Health Nerd Profile picture
22 Nov, 9 tweets, 4 min read
At the shops today, so thought I'd take a look at all of the "immune" supplements in the nonsense aisle

They are all so ridiculous, it's amazing
Look at this beauty. Immune support, packed with anti-oxidants!

Except it's just a bit of elderberry, some zinc and vitamin C. Some evidence that this might reduce cold symptoms, but that's about all
Another one which adds a couple of vitamins and some echinacea. Again, can't see how this "supports the immune system to fight illness" unless you've got a vitamin D deficiency
Hello immunity! Or, in this case, zinc and vitamin C, but rebranded as a miracle cure of some kind
An immune probiotic! And based on scientific evidence (which, from a scan, looks pretty equivocal)
An assortment of more things. It all melds into one giant nonsense eventually I think
One thing I was struck by tho was just how similar most of these products were. They were almost all just vitamin C+D and zinc, +/- some herb, repackaged as an immune formula and sold for twice as much
Honestly, seems to me that you could get the exact same stuff as most of these pills by buying the cheapest multivitamin on the shelf, so if you're going to get anything that's what I'd recommend
Also, I'm very much in favour of putting exactly what the studies showed on all of these ridiculous products, because saying "may reduce cold symptoms in 6-11 yos by 5%" is much less compelling than "immune support"

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Health Nerd

Health Nerd Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GidMK

20 Nov
I could not disagree with this more. If we do not retract flawed research with the purpose to cause harm, what is the point of retraction at all?
I've read hundreds of papers with mistakes - errors big and small - at the absolute minimum these should be corrected, but if the entire paper is flawed what else do you do?
I think this attitude often harks back to decades long past, where you had a physical journal where letters to the editor were read as much as studies themselves
Read 5 tweets
18 Nov
So, The Big Mask study has been published, and I thought rather than expound on what the results DID show (everyone's doing that), I might point out a few things that they DIDN'T show 1/n
2/n Study is here, as ever have a read. A very simple, nicely done RCT comparing the advice to wear masks with no such advice in Denmark: acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M2…
3/n So, first point. This study says NOTHING about whether mask mandates are good public health policy

Indeed, the authors themselves point this out in the discussion
Read 19 tweets
15 Nov
Ok, so I've had a read of this paper (which has been all over the news) that says quite explicitly that closing schools will probably cause more years of life lost than leaving them open in a pandemic

Let's do some peer-review on twitter! 1/n
2/n Paper is here. It's actually very simple, basically the authors took an estimate of how many days of school kids lost due to closures during COVID-19, an estimate of how much that impacts their years of life, and multiplied out

jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
3/n Specifically, they said:

1. Children miss days of school
2. Days of school cause decreased educational attainment
3. Decreased educational attainment causes less life
Read 31 tweets
11 Nov
Excellent new study on seroprevalence in Sydney using convenience samples estimates 0.09% (0.04-0.32%) infected

"our study provides robust evidence that there was limited community transmission...of COVID-19"

mja.com.au/journal/2020/s…
Also, massive hats off to the authors for acknowledging that the data were not sufficient to make calculations and then JUST NOT DOING IT
I agree wholeheartedly with their assessment FYI, I don't think you can reasonably calculate the IFR of COVID-19 in Australia from either of the seroprevalence studies released thus far
Read 5 tweets
9 Nov
A lot of people are asking the question, so I think it's useful to point out that a vaccine that prevents 90% of infections would be sufficient for herd immunity in most cases
There are, of course, HUGE caveats here:

- protection must be long-lasting
- must protect against infection, not just symptoms
- vaccination rate has to be quite high
Nevertheless, if a vaccine does stop 90% of infections, and we can vaccinate 90%+ of the population, then you'd have about 80% of people immune to the disease which is well above any herd immunity threshold for COVID-19
Read 4 tweets
9 Nov
Sigh. An interesting study, but such a ridiculous prediction. The authors estimated the relative risk of wearing a mask to not based on studies mostly conducted in healthcare workers during SARS/MERS, and then extrapolated this directly to the US
In fact, the reduction in deaths that's cited here as the main outcome is a direct result of the relative risk (0.65) that the authors found for mask-use compared to no mask-use when aggregating together studies on masks
So, they predict 500k deaths in the US by Feb 2021, but if 95% of people wear masks in public, this goes down by just under 35%
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!