The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the most important objection to the study is the fact that it conflicts with all the other evidence an earlier 1990 study conducted in spain found that among 25 000 births doses of vitamin a over 40 000 iu carried a 2.7 fold risk higher birth defects forty thousand i use a lot of liver remember but doses of vitamin a up to twenty thousand or between twenty thousand forty thousand carried a fifty percent lower risk of birth defects compared to no supplementation
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
1999 prospective study of 311 mothers who concerned who consumed one between 10 000 and 300 000 iu of vitamin a in the first trimester and a similarly sized group that did not supplement with vitamin a found no evidence of an increased risk of major malformations with increasing dose the median dose was 50 000 iu the group as a whole had a 50 lower risk of major malformations than those who did not supplement and there were no major malformations of in offspring born to mothers consuming more than 50 000 ius
1996 study five hundred thousand two hundred five hundred and twenty two thousand six hundred one births found that children of women supplementing with at least ten thousand iu vitamin a in addition to a multivitamin had a lower risk of birth defects than those women who did not supplement although the association couldn't the association was not statistically significant