[kedean]

I felt like the article spent sufficient time on the idea that the explanation could be that healthier people simply have higher vitamin D levels, and that the vitamin D itself is not the cause. At no point did they choose a side on that part, the bias was only that they believe vitamin D is a promising avenue.

I really loved that the whole piece was informational, and not trying to convince the reader that Vitamin D is or isn't a cure or remedy for anything. It simply presented the available facts, the research, and the positives and negatives of that research. It even explained multiple aspects and positions of the debate on whether vitamin D supplementation is good or bad.