I can only speak for my results on VitD. I take that, magnesium and CoQ10 most every day except not in summer. In summer I keep a vigilant eye on the sun. It will be out in the a.m. and gone by noon followed by 3 day chemtrail, totally intermittent, never can rely on weather reports, so I take what I can get. I haven't had a sniffle in 10 years.
It's truly astounding the wellness I feel being in the sun. Sadly, chemtrails are the law of the land so I supplement more than half of the year. I guess I could test the worthiness of VitD by abstaining to see what happens to me and if my previous sickness returns, but frankly, I'd rather jump off a bridge.
Here is a very interesting article by a mainstream medical doctor who changed his mind about vitamin D in a pill and supplements years later. I can testify from my own example that after taking vitamin D every day for several years and still living in the circumpolar region of Norway, I experienced permanent damage to my spine and joints. I would never have believed that this was the result of vitamin D supplementation - but in the combination of ADEK with M2K7 it is known to every guru of altenative medicine that vitamin D cannot be taken alone. So I blindly believed it. Over the years I had literally turned into a post-mortem carcass, I was increasingly stiff, my spine hurt, my joints hurt. Despite working physically, I felt worse and worse - the problems had already started when I was working in an office and so I changed to manual work in the hope that the pain would subside. I was active and injuries occurred, such as an acute ankle sprain in the mountains, which took a very long time to heal, this then led to serious damage to the medial meniscus in my left knee, as I was walking down a trail for almost an hour after twisting my ankle. This in turn led to an arthroscopy and the cessation of my work as a plumber.
It was only when I stopped taking supplements mainly vitamin D in combination with ADEK. After time I discovered Grant Genereux's blog (https://ggenereux.blog/2024/08/11/ten-year-update/) - I highly recommend reading his description of his condition after 10 years on a vitamin A elimination diet - on the toxicity of vitamin A and an elimination diet consisting of salt, beef, venison or buffalo meat etc and water I felt relief and my started to get fit, slowly but it is getting better. The stiffness in the joints is disappearing, the pain in the spine is also gone. And now I get my vitamin D only from the sun, use magnesium oil, good salt and that is all as far as supplements are concerned.
Why is this expert recommending 1000 IU per day of Vitamin D when the dose to reach adequate levels for most of the population is about 8000 IU per day or more.
They made a statistical calculation mistake in a scientific paper and based the US RDA for Vitamin D incorrectly.
The year 2014 saw an unusual event. Two statisticians at the University of Edmonton in Canada (Paul Veugelers and JP Ekwaru) published a paper in the online journal Nutrients (Volume 6; Issue 10: pp. 4472-5) showing that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) had made a serious calculation error in its recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin D. Immediately other statisticians checked the Canadians’ analyses and found that, indeed, they were right. Together with my colleagues at GrassrootsHealth, I went back to square one, starting with a different population entirely, and came to exactly the same conclusion. The true RDA for vitamin D was about 10 times higher than the IOM had said. Not a small error. To understand how this might have happened and why this is important, some background may be helpful.
Background
An RDA is technically the amount of a nutrient every member of a population should ingest to ensure that 97.5% of its members would meet a specified criterion of nutritional adequacy. For vitamin D, the IOM panel determined that the criterion for adequacy was a serum concentration of a particular vitamin D derivative (25-hydroxyvitamin D) of 20 ng/mL or higher, and that for adults up to age 70, 600 IU of vitamin D per day was the RDA.
Both of those figures provoked immediate and unprecedented dissent from a diverse group of nutritional scientists, but the disagreement centered mostly around the IOM panel’s reading and interpretation of the evidence, rather than its calculation of the RDA. The Edmonton statisticians took the dissent a step further, showing that the actual calculation was itself wrong. Here’s what seems to have happened.
