and please don’t reference wikipedia. I know you can do much better.
Wikipedia is an excellent resource to reference for trivial facts. Follow the links from the wikipedia page and look at the actual sources if you really want to pretend you are too cool for wikipedia itself. (That is, the wikipedia snub is an intellectual one-upmanship move that is miscalibrated with respect to this particular social environment.)
The problem is that nobody really knows exactly what rays humans need to make vitamin D.
I don’t believe you.
Also, can you find a single large-scale (I would say 1000+, but that’s a relatively low number. A real large scale study is more like 10,000+...) study that shows lamps produce significant amounts of V.D.?
If you are going to specify a single number to represent standard of evidence for a study you ought to specify a the statistical significance required (for a given effect size). (An alternative like likelihood ratio would also work.)
Of course even then you cannot by force of will negate the fact that smaller, less conclusive studies still provide evidence. Weaker evidence but still evidence. Even a well designed study of a single individual is informative.
Yes it did.
Wikipedia is an excellent resource to reference for trivial facts. Follow the links from the wikipedia page and look at the actual sources if you really want to pretend you are too cool for wikipedia itself. (That is, the wikipedia snub is an intellectual one-upmanship move that is miscalibrated with respect to this particular social environment.)
I don’t believe you.
If you are going to specify a single number to represent standard of evidence for a study you ought to specify a the statistical significance required (for a given effect size). (An alternative like likelihood ratio would also work.)
Of course even then you cannot by force of will negate the fact that smaller, less conclusive studies still provide evidence. Weaker evidence but still evidence. Even a well designed study of a single individual is informative.