Scott Alexander critiques Ben Hoffman's arguments about Vitamin D dosing, maintaining that it is primarily a bone-related chemical with limited evidence for other benefits. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Ben Hoffman's critique of his views on Vitamin D dosing. He argues that ancestral populations likely received much less Vitamin D from sunlight than Hoffman suggests, and that the doses used in most studies are appropriate. Scott reviews the literature on Vitamin D dosing, discusses various recommendations and debates within the medical community, and explains why he remains skeptical of claims about Vitamin D's non-skeletal benefits, including for COVID-19 treatment. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques mass-produced medical recommendations, showing how they can oversimplify or misrepresent scientific evidence using vitamin D and niacin as examples. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques mass-produced medical recommendations, focusing on vitamin D and niacin supplements. He argues that popular sources like information graphics and websites often oversimplify or misrepresent the scientific evidence. Using vitamin D as an example, he shows how counting only positive studies can lead to misleading conclusions, as many larger studies and meta-analyses have found no benefit for cancer prevention or general health. He then discusses niacin, once thought beneficial but later found to be potentially harmful. Scott emphasizes the importance of considering all available evidence and being cautious about simplified recommendations. Shorter summary