It’s this latter approach that the Canadian statisticians used. They took precisely the same studies as the IOM had used and demonstrated that the requirement to ensure that 97.5% of the population would have a value of at least 20 ng/mL, was 8,895 IU per day. Recall that the IOM figure was less than 1/10 that, i.e. 600 IU per day up to age 70 (and 800 IU per day thereafter). When my colleagues and I analyzed the large GrassrootsHealth dataset, we calculated a value closer to 7,000 IU per day, still a full order of magnitude higher than the estimate of the IOM, and not substantially different from the estimate of Veugelers and Ekwaru.
Why This Is A Problem
This is an important mistake, not simply because it shouldn’t have been allowed in a major policy document, but because IOM recommendations have important effects on a wide array of government programs. These include nutritional standards for US military, for school lunch programs, for WIC and many others, both in the United States and in Canada.
I posted in another comment what I saw from the Dr. Michael Holick podcast - summarizing it here also:
Dr. Michael Holick (the author of the 2005 book summarized in this substack) now takes 7000 to 8000 IU of vitamin D3 per day and has a blood level of 81 ng/ml.
Dr. Ben Weitz from the podcast describes a good dose of Vitamin D3 for the average person as 5000 IU.
Dr. Michael Holick and the other doctor (Dr. Ben Weitz) in the podcast describe 40 to 60 ng/ml as being a good blood level and say even 100 ng/ml is safe.
I'm looking for the dose that Dr. Michael Holick specifically advises to take for the average person and haven't seen it yet - I assume it is in the 5000 to 8000 IU range.
Here is another podcast from Dr. Michael Holick from 4 weeks ago that I need to watch:
Holick was actually the guy who put Vitamin D on everyone's radar screen. Any recommendation to increase D above levels suggested in the book almost certainly came from Holick's research AFTER the book was written. Like all researchers, he's on a journey of discovery, limited by financial resources needed to do the research. You don't research to find answers. You research to find clues, and analyze clues to eventually reach conclusions.
Some of the information, twenty years after the book was written, has become outdated. But the core message is as solid now as it was when Holick bravely wrote this book, which led to increasing everyone's awareness of the importance of sun exposure for producing Vitamin D. Like everyone who has ever challenged the scientific Gospel, Holick was initially crucified for his heresy. A lot of the funding for his D research from academia dried up as a result.
But now his heresy has become orthodox, and most people now think his formerly contrarian views are self evident.
"What I’m still wrapping my head around, though, is the difference between synthetic and natural vitamin D."
"Synthetic" vitamin D3 is technically not synthetic. @unbecoming, I'm assuming that you know how nearly all vitamin D3 is produced, but for those that do not, it is made by the process of removing lanolin oils from sheep's wool and then exposing that lanolin to ultraviolet light. When the lanolin is exposed to the UV light, a natural process of vitamin D production occurs and then the vitamin D is extracted from the lanolin and used as a supplement. There is a plethora of scientific data on the beneficial effects of vitamin D3 supplementation using so-called "synthetic "vitamin D3.
That being said, I'm sure there are other unknown benefits of exposure to ultraviolet light and the rest of the light spectrum. Sunlight exposure in general is a wonderful gift from God.
rats are give a huge dose compared to their bodyweight and have different biology and eat different foods compared to humans,
from a google search:
Vitamin D toxicity in rats can cause high levels of calcium and phosphorus, which can lead to kidney failure and other organ damage. This toxicity can occur from ingesting cholecalciferol, also known as activated vitamin D3, which is a rat poison.
This is long but should be helpful. It is from Butchered by "Healthcare"
THE SKIN CANCER CHARADE
I tried to become a dermatologist once. These specialists cleverly stay in their own world, avoid dealing with serious problems, and make a lot of money without losing sleep. It seemed like a masterful concept. I was an annoying young man, but through family connections and somehow conjuring a fragile veneer of charm, I got accepted into one of their most selective training programs. I thought this feat qualified me for the dermatologic lifestyle and wanted to spend my weekends hiking the Appalachian Trail. My mentors, however, thought I should spend 70 hours a week learning skin disease. After a year, they exposed me as a poseur and kicked me out.
