere on the planet.
Taking cherry picked data that has no useful controls, no useful variable separation, no randomisation, based almost entirely on anecdotal snippets where most things aren't even testing or measuring the same thing, no attempt to normalise groups and registering a domain to publish you're pre-conceived output isn't science. Its dangerous.
And yes i do understand it better. Clinical trials used to be roughly the end point of my previous career choice.
We literally have no idea if it helps or if it makes things worse or if it does either in what groups in what stage of the disease. None at all.
People would be better spending their time designing and implementing an actual trial meeting first world standards and then getting it peer reviewed and published than self-user hosting a google website and registering a domain.
As far as I can understand some trials are underway one from the university of Liverpool sponsored by the WHO. Also in Oxford there is a clinical trial where I believe that the results are very encouraging. There are however quite a few studies from developing countries with exceptional results- are we simply too arrogant to believe that others can also carry out scientific studies without being financed and biased by big pharmaceutical companies.
I also feel that far too little is reported on what the individual can do for himself especially regarding Vitamin D, Vitamin C and Zinc which are known to bolster the immune system
There are however quite a few studies from developing countries with exceptional results- are we simply too arrogant to believe that others can also carry out scientific studies without being financed and biased by big pharmaceutical companies.
No there aren't. Those "studies" dont meet the basic criteria FOR a study. The data produced has ridiculously wide CIs and impossible to teach out the variables needed.
Nothing to do with where they're from - they just fail to meet any internationally accepted academic standard for reliable data and consistency.
I also feel that far too little is reported on what the individual can do for himself especially regarding Vitamin D, Vitamin C and Zinc which are known to bolster the immune system
Vit D has been studied a lot. Vit C has been shown to do nothing.
Vitamins will help people if they're vitamin deficient. D aside, most people are not deficient in the modern world.
