Ounce for ounce, vitamin D may be the most covered (over-covered?) health news topic in American news media.
Look at what we’ve seen just within the past week.
A New York Times column, “The Miracle of Vitamin D: Sound Science or Hype?” Excerpts:
“Imagine a treatment that could build bones, strengthen the immune system and lower the risks of illnesses like diabetes, heart and kidney disease, high blood pressure and cancer.
Some research suggests that such a wonder treatment already exists. It’s vitamin D, a nutrient that the body makes from sunlight and that is also found in fish and fortified milk.
…
But don’t start gobbling down vitamin D supplements just yet. The excitement about their health potential is still far ahead of the science.”
The Dallas Morning News had a headline, “Heart health: Is vitamin D the new superhero?”
And the Los Angeles Times blog proposed in its headline, “Let’s put Vitamin D in the water.”
These stories have become – and believe me, we’ve seen enough to back this up – formulaic and predictable. Headlines that scream MIRACLE…SUPERHERO. Followed by some caveats.
Most of what we’ve commented on before were network TV news stories including some that committed fear-mongering and disease-mongering.
But this week’s examples all came from newspapers. Is it in the water?
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (6)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Marilyn Mann
February 3, 2010 at 8:14 amI actually thought the NYT column was pretty good. They quoted experts talking about the dangers of drawing conclusions from observational research. This is a particular problem with vitamin D research, because people with higher vitamin D levels may be people who exercise more or spend more time outside or have other healthy habits. They also discussed the big NIH-funded trial that will be testing vitamin D supplementation for its effect on chronic disease.
Gary Schwitzer
February 3, 2010 at 9:12 amMarilyn,
I agree: the NYT piece had some strengths – especially on the “Sound Science or Hype” side of the equation.
My comments were meant to be two-fold:
1. At the 50,000 foot level, vitamin D has been covered ad nauseam – dozens of stories we’ve reviewed on HealthNewsReview.org. Why does it have this particular appeal when so many vital topics go uncovered?
2. At the micro level, the headline hype should be scaled back. Miracle? Superhero? Put it in the water? Please. Even if the ensuing story provides context, the headlines mislead.
phyllis herman
February 8, 2010 at 3:59 pmOne aspect of the vitamin D story that is rarely addressed is the question whether the other overdone advice to not venture outside w/o sunscreen is at the root of much vitamin D deficiency. It is practically impossible to find a facial daytime moisturizer these days which does not contain sunscreen. Does sunscreen block vitamin D absorption? I’d love to have a well-researched answer to that simple question.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like