I viewed it as a personal failure, but the whole time, I smelled something fishy. I was too close to see clearly and I had plenty of problems, so I could not put my finger on it. Like the dermatologists who were unsuccessfully trying to train me, I did not know the history.
The modern era for skin doctors started in the 1980s when the American Academy of Dermatology hatched a plan to contrive an epidemic of dangerous skin cancers. A Madison Avenue public relations firm charged them two million dollars to come up with the idea. The proposal was for them to disease-monger themselves from foolish pimple poppers into fierce cancer fighters. After this, they evangelized about patients coming to their offices to get a complete skin examination. This would supposedly prevent a plague of skin cancers. The USPSTF later exposed this idea as worthless and said the screening frenzy was promoting lucrative skin surgery rather than preventing cancer.
One ploy involved proclaiming the skin bumps they call actinic keratoses or AKs precancerous (dermatologists love names and acronyms). Many seniors have dozens, if not hundreds of these. Since then, armies of skin doctors have been billing Medicare for treating millions of AKs with liquid nitrogen devices resembling tiny blow-torches. Studies show that over half of all these bumps disappear on their own. Only one percent change to skin cancer after a year and four percent after four years, and these are virtually all slow-growing and easily treatable.
At about the same time, to handle this pandemic, dermatologists dreamed up the most expensive skin procedure ever seen, “Mohs” surgery. Many of these specialists bill Medicare hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for this alone. I have an acquaintance who does ten of these cases every Friday and gets paid about $15,000 each.
Patients spend up to a full day sitting around an accredited surgicenter operating room while dermatologists remove slices of their tumor bit by bit. They examine each morsel under the microscope as it comes off. A bill is submitted for each cut. There is another for processing each bit into a slide, and yet another for each look into the microscope. This goes on until they have removed all diseased tissue.
After this, the area is “reconstructed.” This involves a lot of sewing, sometimes in areas as small as a dime. Insurance pays more if this is performed on a separate day, so the patient often gets sent home with a hole in their face. Sometimes the patients get referred to plastic surgeons, who may use surgical center charges and other tricks to make even more money. In return, the plastics try to dig up skin cancer cases to send to dermatologists for Mohs treatment. These get bounced back to them for reconstruction.
At first, dermatologists did Mohs only for selected patients using careful criteria. Some areas of the body are critical for function and appearance, and their preservation can be essential. For example, this procedure produces excellent results for skin cancers of the nose and corners of the eyes. Other tumors have an octopus-like spread with indistinct borders. Here, Mohs is used to remove just the tumor with as little normal tissue as possible. These issues have all been worked out by dermatologists and published in their journals.
The older methods involved scratching, burning, or cutting away skin cancers. The holes were often left to heal without stitches, and we would then follow the patient for recurrence. With the use of a greasy antibiotic ointment a few times a day, normal healing regenerates the skin within a few weeks. The results are typically reasonable, even on the face.
Although this is adequate for the vast majority of skin cancers, dermatologists now perform Mohs indiscriminately. Robert Stern, a Harvard dermatologist, said, “The decision to utilize [Mohs] is likely to reflect the economic advantage to the provider rather than a substantial clinical advantage for the patient.” He reported wide variations in usage by the practice and region and estimated that the costs of Mohs surgery in the US were $2 billion in 2012. A panel charged with developing reimbursement criteria produced vague guidelines that are used to justify almost anything. The experts who were making money made the rule—that they could do nearly anything they wanted.
Mohs is primarily used to remove basal cell or squamous cell skin cancers, which rarely leapfrog to other areas of the body. It is not appropriate for melanomas, which surgeons remove along with a sizable chunk of surrounding tissue to prevent these metastases. Mohs primary advantage is that it reduces the chances of having to perform a second procedure for local recurrence. It also allows the surgeon to leave as much healthy tissue as possible.
