Anyone have this vitamin D study on PDF?

Kuko 4000

Graduate Poster
Kuko 4000
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
1,586
Kuko 4000 said:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Journal of Infectious Diseases:

I'd like to take a closer look at the full paper. Some (S)CAM proponents I know are going gaga over this and I'd like to see what's going on.
Click to expand...

I don't have the paper, but could get it today. I just wanted to comment that this is yet another example of a negative study presented as though it were positive (based on the Reuters article and the trial registry information). The primary outcome measure showed no differences between the two groups.

Linda
 
Capsid said:
Yes I can access it, PM me your email address and I can send it to you.
Why are SCAM proponents excited about this?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. What does this have to do with SCAM?

Linda
 
From the Reuters article:

At the end of the study, the researchers found no clear difference between the two groups in the average number of days missed from duty due to a respiratory infection -- which included bronchitis, sinus infections, pneumonia, ear infections and sore throat.

On average, men who took vitamin D missed about two days from duty because of a respiratory infection, compared with three days in the placebo group. That difference was not significant in statistical terms.

However, men in the vitamin D group were more likely to have no days missed from work due to a respiratory illness.

Overall, 51 percent remained "healthy" throughout the six-month study, versus 36 percent of the placebo group, the researchers report.

The findings, Laaksi said, offer "some evidence" of a benefit from vitamin D against respiratory infections.

Still, the extent of the benefit was not clear. While recruits in the vitamin group were more likely to have no days missed from duty, they were no less likely to report having cold-like symptoms at some point during the study period.
Click to expand...


Am I reading this correctly?

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when it comes to missed work / duty days. And this sentence:


However, men in the vitamin D group were more likely to have no days missed from work due to a respiratory illness.
Click to expand...


...is just repeating the same (non significant) result in different words.

And isn't this pretty much a deal breaker?

...they were no less likely to report having cold-like symptoms at some point during the study period.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Capsid, check your PM!

Linda and Capsid, the (S)CAM crowd has been hailing vitamin D as the answer to pretty much every possible condition from influenza (edit: in particular regarding the "swine flu" and opting for vitamin D instead of the vaccine) to cancer to ageing, this study was presented as follows in the Finnish main media:

Google translation of the article (I know it's bad, but you'll get the gist):

http://translate.googleusercontent....&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhiC4hi1q3_9aZ6IHo9Reg_5UwysJg

Study: Vitamin D improve the resistance

The study found that a good level of vitamin D reduced the risk of developing respiratory infection.

Vitamin D appears improvements are immune. Tampere University study found that a good vitamin D reduced the level of feeling of the risk of developing respiratory infection.

According to a study of vitamin D power based on the fact that it allows disease causing germs before they eventually die from the respiratory tract.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nutritional science should not be considered "complementary or alternative" medicine.

Vitamin D is the new "wunderkind" of the nutrition world though, and with good reason. Some recent articles, just from the last few months, from the non-(S)CAM crowd -


If you're in Finland and not eating A LOT of oily fish, or supplementing, I virtually guarantee you are Vitamin D deficient for much of the year (and that's at current RDIs, not the proposed increased one)
 
icerat said:
Nutritional science should not be considered "complementary or alternative" medicine.
Click to expand...


I agree. My point was that the (S)CAM crowd is now praising this study as demonstrating how efficient Vitamin D is in preventing influenza like illnesses. This praise that I'm talking about is closely linked to the idea that Vitamin D is a better protection to "swine flu" than vaccines (this was a hot topic not so long ago). I just want to see what the study shows and how well it matches the headlines and the praise.


Vitamin D is the new "wunderkind" of the nutrition world though, and with good reason. Some recent articles, just from the last few months, from the non-(S)CAM crowd -

Click to expand...


I know there is a lot of talk about the benefits and risks of vitamin D, thanks for the links, I will try to check them out.


If you're in Finland and not eating A LOT of oily fish, or supplementing, I virtually guarantee you are Vitamin D deficient for much of the year (and that's at current RDIs, not the proposed increased one)
Click to expand...


