This is complete lying - a p value over 0.05 is non-significant. It means there is no difference between the groups, and therefore the intervention, in this case Xeloda, made no difference in overall survival. There is no tendancy for improvement in overall survival

VERDICT- Pants on Fire!

This shows between a 65% to 272% increased risk of miscarriage from use of common antibiotics.

The risk is being characterized as "small' - http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/health/antibiotics-miscarriage-study/

I'm not sure any pregnant woman would characterize more than doubling of the risk as small, and we can assume that if this data was shown for a natural substance, it would be characterized differently.

This is interesting in that it is techinically accurate - the difference between the groups was statistically not significant at p=0.06. "A new diagnosis of cancer was confirmed in 109 participants, 45 (3.89%) in the vitamin D3 + calcium group and 64 (5.58%) in the placebo group (difference, 1.69% [95% CI, -0.06% to 3.46%]; P = .06)"

The key points is that cancer is that only 5% of people in the study got a new diagnosis of cancer in 4 years, which is a small percentage, and yet the p value was very close to significance.

Now, non-signifcant is non-significant, however it is unfortunately incredibly common for studies to report higher p valiues as a trend towards significant, a clinically significant change that almost reached statistical significance etc. That the authors adhered so strictly to the standards for significance in the case of vtiamin D, where so few do anymore in other studies, is curious.

This study is one of a number recently that for some incomprehensible reason has decided that monthly dosing of vitamin D is perfectly fine to test. "Interventions Oral vitamin D3 in an initial dose of 200 000 IU, followed a month later by monthly doses of 100 000 IU, or placebo for a median of 3.3 years (range, 2.5-4.2 years)."

The conclusion from this study is valid only for monthly dosing, not for daily dosing.

Another example of a study that used monthly dosing and saw a negative effect in falls in elderly - http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7148

This is just a straight out lie, as well as an example of misdirection. There are an incredible amount of trials showing associations between low vitamin D levels and various diseases such as cancer, heart disease, depression. Randomized trials are not the only evidence. However, there are randomized trials - as an example - "Cancer incidence was lower in women who received vitamin D/calcium than in those who received the placebo (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.46-0.99; P < 0.05). When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first year, the HR for the group who received vitamin D/calcium was 0.65 (95% CI = 0.42 to 0.99; P <0.05). In proportional hazards modeling, both treatment group and serum 25(OH)D concentration after one year of intervention were significant predictors of cancer risk. Conclusions Supplementing with 2000 IU/day of vitamin D3 and 1500 mg/day of calcium substantially reduced risk of all cancers combined. This finding provides great impetus for improving vitamin D status through advances in vitamin D nutritional policy." https://apha.confex.com/apha/144am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/368368

Interestingly, the site they are linking to is the Vitamin D council, which gives very clear information on the benefits of Vitamin D. In this case they are linking specifically to an article on high levels of vitamin D that more so informs how difficult it is to become toxic from vitamin D, and that without resulting hypercalcemia, it is not likely an issue

I would argue that. There are over 70,000 studies in the literature on vitamin D, and many of them show positive associations between vitamin D status and various conditions. Too many to go into. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vitamin+D

This is a combination of several logical fallacies- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Vitamin D deficiency has been shown to be prevalent in people with fatigue, and correction of the deficiency improves the fatigue- "Results:

Prevalence of low vitamin D was 77.2% in patients who presented with fatigue. After normalization of vitamin D levels fatigue symptom scores improved significantly (P < 0.001) in all five subscale categories of fatigue assessment questionnaires.

Conclusion:

The prevalence of low vitamin D is high in patients who present with fatigue and stable chronic medical conditions, if any. Normalization of vitamin D levels with ergocalciferol therapy significantly improves the severity of their fatigue symptoms." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158648/

Of not also is that the researchers used ergocalciferol, the synthetic D2 form which is less effective than the cholecalciferol D3 form - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15531486 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21177785

Non-SPIN Conclusion- Topical application of magensium did not increase serum or urinary markers compared to placebo. Post-hoc subgroup analysis showed a significant increase in serum, but not urinary magnesium. Further trials with non-atheletes as an a priori hypothesis are needed to test whether this finding is valid, or a result of post- hoc analysis bias.

Subgroup analsysis post hoc are very problematic. According to the 2010 CONSORT statement- "Because of the high risk for spurious findings, subgroup analyses are often discouraged.14 185 Post hoc subgroup comparisons (analyses done after looking at the data) are especially likely not to be confirmed by further studies. Such analyses do not have great credibility." http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c869

If the difference between groups was not signicant, then there was no increase in serum magnesium compared to placebo. It is incorrect and misleading to say that there was an increase that was non-significant as by definition, if it is non-significant, there was no difference.