The older, much less expensive method is to have the patient return a few months after cutting the skin cancer out to be sure there was no regrowth. This follow-up check takes only a few moments if no further work is necessary. Subsequent removal procedures are usually easy.
Mohs surgeries are medically minor procedures that require only local anesthesia. But the fees are often higher than those for complex, lengthy, and hazardous general surgeries. Dermatologists spend money on lobbyists, who do their job defending exorbitant reimbursement for skin procedures.
Melanoma is the only skin cancer that routinely metastasizes and kills people. The dermatologists almost universally refer these cases to plastic surgeons for removal and then to oncologists for chemotherapy. Few skin doctors want to get involved with a fatal disease.
But when the dermatologists became cancer slayers, they began crying about the exploding numbers of melanomas along with the other skin tumors. As a result, they discovered so many that they made the claim that melanomas were increasing faster than any other cancer. This epidemic now seems to be on the point of slaughtering anyone who dares to walk outside in sunlight.
Left unsaid was that small, early tumors require only a simple procedure rather than an overpriced, supposedly complicated plastic surgery. Treating low-grade (thin) melanomas in seniors does not prolong their lives, either. However, once discovered, since progression into a fatal disease is unpredictable, they are cut off.
Because of all this, far more melanomas are being identified, but the total deaths are not increasing. Like thyroid and kidney cancer, the disease-specific mortality for melanoma has not gone up one iota (Worried Sick by Nortin Hadler). All the extra procedures to chase them, however, cost us time, pain, money, and anxiety.
The top line on the graph below is the number of tumors being found. The lower line is the number of deaths, which are unchanged (National Cancer Institute).
Melanoma
A generous observer might say that the above analysis has not entered the dermatologic consciousness and that there are no wrongdoings here. But the specialty’s ringleaders understand it—they orchestrated the entire thing. And they made the story terrifying through disease-mongering.
People over 85 years old get twenty percent of all Mohs surgery. Many are performed in the last year of life, and even in the last weeks before death. Demented people in nursing homes get frozen, biopsied, and operated on. These procedures hurt.
The skin doctors even got approval for a code to bill insurance for pimple-popping or “acne surgery.” During my training, when I reached a certain stage, they slapped the specially designed pimple extractor into my hand. I felt like a general surgery resident who was finally being given the scalpel to do my first appendectomy[1].

[1] Much of this material came from dermatologist David Epstein’s online blog and a 2017 NY Times exposé of dermatology by Katie Hafner and Griffin Palmer.
The information in this book is a bit outdated, twenty years later. But Holick was one of the first to open my eyes to how misguided a lot of medical advice has become.
Holick was the guy who started the ball rolling again on Vitamin D (beyond research more than a century ago into rickets), so it is wise to listen to him. Just beware that a lot of water has crossed under the bridge since the book was written. If this book had been a greater financial success initially, I suspect he would have created updated editions as his research progressed.
Sun exposure is important for more than just Vitamin D production. The infrared heat from the sun makes me feel as great on a 15 F degree day as it does on a pleasant 80 F degree day. Your body is crying out for more of it, not less.
Since I live in the north, sun in winter is pretty much a no go and even then the murder pilots are spraying crap in the atmosphere blocking sunlight if there is any. I am almost 75 and not really concerned about not getting enough "D"...haven't been sick in almost two years. I take no drugs and have no major medical issues.
I have had sun exposure many days during the warmer months for decades and have not used sunscreen for about 40 years and very seldom get a burn. My brother died from melanoma 28 years ago. People were telling me to be careful in the sun because it is a hereditary thing. Hogwash.
I think the vitamin D question is different for everyone. It is never a one-size-fits-all proposition. There are far too many factors involved that science, doctors and experts have no clue about. Most doctors still think "D" is only a grade you get in school.
Many experts are selling supplements and that is why I have cut back on them quite a bit. How do we know what is in all these supplements that mostly come from China and India?
Looking at the MSDS reports for all the chemicals in these things is a bit spooky.
