This is a seriously flawed piece of health journalism, one that misinforms the public about a serious and emotional condition. It raises needless anxiety, draws excessive inferences and makes specific treatment recommendations not related to the study under discussion.
1. The study reports an inverse relationship between blood levels of vitamin D at diagnosis of breast cancer and good outcomes. Without clearly explaining that he is reaching well beyond these findings, the medical editor suggests that raising blood levels of the vitamin will have considerable health benefits. The study lacks the power to support that conclusion.
2. The medical editor further suggests that taking vitamin D3 supplements is the most efficient method of raising blood levels. It’s unclear what evidence he bases this on.
3. The segment recommends sunlight exposure as a way to increase blood levels of vitamin D, but does not provide adequate caveats about the risks of overexposure. The medical editor also suggests that even with adequate diet and sun exposure, supplements are likely to be necessary.
There would have been nothing wrong with the medical editor briefly explaining the current findings and their limits–and then saying that he, as a doctor and medical journalist, has studied the issue further and makes the following recommendations. But by conflating the study findings with his opinions and recommendations he borrows the crediblity of the researchers yet oversteps their findings.
The role of vitamin D is an exciting area of study. There is considerable disagreement about whether a cause-and-effect relationship between vitamin D levels and health outcomes has been proven, about whether raising levels has benefits, about the safest ways to raise those levels and what appropriate doses might be.
Viewers should know about these questions. And they inevitably will want to know what they should do until the questions are resolved. But if they are getting recommendations that reach beyond current scientific evidence, they should be made aware of this.
The segment does not report on the cost of either vitamin D generally or D3 specifically.
The broadcast reports that women with low blood levels of vitamin D at diagnosis were 94 percent more likely to have their cancer spread and 73 percent more likely to die than women with adequate levels. But it fails to report underlying risk of death or metastasis.
Seventy-nine percent of women with inadequate D levels at the time of diagnosis, and 69 percent with significant deficiency, were alive without metastsis about 10 years later.
The segment is also silent on the benefits of the treatment recommended. In this case there are no proven benefits of this treatment.
The segment suggests large doses of vitamin D supplements can be harmful. The medical editor specifies what he believes to be a safe range.
But the recommendations regarding sun exposure emphasize the importance of getting adequate exposure without mentioning the considerable, well-established risks of excessive "dosing" of sunlight: skin damage and skin cancer. This is a serious omission.
The study upon which this report is based is a small, observational study that describes a link between blood levels of vitamin D at the time of diagnosis and eventual outcomes. This is not sufficient quality of evidence to justify the segment’s emphasis on supplementation and sunlight exposure as ways to mitigate risk.
By implying–without evidence–that taking vitamin D3 supplements can reduce risk or improve health outcomes, including for breast cancer, the segment invites anxiety on the part of women who are not taking the supplements.
This is essentially a single-source story, with the medical editor providing all information.
In this case, however, the medical editor’s overinterpretation of evidence exposes the risks of depending on a single source, no matter how well-regarded.
The segment fails to discuss other ways to reduce breast cancer risk. A healthy diet, regular exercise and refraining from alcohol can reduce risk modestly. Appropriate screening can improve outcomes.
The segment emphasizes the importance of choosing vitamin D3 supplements, and implies they are readily available.
The segment does not imply that taking vitamin D supplements or increasing sun exposure are novel approaches.
There is no evidence the segment is based closely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
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.