vitamin D religion called into question

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

vitamin D religion called into question

Postby Braininvat on May 12th, 2017, 9:57 am 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/heal ... ments.html

NoShips has addressed the resemblance of some scientific theories to a religion. This may be a fair example of what he is referring to. Sounds like some very weak evidence was cherry-picked and then some correlations were elevated to the status of factual conclusions.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5765
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby Heavy_Water on May 12th, 2017, 2:05 pm 

Braininvat » May 12th, 2017, 8:57 am wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/health/vitamin-d-deficiency-supplements.html

NoShips has addressed the resemblance of some scientific theories to a religion. This may be a fair example of what he is referring to. Sounds like some very weak evidence was cherry-picked and then some correlations were elevated to the status of factual conclusions.



Science, when practiced by the Empircal Method, in the manner in which ii is supposed to be prcaticed, has not tenets at all which can be categorized as meeting the requirements of being a "religion."

Do unscrupulous and just lazy and self-serving men of science sometimes fail to follow the rules of the true scientific method? Sure. Do some scientists have personal agendas? Sure.

Just like any Institution, Science has its share of Corrupt Practices.

But, again, this in no way relegates it to being in any way synonymous with religion.

To find an article where it does, as you might have done, is in itself Cherry Picking.

Doubt me?

Name any Industry or Institution, one you may think is bereft of Corruption, and I will find you an instance of corrupt practice. Or even religious-type dynamics.
User avatar
Heavy_Water
Banned User
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 02 May 2017
Location: Texas


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby Braininvat on May 12th, 2017, 2:13 pm 

Do unscrupulous and just lazy and self-serving men of science sometimes fail to follow the rules of the true scientific method? Sure. Do some scientists have personal agendas? Sure.


That was really what I was saying. You apparently heard something else. If you think I was attacking sound science and scrupulous methodology, you clearly have read few of my past postings. Not a problem, but the point was really that some scientists, and perhaps some overexcited science journalists, had gotten too dogmatic about the wonders of vitamin D.

I was really tossing a bone to NoShips who, if you've read any of his threads, has been pointing out areas of science where seemingly solid theories have revealed shaky foundations.

If you read carefully, you might have gleaned that I was making a point about the virtue of science, which is that the article bears witness to a faulty orthodox view being shot down by good skepticial inquiry and fresher evidence.

Hope this corrects any misunderstanding concerning the thread or the OP intent.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5765
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby zetreque on May 12th, 2017, 4:55 pm 

I've read two books entirely about vitamin D that cited numerous studies and done my own research. That NYT article leaves much to be desired. Reading it has a similar feel to climate change skeptics.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3130
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby zetreque on May 12th, 2017, 5:07 pm 

Interesting

Questionable. Looks like the journalist cherry picks studies that cherry pick studies.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Gina_Kolata
While describing her coverage of pure science as "terrific" and her reporting of mathematics similarly "with one exception", he found fault with her environmental reporting. In an interview Dowie described her reporting on broad environmental topics as being characterised by "a hard, pro-technology, pro-corporate line on products or issues that are very controversial: silicone breast implants, irradiated food, experimental AIDS drugs, and breast cancer. In fact, Gina took a strong position that breast cancer has no environmental etiology at all, and took every opportunity to make that point even as her sister, Judy, was struggling with breast cancer. Gina reviewed "Rachel’s Daughters," a film made on breast cancer, and strongly criticized the film’s inquiry of environmental causes." [12]

Dowie described that on investigating the sample of Kolata's stories and contacting her named sources he found that "there were many she had, in fact, interviewed at great length and had not included in the stories. I’m not saying she’s a dishonest person, but I am saying she has practiced dishonest journalism and wasted a great talent in those stories."


While the NYT's science editors had been provided with a statement by a senior environmental health researcher supporting the authors hypothesis and recommendation. "If she saw them, Kolata ignored them all. Instead she repeatedly misstated the authors’ conclusions in terms that echoed the twenty-two-page press advisory circulated by the Chemical Manufacturers Association." [16] Dowie notes that many scientists complained about Kolata's coverage but none were printed.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3130
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby Braininvat on May 12th, 2017, 7:21 pm 

zetreque » May 12th, 2017, 1:55 pm wrote:I've read two books entirely about vitamin D that cited numerous studies and done my own research. That NYT article leaves much to be desired. Reading it has a similar feel to climate change skeptics.


Well, I looked at some of her cites, like this...

http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx

...and they seemed like useful digests of the current research. If she has overlooked things, and your other quoted material certainly raises that possibility, then I think it would be good to have some rival opinions from reputable sources. As long as there is healthy debate on the data and what it says or doesn't say, then this thread should serve some useful purpose. It's clear there is a point where vit. D intake can be excessive, so I would welcome any research that might pinpoint where the consumer needs to be cautious.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5765
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby zetreque on May 12th, 2017, 7:48 pm 

It's been a while since I was investigating this but the only case of over-consumption I remember was one in which a doctor or was sued for mislabeling the dosage or something. It seemed incredibly hard to overdose on vitamin D. It sounded like someone would have to be taking 100,000 IU a day.

That NYT article isn't worth more than toilet paper to me. The only real way to get into anything is to really dig in the research for yourself which takes a lot of time.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3130
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby SciameriKen on May 12th, 2017, 8:32 pm 

Braininvat » Fri May 12, 2017 1:57 pm wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/health/vitamin-d-deficiency-supplements.html

NoShips has addressed the resemblance of some scientific theories to a religion. This may be a fair example of what he is referring to. Sounds like some very weak evidence was cherry-picked and then some correlations were elevated to the status of factual conclusions.


There has long been a battle between the institute of medicine and the vitamin D research community between drawing the line of true sufficiency at 20 ng/ml or 30 ng/ml, respectively. The IOM is basing their recommendation primarily on the necessary amount needed to maintain skeletal health and they find evidence for extra-skeletal benefits to be lacking. Large clinical studies have also not been supportive for the benefits of vitamin D - but the problem is there seems to be a lot of human genetic variability that will mislead investigators into thinking a person who is sufficient or insufficient when they are actually the opposite. The literature is very confusing when it comes to vitamin D.

For this reason we went for an animal model in our research since this would allow better control of lifestyle and genetic confounders - our research seems to indicate its the long term impacts we should be concerned with - insufficient for a month - no big deal - insufficient for a decade or two and you might have problems. Our research was looking at 10 ng/ml versus 30-40 ng/ml - so it really doesn't hit whether 20 ng/ml is sufficient or not.

Anyways, I think this article is going way overboard in their damning of vitamin D test and the craze that surrounds it -- but it does make a point - people have to be rational about this (don't slam more than 10K IU daily). Still - the test doesn't cost that much and could have huge cost and health saving benefits if you find a person who is deficient. I agree with Zet though - this article is way to negative
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY



Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests