Featured

Junk Vitamin D-Knee Study Gives Junk Results

January 9, 2013 by admin in Science with 7 Comments

Does Vitamin D help alleviate osteoarthritic knee pain? I haven’t the foggiest idea. But neither do the authors of that study or any of the news media that’s done such shoddy reporting on it.

by Heidi Stevenson

Knees, by muffett68

Knees, by muffett68

The more Vitamin D is shown to be absolutely essential for health, the more junk science is done to try to show the opposite. The latest is a study purporting to show that Vitamin D doesn’t reduce knee pain or cartilage loss. Naturally, the news media is reporting on the results without any serious consideration of the study’s legitimacy.

The study, “Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Progression of Knee Pain and Cartilage Volume Loss in Patients With Symptomatic OsteoarthritisA Randomized Controlled Trial”[1], is so flawed as to be useless, but you’d never know it from the reports.

Vitamin D is known to be necessary for bone health. The study itself noted that epidemiological studies have shown that people with higher  levels of Vitamin D are less likely to suffer from knee osteoarthritis. Therefore, one must wonder why they did a study that was nearly guaranteed to get the results it did.

The study was randomized, double blind, and placebo controlled. That, of course, is supposed to be the be-all and end-all in modern scientific enquiry. As you’ll see, that claim has little meaning. It claimed to find no benefit in Vitamin D in people who already suffer from advanced osteoarthritis of the knee. So what was wrong? Here’s a list of problems:

  • On the 21-point pain scale used by the study, those in the Vitamin D treatment group were worse, at 6.9, compared to those in the placebo group, at 5.8. The treatment group also had worse knee function than the placebo group. It’s well known that differences at the beginning of a study in the groups being compared weaken the study, often to the point of invalidating it.
  • The goal was only to bring people’s Vitamin D serum levels up to 36 ng/mL. That level is indicative of deficiency. Unless people are brought to a minimum level of 50 ng/mL or more, no legitimate conclusion can be drawn.
  • No consideration was given to Vitamin K2, which acts in concert with Vitamin D, especially for bone and cardiovascular health. No amount of Vitamin D is going to be beneficial if K2 is deficient. This demonstrates how the typical narrow focus of such studies can so easily misrepresent reality.

In other words, the study is junk science, typical pseudo science designed to mislead, not elucidate. Here, though, are some headlines about the study:

It doesn’t matter if the news source is major news media or medical news media. The methods are the same: report the claimed results with little, if any, questioning. They don’t look at the quality of the study. They don’t look for design flaws. They point out the obvious, that the study addresses only fairly advanced cases of osteoarthritis, but that’s not a flaw in the study. It’s merely a limitation. But pointing it out certainly gives the impression that the reporting is balanced. The truth is that the news media just blindly spew out whatever is claimed, and sometimes add a little something to give the impression of being balanced.

Of course, they do this only when the results are favorable for the Big Pharma. The truth? Well, it’s obvious that the truth holds little interest for them.

So, does Vitamin D help alleviate osteoarthritic knee pain? I haven’t the foggiest idea. But neither do the authors of that study or any of the news media that’s done such shoddy reporting on it.

Sources:

  1. Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Progression of Knee Pain and Cartilage Volume Loss in Patients With Symptomatic OsteoarthritisA Randomized Controlled TrialJAMA, doi:10.1001/jama.2012.164487.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • DebbyBruck

    Blowing the socks off mainstream media reporters. They don’t investigate like Heidi. Basic scientific knowledge will determine logical conclusion.

  • Richard_2010

    I don’t see the point of this article. The JAMA study has strengths and
    limitations, just like any article that has been/will ever be published. It proposed to examine a scientific question/a hypothesis, and it took quite some efforts to put together that amount of data, I am sure. But I have a suggestion:
    if you have a better idea on how to design a similar study, then why not
    contact the authors (e-mails available on the JAMA site) and propose how
    to design their next study? Since you have so many critical observations, I am sure you can incorporate them into a proposal, a study protocol, and I am certain that after they include your helpful
    suggestions in their study, they will even mention your name and contributions in the Acknowledgement section if you are able to suggest a
    better way to design a future study.

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      Making any claims about the effects – or lack of them – when the serum levels of vitamin D were not brought up to non-deficient status qualifies as junk science. That’s beyond a limitation.

      • Richard_2010

        It is mostly your flawed comments (for example: you state as a conclusion something that the article does not, and thus you misrepresent the article) – THAT is what qualifies as “junk science”. And you still have not addressed my suggestion – I guess whatever is inconvenient, you chose to omit, it seems to be quite a convenient approach. Exactly as the benefits of vaccination, which throughout history saved so many lives, yet you unfairly and ignorantly (with yet more of your junk science) disparage.

        • / Heidi Stevenson

          The idea that your making a comment constitutes a requirement for me to respond is absurd.

          You say that I drew a conclusion and then attack that conclusion as junk science – but I didn’t draw any conclusions. In fact, I did quite the opposite – pointed out that I don’t know if Vitamin D helps knee arthritis.

          I did, of course, point out that the authors of that study don’t know, either – but that’s because their study doesn’t demonstrate what they concluded. I also explained why it doesn’t.

          You rattle off claims as if they have some basis in reality – but they don’t, as my response here clarifies.

          • Richard2012

            1). My comment does not “require” you to respond – I simply made an observation, based on my remark and your ability/inability to handle it.

            2). Your response does not clarify anything – and it even lacks
            logic.

            3). You blocked me after I posted my previous comment, which was simply based on objective conclusions after reading your piece. If you are unable to handle readers’ comments, don’t have a web site where people can leave comments. Since you blocked me (under my previous username), I will not post again on your “junk science” web page. I simply wanted to convey the idea that your behavior is pathetic. If you cannot handle scientific comments, as I said, don’t entertain a site.

          • Richard2012

            Most certainly, I will not visit this site again, and I will advise those I know to do the same.

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software