This was a report on a new study of vitamin D levels in children.
It fell short because it:
There was no discussion about the costs of multivitamins or that nearly all milk sold is vitamin D fortified. However, since we can assume that many people know these ballpark costs, we’ll rule this as not applicable.
The story did not detail the benefits associated with increased vitamin D intake or sunshine exposure. The segment could have included a brief statement about the health benefits of treating low vitamin D levels to decrease the incidence of rickets and osteomalacia.
There was no mention of the fact that excessive intake of vitamin D can result in harms (including death).
There was no evaluation of the evidence. It is important to be aware that this information is from observational studies and therefore further study is needed to clarify the cause(s) of the low levels of vitamin D observed and to determine what – if any – link exists between the diseases mentioned and levels of circulating vitamin D.
Low vitamin D level is not a disease. The list of conditions which the stoory linked to lower vitamin D status are common and can be caused by many other things as well. Subtle though this may have been (and we didn’t think it was very subtle), people don’t constantly need to be hounded that they are deficient in this and should be taking pills or supplements for that. That is disease mongering.
The segment only includes the perspective of one of the study authors. Vitamin D experts are not difficult to find, nor are pediatricians who know something about vitamin D needs. A single source story is not a good idea in health stories.
The segment briefly mentioned multivitamins, fortified foods, and sunlight exposure. Not much detail, but we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this one.
This segment makes it sound so simple – Dr. Synderman say ‘It means getting out in the sunshine for about 10 to 15 minutes a day without sunscreen.’ This statement is unfortunately woefully incomplete, rendering it inaccurate. The capacity to derive vitamin D from sunlight depends on the amount of skin exposed, race, latitude, and time of year. 10 minutes at the equator in June is very different than 10 minutes in Boston in November.
The piece also contained a recommendation about use of a multivitamin and the availability of vitamin D in fortified milk, so we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
No claims were made about sun exposure or supplementation being novel to prevent inadequate vitamin D levels.
Does not appear to rely exclusively 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.