I tend to agree. What I'm not quite clear is that how serious this issue is to overall health.
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Linda and Capsid, the (S)CAM crowd has been hailing vitamin D as the answer to pretty much every possible condition from influenza (edit: in particular regarding the "swine flu" and opting for vitamin D instead of the vaccine) to cancer to ageing, this study was presented as follows in the Finnish main media:
Click to expand...

But not only does this study not test that claim (i.e. it simply tests its use in one condition - benefit in one condition does not, by even the remotest stretch of the imagination, substantiate its benefit in all conditions), it doesn't even support the claim that it works in one condition since the study did not show a difference between the treated and untreated groups.

And why is the use of a vitamin SCAM anyway? The discovery of vitamins and the ongoing research into their uses is clearly the product of medicine, not the product of depending upon informal observation, happenstance, and ideas formed through the use of imagination without reference to scientific discoveries.

I realize you're not the one making the claim, but I don't get this.

Linda
 
fls said:
But not only does this study not test that claim (i.e. it simply tests its use in one condition - benefit in one condition does not, by even the remotest stretch of the imagination, substantiate its benefit in all conditions), it doesn't even support the claim that it works in one condition since the study did not show a difference between the treated and untreated groups.
Click to expand...

(My italics)

Yeah, but I guess this is too difficult to grasp intuitively for the people I'm trying to communicate with.

And why is the use of a vitamin SCAM anyway?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't think I get your point? In this case, I suspect the fault is at my end.
 
Kuko 4000 said:
(Sorry, I don't think I get your point? In this case, I suspect the fault is at my end.
Click to expand...

SCAM is therapy which avoids evaluation on the basis of evidence (i.e. it is therapy which evidence demonstrates (or at least suggests) to be useless and/or harmful). So why would they laud the use of a therapy on the basis of evidence as though it has anything to do with their choice of therapies based on disregarding the evidence?

Linda
 
fls said:
SCAM is therapy which avoids evaluation on the basis of evidence (i.e. it is therapy which evidence demonstrates (or at least suggests) to be useless and/or harmful). So why would they laud the use of a therapy on the basis of evidence as though it has anything to do with their choice of therapies based on disregarding the evidence?

Linda
Click to expand...


Oh, you were just pointing out the double standard and not really asking anything :o
 
Kuko 4000 said:
I agree. My point was that the (S)CAM crowd is now praising this study as demonstrating how efficient Vitamin D is in preventing influenza like illnesses. This praise that I'm talking about is closely linked to the idea that Vitamin D is a better protection to "swine flu" than vaccines (this was a hot topic not so long ago). I just want to see what the study shows and how well it matches the headlines and the praise.
Click to expand...

Well, they're probably not wrong about Vitamin D protecting against influenza, though whether it's better protection is up for debate. Some recent studies.


A slightly older study -


Some interesting anecdotal info on D and swine flu -


Given Finland has suspended use of the H1N1 vaccine due to a potential link to narcolepsy, I can understand why some might consider Vitamin D a better option.

I'd note though that it's likely not that Vitamin D per se helps prevents influenza infection, more that a health immune system prevents influenza infection, and a healthy immune system needs Vitamin D to function. Unfortunately research that takes such a systematic approach is difficult, if not impossible, to design well. Still, there's a lot of prime facie outright rubbish in nutritional research due to ignoring this. Recently a study came out testing whether supplementing margarine with omega-3 protects heart attack victims against further heart attacks.

The answer was no. Well duh! It's well established that omega-6 and omega-3 have competitive metabolic pathways, and most people today have way too much omega-6 in the diet, meaning omega-3 processing is inefficient, even if you have plenty in your diet. Margarine is usually chock full of omega-6! This is like testing if walking helps you lose weight by getting people to walk to the local McDonald's to buy a burger. Just plain stupid, I can't imagine what the researchers were thinking.
 
Thanks to Capsid :thanks I've now got the study raised in the OP. The first thing I noticed, is that by the standards the authors themselves report (80nmol/L), both the placebo and intervention groups were D inefficent both at the start of the study (78.7nmol/L and 74.4 nmol/L) as well as the end (71.6nmol/L and 51.3nmol/L)

In other words, as the authors themselves point out, the intervention group never even reached the minimal levels considered necessary for normal functioning with supplementation, and that's without the fact there's good reason to believe the ideal level should be at least 88nmol/L.
 
icerat said:
Well, they're probably not wrong about Vitamin D protecting against influenza, though whether it's better protection is up for debate. Some recent studies.


