Scott responds to various comments on his article about supplement labeling, addressing concerns about the industry and providing additional context and analysis. Longer summary

This post is a highlights reel of comments on Scott's previous article about supplement labeling. It covers various points raised by commenters, including skepticism about the supplement industry, concerns about heavy metal contamination, and a defense from the founder of LabDoor. Scott responds to each comment, providing additional context, analysis, and sometimes his own perspective on the issues raised. The post touches on topics such as the efficacy of supplements, the trustworthiness of supplement testing companies, and the potential risks associated with certain types of supplements. Shorter summary

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 presents results from his 2020 nootropics survey, covering effectiveness ratings, tolerance, and user experiences with various substances. Longer summary

This post presents the results of Scott Alexander's 2020 nootropics survey, where 852 respondents rated various substances on effectiveness. The survey covered a range of nootropics, from common stimulants to newer experimental substances. Key findings include the high rating of Zembrin (a kanna extract), insights on modafinil usage, and user experiences with caffeine alternatives. The post also discusses tolerance development, overall opinions on nootropics, and vendor recommendations. Scott notes that most respondents were from his blog community rather than the broader nootropics community, which he found disappointing. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces a new survey on nootropics experiences, inviting readers to participate in the 2020 SSC Nootropics Survey. Longer summary

Scott Alexander is conducting a new survey on nootropics experiences, following up on a similar survey from a few years ago. He invites readers with nootropics experience to participate in the 2020 SSC Nootropics Survey, which is expected to take about 15 minutes to complete. The survey aims to gather information on user experiences with various nootropic substances, including newer ones that have emerged since the last survey. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander introduces an 'Anxiety Sampler Kit' for testing various anxiety supplements, aiming to personalize treatment and gather data through self-experimentation. Longer summary

Scott Alexander introduces an experimental 'Anxiety Sampler Kit' designed to test the effectiveness of various supplements for treating anxiety. The kit contains 21 boxes with six different supplements and placebos, arranged randomly. Users try a box when feeling anxious, rate their response, and after completing all boxes, determine which supplement worked best for them. This approach aims to personalize treatment and gather data for a small placebo-controlled trial. Scott discusses the rationale behind personalized medicine and the challenges in predicting individual treatment responses. He invites Bay Area residents to participate in this self-experimentation project, with the condition that they share their results. 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