No one can tell me how supplements make vitamin D. There is NO replacement for sun exposure. Fortified foods offer some vitamins and minerals but how much? No one knows how much a body absorbs, requires and wants. It's all a big fat guess like 97% of medicine and health. Too many conflicts, propaganda, lies, fear mongering and false assumptions to be worried about it all.
I have survived for as long as I have for some reason...don't know what it is. Sure I am not as old as my 97.6 year old father who never gets any sun, does not eat particularly healthy, maybe takes a few drugs and supplements, and lives on his own where he has lived for 70 years. No one can say how long a person should live. I am thankful for every day I wake up alive.
As there are suggestions that sun creams can cause skin cancer, some have been removed from market, I would suggest thst avoiding them altogerher. If you view getting sunburnt in a similar way to burning yourself with hot water you will find it easy to sun bathe. You wouldn't stand under a shower if it was too hot and you definately wouldn't get back in it the next day. Conversely you wouldn't avoid showering in hot water altogether. So moderate the amount of time you go into the sun starting early in spring and try to go out every day. Going to Turkey and lying out all day is just asking for trouble.
There is also evidence that sun cream is very effective at blocking vitamin D production. This matters as there are two types of skin cancer. The tyoe thst is easily treated is caused by excees sun exposure. The type that kills you is caused by lack of vitamin D and often appears in areas never exposed to sunlight.
I go to the dreaded tanning bed for 12 minutes a couple times a month through the winter, as an esthetician I have to keep it secret or risk losing clients but I feel and look better with UV - just do not burn your skin! They put a “tan tax” and all the fear mongering for a reason, it is anti-cancer of all kinds which hurts their agenda and biz model!!! 🙀🚫☀️👎🏻
You might want to take a look at the evidence showing that one of the significant risk factors for sunburning and skin damage that can lead to potential malignancies is elevated linoleic acid / omega-6 fatty acids.
#1. It is my current perspective that our Golden Sun has been and continues to be occulted.
#2. What is arrayed over our land and lives are synthetic white suns.
#3. These conditions explain a wide spread vitamin D deficiency.
#4. Natural vitamin D comes from fish, eggs, liver etc. how would these living beings receive vitamin D from the sun if human beings no longer are? Synthetic Vitamin D is brought to you by pharmaceutical companies, a no brainer.
#5. THE ONLY Fight in this matter is human beings learn the facts, demand transparency and demand the return of our SUN❤️... And the end of our murder!
We can discuss what a vitamin is or isn’t. We can also discuss the accuracy of tests.
Vitamin D isn’t a vitamin. It is a hormone.
I think it would be foolish to go to a pharmacy or Walmart and buy hormones over the counter. “Hi, I’d like a bottle of testosterone.” … “Put some adrenaline in my cart please.” Or “How about some of that T3?”
Dr. Tom Cowan discusses vitamin D and doesn’t endorse taking it. I think he’s right.
You know all that fun we’re having trying to isolate viruses? How do you isolate nutrients?
No nutrient stands alone. Not vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin B1, vitamin E or anything else. I think I read each plant may have as many as 10,000 nutrients in one plant. How many have been identified? Companies who produce supplements often have separated something without its cofactors. Then they synthesize it and call it healthy. It’s likely useless or harmful. The gut and liver have to process all this crap along with the crap food we eat, and the toxic drugs people take.
Vitamin D2 comes from fungal sources. That could be good or not so good. Vitamin D3 comes from sheep’s wool. It’s a “natural” substance, isn’t it? Do we eat sheep’s wool? I don’t.
How many of our processed foods are “fortified” with vitamin D and other bio-unavailable and often harmful substances? How many layers are there of vitamin fortification? Whether we’re talking about vitamin D, Iodine, B vitamins, minerals, etc. Vitamin fortification in the products made for humans and vitamin fortification in animal feeds (such as discussed in Dr. Mercola’s video on Iodine in animal feed and human foods.)
