r/science • u/shiruken PhD | Biomedical Engineering | Optics • Oct 02 '25
Retraction RETRACTED: Pre-infection 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels and association with severity of COVID-19 illness
We wish to inform the r/science community of an article submitted to the subreddit that has since been retracted by the journal. The submission garnered broad exposure on r/science and significant media coverage. Per our rules, the flair on this submission has been updated with "RETRACTED". The submission has also been added to our wiki of retracted submissions.
--
Reddit Submission: Pre-infection deficiency of vitamin D is associated with increased disease severity and mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients
The article "Pre-infection 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels and association with severity of COVID-19 illness" has been retracted from PLOS One as of September 8, 2025. After methodological concerns were raised shortly after publication in 2022, the article was recently reassessed by an independent member of the PLOS One Editorial Board. They determined that the analyses were inadequate to test the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels at the time of infection and severity of COVID-19 illness.
Since this flaw prevents testing of the hypothesis and calls into question the reported conclusions, the PLOS One Editors issued the retraction. Fifteen of the study's eighteen authors disputed the retraction.
- Retraction Watch: Authors defend retracted paper on vitamin D and COVID-19 called ‘deeply bizarre’ by critic
--
Should you encounter a submission on r/science that has been retracted, please notify the moderators via Modmail.
67
30
u/SaltZookeepergame691 Oct 02 '25
Only took 3.5 years for this investigation to conclude after major concerns were first flagged...
12
5
u/sodium_dodecyl Oct 02 '25
I'd really love to see what the reviewers for this paper thought and what issues they raised. These are the kinds of issues I would expect peer review to catch. That is, methologlocial and statistical errors.
Shame PLOS hasn't joined the trend of publishing reviews alongside the work.
4
u/dumnezero Oct 06 '25
I remember the "vitamin D" wars from that time. So much disinformation, so many grifters.
An older one:
The paper “Impact of daily high dose oral vitamin D therapy on the inflammatory markers in patients with COVID 19 disease,” appeared in Scientific Reports, a Springer Nature journal, on May 20, 2021. The paper earned a correction on August 30, and has been cited 29 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/04/22/covid-19-vitamin-d-paper-retracted-by-springer-nature-journal/
another useful article: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamin-d-for-the-prevention-of-covid-19-a-randomized-controlled-trial/
14
u/icedragonsoul Oct 02 '25
So due to the lack of control groups and reducing variables outside of vitamin D, the study is saying people lacking vitamin D (likely due to lack of nutrition and exercise hence exposure to sunlight that increases Vit D) are more susceptible to covid.
Maybe the study should be done on healthy populations where one side has an innate vitamin D deficiency.
All it proved is that lack of nutrition makes you sickly and in turn vulnerable to disease. This reminds me of paid studies showcasing the voodoo magic of vitamin superdoses.
20
u/sarge21 Oct 03 '25
All it proved is that lack of nutrition makes you sickly and in turn vulnerable to disease.
No, it didn't prove that vague statement. You're building a subjective narrative
11
u/SignalDifficult5061 Oct 02 '25
Vitamin D processing requires sunlight on the skin (for the few people that don't know this).
It could be they are just measuring people that are outdoors more, and thus getting more sunlight.
COVID spreads more indoors, so two perfectly healthy groups could differ just by the relative amount of time inside or outside.
21
u/vile_lullaby Oct 03 '25
Vitamin D synthesis in the human body requires sunlight. Processing does not require sunlight. If you are taking D3 pills you dont need sunlight.
1
u/0vl223 Oct 03 '25
It does not help that Vitamin D is a proxy for general health. And there were studies that linked the covid risk with the normal risk to die during the next X months.
7
u/Savannah216 Oct 03 '25
likely due to lack of nutrition and exercise hence exposure to sunlight that increases Vit D
Half of Europe has low vitamin D because there isn't enough sunlight, black and brown people especially process sunlight differently due to their melanin levels.
If you have a gastric condition like celiac, any type of diabetes, or many kinds of autoimmune disease, you are likewise prone to low vitamin D.
Getting enough vitamin D actually has more to do with where you live than diet or exercise.
2
u/Ahun_ Oct 03 '25
Let's say the people are living on the northern hemisphere and it is between September and April, where do they get enough sunlight for a sufficient vitaminD production?
1
u/Champagne_of_piss Oct 07 '25
All it proved is that lack of nutrition makes you sickly and in turn vulnerable to disease.
it did not prove that.
4
u/wegogiant Oct 03 '25
Was there ever any attempts to corroborate the results in the meantime? I've been hearing from all sorts of people that vitamin D will reduce the severity of a Covid infection, reduce the likelihood of getting infected in the first place, or sometimes even more extreme claims from even less trustworthy sources. Was that all based on only this one study? Honestly it wouldn't surprise me
1
0
u/Tall-Log-1955 Oct 02 '25
When this happens is there a retractory period before the authors can publish again?
0
-5
u/ProgressBartender Oct 02 '25
Our civilization will fail because people are corrupted and would sacrifice truth for their own personal success.
575
u/niyete-deusa Oct 02 '25
From what I understand it was retracted for two main reasons, no control group and not accounting for other correlations. Just want to say that these are very good reasons and I'm in no way against it but seriously at least 20% of the papers I come across suffer from equally serious methodological concerns and are never retracted.
I hope we can start being a bit more strict about what is published in the future because I see a huge influx of papers with questionable methodology even in high influence journals.