It's a scientific study. It's conclusion is the study results which is a bunch of confidence intervals and statistics.
Someone else quoted this as the results from the study:
> For the primary comparison of any vitamin D versus placebo, the intervention did not statistically significantly affect overall ARI risk (OR 0·94 [95% CI 0·88–1·00], p=0·057; 40 studies; 61 589 participants; I2=26·4%).
Are you suggesting that should be in the title? Would it even fit?
Then the title could be "Meta analysis finds Vitamin D supplementation doesn't improve Acute Respiratory Illness" or some variation of that, which is something I've known about Vitamin D for a while.
The title should be something like "Could Vitamin D supplementation help prevent acute respiratory infection? Systematic review and meta-analysis".
When I read the "Vitamin D supplementation to prevent" part, I got excited because I thought the research implied that supplementation does help. So I had to read it.
With the first title, I wouldn't read the study because I've read dozens of other studies showing how Vitamin D supplementation doesn't improve health outcomes.
Nature will do fine with increased co2, bar arctic/antartic turmoil, it'll not be a big problem. The far bigger problem is that places where nature can even be gets occupied by humans or their farms and logging.
Correct, habitat loss from human settlements and agriculture is a far greater threat to the natural environment than CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions have actually resulted in massive greening around the world:
When you're cities of 20-40k people 4000 years ago, there's quite a bit of admin work that has to be done - it's not all small farmer villages or hunter-gatherers. Ancient Sumeria was quite advanced.
reply