Vitamin D3 is found in some foods such as butter, eggs, grass-fed beef, liver, and cod liver. Animal fats are an excellent source of D3. Tallow, lard, and others.
“Vitamin D from liver, egg yolks, milk, cheese, fish oil, animal fats like tallow, and lard is always vitamin D3. Vitamin D3 is also much more biologically active in the human body. When sunlight strikes your skin, your body uses that energy to convert a cholesterol molecule into vitamin D3.”
Here are two guys discussing Light, Vitamin D, Melatonin, Circadian rhythms, Skin as the largest endocrine organ, cortisol rising with lack of sunlight… This channel has superb interviews with people who are way ahead of the medical muddles we’re in. (There are a bunch of annoying ads.) Cameron Borg also has a Substack with excellent articles, (requires paid subscription).
Dr. Michael Holick (the author of the 2005 book summarized in this substack) now takes 7000 to 8000 IU of vitamin D3 per day and has a blood level of 81 ng/ml.
Dr. Ben Weitz from the podcast describes a good dose of Vitamin D3 for the average person as 5000 IU per day.
Dr. Michael Holick and the other doctor (Dr. Ben Weitz) in the podcast describe 40 to 60 ng/ml as being a good blood level and say even 100 ng/ml is safe.
And they say problems from calcification or other problems from taking too much Vitamin D is way overblown. Dr. Holick says we get enough Vitamin K2 from diet and that supplements of Vitamin K2 are not needed but that he doesn't have a problem with people taking Vitamin K2.
He says in the video link below that 2000 IU Vitamin D3 is good for thin people and 5000 IU to 10,000 IU per day is good for overweight and obese people.
Here is another podcast from Dr. Michael Holick from 4 weeks ago that I need to watch:
I can only speak for my results on VitD. I take that, magnesium and CoQ10 most every day except not in summer. In summer I keep a vigilant eye on the sun. It will be out in the a.m. and gone by noon followed by 3 day chemtrail, totally intermittent, never can rely on weather reports, so I take what I can get. I haven't had a sniffle in 10 years.
It's truly astounding the wellness I feel being in the sun. Sadly, chemtrails are the law of the land so I supplement more than half of the year. I guess I could test the worthiness of VitD by abstaining to see what happens to me and if my previous sickness returns, but frankly, I'd rather jump off a bridge.
Here is a very interesting article by a mainstream medical doctor who changed his mind about vitamin D in a pill and supplements years later. I can testify from my own example that after taking vitamin D every day for several years and still living in the circumpolar region of Norway, I experienced permanent damage to my spine and joints. I would never have believed that this was the result of vitamin D supplementation - but in the combination of ADEK with M2K7 it is known to every guru of altenative medicine that vitamin D cannot be taken alone. So I blindly believed it. Over the years I had literally turned into a post-mortem carcass, I was increasingly stiff, my spine hurt, my joints hurt. Despite working physically, I felt worse and worse - the problems had already started when I was working in an office and so I changed to manual work in the hope that the pain would subside. I was active and injuries occurred, such as an acute ankle sprain in the mountains, which took a very long time to heal, this then led to serious damage to the medial meniscus in my left knee, as I was walking down a trail for almost an hour after twisting my ankle. This in turn led to an arthroscopy and the cessation of my work as a plumber.
It was only when I stopped taking supplements mainly vitamin D in combination with ADEK. After time I discovered Grant Genereux's blog (https://ggenereux.blog/2024/08/11/ten-year-update/) - I highly recommend reading his description of his condition after 10 years on a vitamin A elimination diet - on the toxicity of vitamin A and an elimination diet consisting of salt, beef, venison or buffalo meat etc and water I felt relief and my started to get fit, slowly but it is getting better. The stiffness in the joints is disappearing, the pain in the spine is also gone. And now I get my vitamin D only from the sun, use magnesium oil, good salt and that is all as far as supplements are concerned.
https://theconversation.com/the-sun-goes-down-on-vitamin-d-why-i-changed-my-mind-about-this-celebrated-supplement-52725#:~:text=Vitamin%20D%20mainly%20comes%20from,different%20and%20unpredictable%20metabolic%20reaction.