A slightly older study -


Some interesting anecdotal info on D and swine flu -


Given Finland has suspended use of the H1N1 vaccine due to a potential link to narcolepsy, I can understand why some might consider Vitamin D a better option.

I'd note though that it's likely not that Vitamin D per se helps prevents influenza infection, more that a health immune system prevents influenza infection, and a healthy immune system needs Vitamin D to function. Unfortunately research that takes such a systematic approach is difficult, if not impossible, to design well. Still, there's a lot of prime facie outright rubbish in nutritional research due to ignoring this. Recently a study came out testing whether supplementing margarine with omega-3 protects heart attack victims against further heart attacks.

The answer was no. Well duh! It's well established that omega-6 and omega-3 have competitive metabolic pathways, and most people today have way too much omega-6 in the diet, meaning omega-3 processing is inefficient, even if you have plenty in your diet. Margarine is usually chock full of omega-6! This is like testing if walking helps you lose weight by getting people to walk to the local McDonald's to buy a burger. Just plain stupid, I can't imagine what the researchers were thinking.
Click to expand...


I hear you icerat, I'm interested in this as well, but given how much credit they give to vitamin D overall and how much they oppose vaccines I am careful to look at every study they bring up to the best of my abilities. In this case it seems the study they were hyping up has much ado about nothing. What's even more important is the poor coverage of this study in the main media...

...speaking of which, I was the one who started the narcolepsy-thread here. And that's recent news compared to what I meant, the (S)CAM crowd were pushing all kinds of misinformation regarding the dangers and overall safety profile of the "swine flu" vaccine weeks before it became available for the population here. It was then when they recommended taking vitamin D instead of the vaccine. For all the wrong reasons.

I will again bookmark your links and try to make sense of them, thanks, always interested. And I agree, vitamin D looks promising, but afaik, the knowledge is still pretty limited compared to the strength of the (S)CAM crowds claims. This is the latest info that I've ingested about vitamins and health:

http://www.skepticallyspeaking.com/episodes?search=vitamins

Pharmacist and blogger Scott Gavura returns to give us the evidence-based perspective on vitamins and the claims that are made about them. Which ones are beneficial, which ones are bunk, and how is this billion-dollar industry regulated?
Click to expand...
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Oh, you were just pointing out the double standard and not really asking anything :o
Click to expand...

Sorry. It was a rhetorical question mostly just to complain and on the off-chance someone had some insight.

Linda
 
Anyway: Is there no piracy issue, here? I assume I can not ask for anybody to send me a copy of Avatar in 3D without getting in trouble with some moderator, right?
 
Ririon said:
Anyway: Is there no piracy issue, here? I assume I can not ask for anybody to send me a copy of Avatar in 3D without getting in trouble with some moderator, right?
Click to expand...
Not sure on this, but you can email the corresponding author for a free reprint.
 
Ririon said:
Anyway: Is there no piracy issue, here? I assume I can not ask for anybody to send me a copy of Avatar in 3D without getting in trouble with some moderator, right?
Click to expand...

That's a somewhat controversial question! UofC says permissions not required for "fair use", and that can include "non-profit educational use" - the question is whether what we're doing falls under that criteria. They have an online system for requesting reprints, including permission to email an article, but it has for example this compulsory question, with the following available answers -

For whom are you ordering?
*for profit company
*not-for-profit company
*author
*academic institution

We don't fit into any of those categories! I'm guessing this would be considered "personal use", but afaik it's really never been legally settled.

Bizarrely, if you download the article direct, it costs $15. If you are one of the above and want to email it to someone, the right costs $23!

Or, according to the paper itself, you can just email the author for a copy. I'm guessing he must hold the rights? Capsid or FLS may have more knowledge on this, I've been out of academia since before PDFs of journal articles became commonly available.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom