This broadcast merely told viewers that an un-named group of doctors had determined that most people, including infants, needed more vitamin D than they were currently getting. It didn’t tell viewers who had come to this conclusion, how the conclusion had been reached, how great the danger was, or how much benefit they might hope to gain.
There was no discussion of the cost for vitamin D supplements.
While warning us of concerns regarding many of the common chronic conditions afflicting humans that may result from inadequate consumption of vitamin D/ or exposure to sunlight – there was no information about the magnitude of the risk of the various diseases mentioned resulting from low levels of vitamin D.
This broadcast did, at least mention in passing, that there were harms associated with excessive consumption of vitamin D and so one should discuss dosing of infants with one’s pediatrician.
There was little discussion of the evidence for the claims made. The viewer was only told that ‘a leading pediatrician’s group’ had just come out with a recommendation that higher levels of vitamin D needed to be consumed.
Considering that the broadcast mentioned problems with bone development, osteoporosis, heart disease, blood pressure control, diabetes, and ‘even’ cancer – this segment could be considered to have engaged in disease mongering.
The sole interview was with a physician/editor from ‘Health Magazine’. But why was that person chosen? Why not someone from the American Academy of Pediatrics – only referred to as either "They" or "A leading pediatrician’s group"? This does not allow a viewer to gather more information from the group issuing the recommendation. The broadcast did not provide any information about the quality of the evidence leading to the conclusions presented.
In passing, exposure to sunlight, vitamin D fortified milk and orange juice, as well as dietary supplements were mentioned as means of obtaining adequate amounts of vitamin D. However, there was no discussion as to how one assesses whether one has adequate amounts of vitamin D or not.
This broadcast recommended that breast fed infants as well as other who were not either consuming adequate amounts of vitamin D or receiving sufficient sun exposure use vitamin D supplements. It was not clear from the broadcast as to whether these were available over-the-counter or would require a doctor’s prescription.
The piece accurately reflected the novelty of the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation.
The broadcast did not rely exclusively on the press release from the ‘leading group of pediatricians’ as there was a clinician interviewed as part of the segment.
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.