Why is this expert recommending 1000 IU per day of Vitamin D when the dose to reach adequate levels for most of the population is about 8000 IU per day or more.
https://www.grassrootshealth.net/blog/iom-miscalculated-rda-vitamin-d/#:~:text=In%202014%2C%20two%20statisticians%20published,Dr.
from this link:
They made a statistical calculation mistake in a scientific paper and based the US RDA for Vitamin D incorrectly.
The year 2014 saw an unusual event. Two statisticians at the University of Edmonton in Canada (Paul Veugelers and JP Ekwaru) published a paper in the online journal Nutrients (Volume 6; Issue 10: pp. 4472-5) showing that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) had made a serious calculation error in its recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin D. Immediately other statisticians checked the Canadians’ analyses and found that, indeed, they were right. Together with my colleagues at GrassrootsHealth, I went back to square one, starting with a different population entirely, and came to exactly the same conclusion. The true RDA for vitamin D was about 10 times higher than the IOM had said. Not a small error. To understand how this might have happened and why this is important, some background may be helpful.
Background
An RDA is technically the amount of a nutrient every member of a population should ingest to ensure that 97.5% of its members would meet a specified criterion of nutritional adequacy. For vitamin D, the IOM panel determined that the criterion for adequacy was a serum concentration of a particular vitamin D derivative (25-hydroxyvitamin D) of 20 ng/mL or higher, and that for adults up to age 70, 600 IU of vitamin D per day was the RDA.
Both of those figures provoked immediate and unprecedented dissent from a diverse group of nutritional scientists, but the disagreement centered mostly around the IOM panel’s reading and interpretation of the evidence, rather than its calculation of the RDA. The Edmonton statisticians took the dissent a step further, showing that the actual calculation was itself wrong. Here’s what seems to have happened.
It’s this latter approach that the Canadian statisticians used. They took precisely the same studies as the IOM had used and demonstrated that the requirement to ensure that 97.5% of the population would have a value of at least 20 ng/mL, was 8,895 IU per day. Recall that the IOM figure was less than 1/10 that, i.e. 600 IU per day up to age 70 (and 800 IU per day thereafter). When my colleagues and I analyzed the large GrassrootsHealth dataset, we calculated a value closer to 7,000 IU per day, still a full order of magnitude higher than the estimate of the IOM, and not substantially different from the estimate of Veugelers and Ekwaru.
Why This Is A Problem
This is an important mistake, not simply because it shouldn’t have been allowed in a major policy document, but because IOM recommendations have important effects on a wide array of government programs. These include nutritional standards for US military, for school lunch programs, for WIC and many others, both in the United States and in Canada.
I posted in another comment what I saw from the Dr. Michael Holick podcast - summarizing it here also:
Dr. Michael Holick (the author of the 2005 book summarized in this substack) now takes 7000 to 8000 IU of vitamin D3 per day and has a blood level of 81 ng/ml.
https://youtu.be/4ak24NtxhEg?si=4QzUIjcb8yXOl1UH
Dr. Ben Weitz from the podcast describes a good dose of Vitamin D3 for the average person as 5000 IU.
Dr. Michael Holick and the other doctor (Dr. Ben Weitz) in the podcast describe 40 to 60 ng/ml as being a good blood level and say even 100 ng/ml is safe.
I'm looking for the dose that Dr. Michael Holick specifically advises to take for the average person and haven't seen it yet - I assume it is in the 5000 to 8000 IU range.
Here is another podcast from Dr. Michael Holick from 4 weeks ago that I need to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IDsgmEIVdM&ab_channel=OsteoBoston
Would you recommend a particular brand of Vitamin D and K2?
