This piece reports on an unpublished, observational study, which found that daughters of mothers who reported a high intake of vitamin D while pregnant have a lower risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS). This story has numerous flaws, the biggest of which was relying exclusively on the press release. Two other major flaws were not including the caveat that this research has yet to undergo peer review and not explaining the limitations of such an observational study.
News stories should use caution when reporting on research presented at scientific meetings. The results are generally preliminary and can change. Furthermore, it has not undergone a rigorous review process to make sure the evidence is sound. In short, the research might not be ready for primetime.
A discussion of cost is not necessary on this topic in this context.
The story only presented the results in terms of relative risk, rather than absolute risk (56% lower than what?). Additionally, the story suggests that daughters of mothers who drank 4 glasses of milk per day had a lower risk of MS compared to those whose mothers who drank 3 glasses of milk per day. However, we’re not told whether this difference is statistically significant.
We don’t know if any of the mothers who reported a high intake of vitamin D experienced adverse effects; however, it’s worthwhile to mention that excessive intake of vitamin D supplements is associated with harms, including nausea, vomiting, constipation, and weakness. Additionally, information about how to safely get enough sun exposure to convert vitamin D to its active form would have been helpful.
This story failed to point out the limitations of having the mothers answer questions about their diets during pregnancy many, many years after the fact. The story also should have emphasized that only daughters were included the study, and it’s unclear whether this same protective effect would be seen in males.
Furthermore, the story mentions that the researchers will present these findings at the upcoming American Academy of Neurology’s meeting, but does not explicitly state that the research has yet to be published in a medical journal. Unlike published articles, this study has not gone through a rigorous review process.
This story did not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of MS.
No independent experts were interviewed for this story.
There was no mention of vitamin D supplements, but the story discussed main sources of the vitamin, including milk, fish, fortified foods, and sunlight.
The story lists common sources of vitamin D, all of which are widely available.
The story indicates that other studies have found a link between vitamin D and MS.
The information in this piece was taken directly from the American Academy of Neurology’s news release. There is no sign of any independent reporting.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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