What the heck? I didn't misunderstand the study by only looking at the headline. The full paper confirms what I said in my comments.
My criticism of the study as possibly being of limited applicability (older, white women) still stands whether you only looked at the summary article or the original paper. That the PI agrees means that she knows her study is flawed (or let's say limited).
Read the other comments; people are taking it as if it applies to them. Some of the people voting this link up also may have thought something similar.
There was a suggestion made that it doesn't matter whether it's vitamin D by itself or vitamin D + calcium because you could just take both. My criticism was calcium isn't necessarily good, especially for men, because too much calcium is associated with basically bad nerves and prostate cancer.
What about what I said is a misunderstanding of the study or "failure" to lookup the original paper?
I didn't say you misunderstood the study. I said you learned that headlines can be misleading, which I assumed was new information to you given how much of a whiny little rant you felt you needed to give us about this instance of that fact.
My criticism of the study as possibly being of limited applicability (older, white women) still stands whether you only looked at the summary article or the original paper. That the PI agrees means that she knows her study is flawed (or let's say limited).
Read the other comments; people are taking it as if it applies to them. Some of the people voting this link up also may have thought something similar.
There was a suggestion made that it doesn't matter whether it's vitamin D by itself or vitamin D + calcium because you could just take both. My criticism was calcium isn't necessarily good, especially for men, because too much calcium is associated with basically bad nerves and prostate cancer.
What about what I said is a misunderstanding of the study or "failure" to lookup the original paper?