Why I love reactionary journalism

[d_rawk]

Or: "how I learned to stop caring, and just gave the middle finger to the world"

USA Today headline (echoed by other publications): "Panel to postmenopausal women: Don't take vitamin D, calcium"

If you read the actual study that they are discussing, you find out some interesting things. For one, it followed people taking 200 IU of vitamin D - the RDA for vitamin D was for a long time set at 400 IU, but after overwhelming evidence that this was inadequate for North Americans, was raised to 800 IU with a suggested upper tolerance of 4000 IU daily.

What the headline should actually say is "Panel to postmenopausal women: you are probably taking a pussy amount of vitamin D, and it isn't doing dick. You need more - or get some sunshine, or something."

I find it irritating when people talk about health news and accuse "they" of saying one thing, and then "they" turn around and say another. It presumes a single authority. There are lots of different people, with lots of different agendas, saying a lot of different things. There is no single "they". In this case, as in many, it is telling to read the actual study and its conclusions, and compare that to the sensationalist headline. "They" suck at journalism, full stop.

I post this in the politics forum because it seems close enough to a politic rant to warrant it. Thank you for your time.

[Freak By Night]

"pussy" and "dick" are not words you want to be saying to post-menopausal women.

[d_rawk]

:laugh:

[SaggyBalls]

With the enormous amounts of Viagra and Cialis being sold these days, postmenopausal women probably like pussy and dick just fine, FBN.