The published subtitle of the article seems deliberately click-baity/inflammatory. “quite possibly even racist” When there are so many places where systemic ra

The published subtitle of the article seems deliberately click-baity/inflammatory. “quite possibly even racist” When there are so many places where systemic racism shows up in clear and demonstrable ways, why complicate your thesis with a completely unfounded assertion? In any case, like “code smell” this article has a “journalism smell.” Hand-waving, breezy style; over-identification with certain groups of researchers. And of course, cursory treatment of the evidence. He points out the lack of improvement in certain end-points among subjects supplemented with vitamin D. Who were the subjects? Randomized? Matched controls? Matched how? We’re any outcomes positive? In other words are we seeing evidence cherry picking of evidence? In fact so little is mentioned in the article that he may as well have given a list of PubMed links and just directed the readers to figure it out for themselves. I don’t know what the right answer is, but the only TL;DR from this piece is “There’s some controversy here.”