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.
But you can still make a claim that it's probably in your best health interest to maintain good levels of vitamin D. And that because we know vitamin D deficiency is so prevalent that it's probably best to get a vitamin D test and measure your levels and take a vitamin D supplement.
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.
And like vitamin D is a good example of it's also one where I feel pretty good with you just taking vitamin D without a test. I ain't tripping if you're just like "Hey, I want to take vitamin D." Like all right, I'm I'm probably cool. Like what's the worst that's going to happen? Not much. Very limited downside. Strong likelihood you're low.