I think you are correct in the flaws of the study. I agree with you, however I think it does lend credence to vitamin D is not the sure fire prevention some think it is. I appreciate your critical and analytic look at the literature. There is much room for reasonable debate.
Somewhat backpedaling from “no effect on the disease”.
HIPAA notwithstanding, can you take a stab at the range of VitD blood levels in your patients? (I don’t know if you even bother with blood draws over the course of their treatment, so I won’t ask how it varies over time.)
But you wouldn’t suggest that there were potential flaws in the vitamins D study until someone called you out.
How many days into symptoms were patients when you typically gave them ivermectin, or zinc and a ionophore? Curious.