SciAm - No benefit from more than 20 ng of Vitamin D (nope)
📄 Download the Scientific American PDF from Vitamin D Life
"National population sampling showed that most people were already getting enough of the vitamin"
"...most people probably don't need supplements"
"...noting that the majority of the population is just fine at 16 ng/ml."
"...Levels have actually risen since [2010]" Actually, levels have fallen
Describes the failure of 4 trials that used too little vitamin D
Does not mention the >700 successful Vitamin D Randomized Controled Trials (see below)
The IoM math mistakes made in 2010 and admitted to in 2017 have not been yet corrected
Vitamin D math mistakes made by the IoM in 2010 – K Baggerly 2016-2017
Mistake #1: % of cadavers with poor bones with 20-30 ng of vitamin D
8%, not 1% of the people having >20 ng/ml had bone loss, so the 20 ng/ml voted level was incorrect
should have concluded 30 ng, not 20 ng
Mistake #2: Not having enough data to conclude that >4,000 IU is too much (i.e. harm)
Mistake #3: Institute of Medicine used data only for bone health, but the rest of the body needs higher levels
Mistake #4): Incorrectly estimated dose needed to get 97.5 % of population to a vitamin D level
Vitamin D Life – Optimum category contains
{include}
Vitamin D TREATS Health problems: 40 ng ...150 ng
{include}
Vitamin D Life – Over 1,000 studies prove that Vitamin D works
{include}
35,000 IU vitamin D daily for 6 months helped ALL psoriasis suffers (106 ng) – Brazil March 2013
Fewer Health Problems if more vitamin D Pregnancy
Details at: Overview Pregnancy and vitamin D
253+ Vitamin D Life pages have 50,000 IU etc. in their title
Note: India uses 60,000 IU capsules
{LIST()}