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.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.
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/heart-attack-risk-halved-in-...
https://www.hcplive.com/view/target-d-optimized-vitamin-d-do...
The study was presented at the AHA scientific sessions; full manuscript isn't out yet. It's in the caveats section in the article.