N=253 categorized based on their responses as
using “active coping” (medical care decreases anxiety) or
“avoidant coping” prefer to avoid medical care. This
grouping (and how it was determined) seems useful ... to see
who could benefit from anti-anxiety drugs or life style
practices that are thought to reduce stress, such as regular
exercise. Or who should "aim for the fences" with initial
therapy of indolent lymphoma ... instead of management?
Markers for higher-risk disease can be useful for guiding
therapy, but it doesn't necessarily modify the risk of the
disease to change the marker by supplementation.
Analogy: A low number of sea birds on the coastline
might be associated with the severity of a hurricane that is
approaching the shore. Releasing more sea birds in the area
would not change the behavior of the storm.
For a study to determine that normalizing vitamin D levels
improves the behavior of the disease would require a study
comparing this practice to observation. Please note,
it seems plausible to us (lay observers, non-scientists)
that supplementing with vitamin D could also feed the growth
of a disease ... if the disease is dependent on the vitamin
for its growth, which might also explain the low serum
levels of this vitamin in higher risk lymphoma?