February 2, 2010

Haven’t we had enough news stories about Vitamin D?

Posted By

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 am

I 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 am

Marilyn,
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 pm

One 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.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.