This story helps temper some of the rampant health claims made for vitamin D with information about the nature of the studies giving rise to the enthusiasm. It is a step in the right direction for helping readers discern between health claims supported by actual clinical trials and those seen in observational studies.
People are bombarded with health claims and learning to question their basis – how strong is the evidence supporting the claim – is helpful for people so that they can make more informed decisions.
The cost of testing for vitamin D levels was provided. No information about the costs of vitamin D supplements, but we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this one.
The story did not contain any quantification of the potential benefits from vitamin D. On the one hand, the story mentioned about 12 conditions that might be helped. On the other hand, JoAnn Manson basically said we don’t really know where the true benefits will be until after the clinical trial is done. That was an appropriate balance or the story.
While Dr. Holick is quoted in this story as commenting that "…there is no downside to increasing your vitamin D intake", he is also a co-author on a 1992 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine documenting a series of deaths due to accidental overdose of vitamin D. The story did not give any weight to the potential for problems with over-consumption of vitamin D.
.
The story first presented the assertions of Dr. Holick that vitamin D supplementation had the capacity to prevent a wide range of conditions without substantiating his claim. This was followed by a more balanced explanation about the limitations of observational studies which have yielded the suggestions about the possible multifaceted roles for vitamin D in maintaining health.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Even the suggestion that conditions from Alzheimers’ to autism down to tuberculosis could be avoided with vitamin D supplementation was countered by another perspective.
Several respected experts in the field of vitamin D research and the epidemiology of disease were quoted for this story.
The story mentioned a variety of sources for obtaining vitamin D.
The story did mention various means to increase one’s level of vitamin D including supplements, fortified foods, and exposure to sunlight. It would have been useful to mention that vitamin D is commonly found in multivitamins, and many calcium supplements contain vitamin D as well.
The new 5-year NIH study on Vitamin D was emphasized.
Does not appear to rely 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.