Vitamin D, The Surprise Powerhouse: Wonder pill. Really.
Reviewed By
Rating
Vitamin D, The Surprise Powerhouse: Wonder pill. Really.
Our Review Summary
This was a carefully reseached piece about vitamin D, following a scientific workshop on the subject. It was overzealous in describing purported benefits but did call for caution. The scientists quoted are all leaders in the field. The article would have been much stronger if it had not had so much hyperbole (“Wonder Pill. Really.” in the headline?) and was better organized. It should also have included information about potential harm and cost.
While it is true that by its very definition as a vitamin, vitamin D is a substance required by the body for optimal function, the article could have done a cleaner job of separating demonstrated benefits of vitamin D from some of the hyperbole. Educating about this vitamin, and highlighting some of the reasons why many people don’t have adequate vitamin D levels would have resulted in a more informative, balanced piece. It would have given the reader a frame work for thinking about what their own levels might be and what that means to them in terms of disease risk.
The story comes close to disease-mongering at several points. At the end of the article, a physician says that at his osteoporosis clinic, they “just assume that every patient is [vitamin D] deficient”. It also quotes a recent review as stating that vitamin D deficiency is “a largely unrecognized epidemic in many populations worldwide.” But the article also tempers some of the “excitement” about vitamin D by saying “Much of vitamin D’s potential is still just that: potential.” And the story included a section labeled “a call for caution” with a quote, “Too many people expect nutrients to work like drugs…That kind of approach is likely to lead to disappointment.”
Overall, the number of sources and perspectives was excellent, as was the citation of several studies.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
There was no comparison of the cost of foods with and without vitamin D supplementation, or for the amount of foods naturally rich in vitamin D needed to obtain adequate levels, or for the cost of vitamin D supplements.
Not Satisfactory
Most of the potential benefits from adequate vitamin D levels are not quantified. The story does present an estimate that 45% of deadly digestive system cancers could be reduced with extra daily vitamin D intake, but this is an opinion rather than an actually demonstrated benefit of treatment. The 80% reduction in diabetes in Finnish one year olds given vitamin D supplements does not provide sufficient context. (This was prevention of type I diabetes. The Finnish population has a higher prevalence of this disease compared to surrounding populations.)
Not Satisfactory
While there is a quote in the article stating that “it’s not especially easy for consumers to add large amounts of vitamin D to their diets,” the article also mentions that vitamin D can be purchased as an individual supplement. Although it is not possible to overdose on vitamin D just from sunlight exposure, excess consumption of vitamin D can cause loss of appetite, weakness, kidney stones, heart problems and even death. These were not mentioned in the article.
Satisfactory
The evidence presented comes from retrospective studies showing that people with different conditions (e.g. those dying from cancer, people with unexplained pain, or those with osteoporosis) are commonly found to have lower vitamin D intake or levels than others. The article did not elucidate that while these are interesting observations, they are not the same as data showing that increasing vitamin D intake alters the risk of developing these conditions. Including an estimate that “an extra 1,500 International Units of vitamin D each day could reduce the risk of deadly cancers of the digestive system by 45%” is merely an estimate and not a documented fact. But the story does give citations of several studies. And it does state that scientists don’t always find what they think they will find, calling for caution and citing the stories of Vitamin E, beta carotene, and Women’s Health Initiative results from vitamin C and calcium. So we’ll give the story a satisfactory score, with some hesitation.
Satisfactory
The story comes close to disease-mongering at several points. At the end of the article, a physician says that at his osteoporosis clinic, they “just assume that every patient is [vitamin D] deficient”. It also quotes a recent review as stating that vitamin D deficiency is “a largely unrecognized epidemic in many populations worldwide.” But the article also tempers some of the “excitement” about vitamin D by saying “Much of vitamin D’s potential is still just that: potential.” And the story included a section labeled “a call for caution” with a quote, “Too many people expect nutrients to work like drugs…That kind of approach is likely to lead to disappointment.” We’re wavering on this score, but will give the story the benefit of the doubt.
Satisfactory
Quotes from a number of individuals who were involved in the 13th Vitamin D Workshop, held on April 26, 2006, were included in this story, as well as a quote with a broader prospective from someone involved in crafting the current dietary guidelines for vitamin D. The number of sources and perspectives was excellent.
Satisfactory
The article mentions several ways for a person to increase their vitamin D intake (see above).
Satisfactory
The article included information about the body’s ability to synthesize vitamin D with exposure to sunlight containing UVB, or from foods rich in vitamin D, foods commonly supplemented with vitamin D, and vitamin D supplements.
Satisfactory
Vitamin D is accurately referred to in the article as not a new miracle drug, but a common nutrient and the “sunshine vitamin.”
Satisfactory
There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory
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