Is this actually real? I don't see any link to a study. The use of AI has me suspect, as does visiting the main page of the site and seeing: "A 365º view of your heart health" I guess that could be intentional but it comes off as someone mistaking days in a year with degrees in a circle.

▲ canucker2016 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

FTA under "TARGET-D study Caveats"

  There are two main caveats to the TARGET-D study. First, this was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, but the full manuscript isn’t out yet. It’s possible the results will end up not being statistically significant, having a methodological flaw, and so on. In the presented results, the reduction in heart attack risk was statistically significant but the change in overall death and stroke risk had a p value > 0.05. Second, while Vitamin D seems to be an effective intervention to reduce heart attack risk, we don’t yet know whether Vitamin D is an independent marker of heart disease risk or whether it’s reflecting known mechanisms such as inflammation and calcification.

	▲	shevy-java 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> but the full manuscript isn’t out yet. Aww that's bad. I remember years ago they claimed that a bacterium was using arsenic instead of phosphorus - turns out the data they produced was all made up: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1197258 This was here in this article most likely not the case, I assume, but still it is bad to talk about the data without having published the article already.

▲ suprjami 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One web search away. It was apparently a conference presentation but is well reported in medical media:

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/heart-attack-risk-halved-in-...

https://www.hcplive.com/view/target-d-optimized-vitamin-d-do...

▲ brandonb 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The 365º view of your heart health was supposed to be a joke. Although not necessarily a good one. :)

The study was presented at the AHA scientific sessions; full manuscript isn't out yet. It's in the caveats section in the article.