This TV segment on the American Academy of Pediatrics’ new recommendation on vitamin D misses a key opportunity to educate parents more about what they should do.
At the very least, the segment should have pointed people to their pediatricians for advice about how to implement the recommendations. Ideally, it would have also reported that:
It’s easy to argue that a significant new recommendation calling for a change in parental behavior due to an important health risk deserves more airtime.
But even if we accept that no more time could be devoted to this story, it’s worth noting that rather than providing useful takeaway information the segment spends precious seconds talking about uNPRoven potential benefits and risks linked to vitamin D that are a mere footnote in the report.
That’s an example of trading consumer value for sensationalism. That’s a lousy trade.
The segment should have said costs are negligible–but that the AAP is calling for state agencies to make the vitamins available through public assistance programs.
The story did not quantify the projected benefits from the new recommendation.
There are risks of overdosing, though the thresholds for children of different ages are unknown.
The segment should have mentioned this.
The report is based on a formal statement, which itself is based on high-quality science and published by a very credible group.
By mentioning prelimary evidence that Vitamin D supplementation "might protect growing bodies from asthma, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes," the story exaggerates the potential harm of not taking vitamin D supplements and the potential benefits of taking them.
Mentioning this very inconclusive, very early evidence simply wasn’t necessary.
Although the report itself comes from a credible source, we always look for a second, independent source on all stories.
The story briefly mentions sunlight as a source of vitamin D but doesn’t discuss other sources such as vitamin D fortified milk and orange juice, as well as dietary supplements
Since vitamin D supplements are now being recommended in this higher dose from the first days of life, the segment should have mentioned how widely available these preparations are for infants of that age.
The segment makes clear that the call for nearly universal supplementation at this higher level is new and significant.
While there is a press release associated with the report, there is no evidence the segment draws directly from it.
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.
You might also like