Holick was actually the guy who put Vitamin D on everyone's radar screen. Any recommendation to increase D above levels suggested in the book almost certainly came from Holick's research AFTER the book was written. Like all researchers, he's on a journey of discovery, limited by financial resources needed to do the research. You don't research to find answers. You research to find clues, and analyze clues to eventually reach conclusions.
Some of the information, twenty years after the book was written, has become outdated. But the core message is as solid now as it was when Holick bravely wrote this book, which led to increasing everyone's awareness of the importance of sun exposure for producing Vitamin D. Like everyone who has ever challenged the scientific Gospel, Holick was initially crucified for his heresy. A lot of the funding for his D research from academia dried up as a result.
But now his heresy has become orthodox, and most people now think his formerly contrarian views are self evident.
watching a podcast by Dr. Hollick now, amazingly made only a few weeks ago!
I will report what I learn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ak24NtxhEg&ab_channel=BenWeitz%2CDC
"What I’m still wrapping my head around, though, is the difference between synthetic and natural vitamin D."
"Synthetic" vitamin D3 is technically not synthetic. @unbecoming, I'm assuming that you know how nearly all vitamin D3 is produced, but for those that do not, it is made by the process of removing lanolin oils from sheep's wool and then exposing that lanolin to ultraviolet light. When the lanolin is exposed to the UV light, a natural process of vitamin D production occurs and then the vitamin D is extracted from the lanolin and used as a supplement. There is a plethora of scientific data on the beneficial effects of vitamin D3 supplementation using so-called "synthetic "vitamin D3.
That being said, I'm sure there are other unknown benefits of exposure to ultraviolet light and the rest of the light spectrum. Sunlight exposure in general is a wonderful gift from God.
Very true and the humans who pretend to be Gods want to take it all away.
I believe most man-made vitamin D comes from China and maybe India. Do they go through this process? I have my doubts.
You might find this interesting https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/how-vitamin-d-is-made-from-slaughterhouse
Synthetic vitamin D is rat poison:
https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/vitamin-d-is-rat-poison-the-fraudulent
rats are give a huge dose compared to their bodyweight and have different biology and eat different foods compared to humans,
from a google search:
Vitamin D toxicity in rats can cause high levels of calcium and phosphorus, which can lead to kidney failure and other organ damage. This toxicity can occur from ingesting cholecalciferol, also known as activated vitamin D3, which is a rat poison.
Synthetic vitamins are toxins.
No way would I ever trust google anything. Poison is still poison and your body still has to deal with it no matter the amount.
This is long but should be helpful. It is from Butchered by "Healthcare"
THE SKIN CANCER CHARADE
I tried to become a dermatologist once. These specialists cleverly stay in their own world, avoid dealing with serious problems, and make a lot of money without losing sleep. It seemed like a masterful concept. I was an annoying young man, but through family connections and somehow conjuring a fragile veneer of charm, I got accepted into one of their most selective training programs. I thought this feat qualified me for the dermatologic lifestyle and wanted to spend my weekends hiking the Appalachian Trail. My mentors, however, thought I should spend 70 hours a week learning skin disease. After a year, they exposed me as a poseur and kicked me out.
I viewed it as a personal failure, but the whole time, I smelled something fishy. I was too close to see clearly and I had plenty of problems, so I could not put my finger on it. Like the dermatologists who were unsuccessfully trying to train me, I did not know the history.
The modern era for skin doctors started in the 1980s when the American Academy of Dermatology hatched a plan to contrive an epidemic of dangerous skin cancers. A Madison Avenue public relations firm charged them two million dollars to come up with the idea. The proposal was for them to disease-monger themselves from foolish pimple poppers into fierce cancer fighters. After this, they evangelized about patients coming to their offices to get a complete skin examination. This would supposedly prevent a plague of skin cancers. The USPSTF later exposed this idea as worthless and said the screening frenzy was promoting lucrative skin surgery rather than preventing cancer.
One ploy involved proclaiming the skin bumps they call actinic keratoses or AKs precancerous (dermatologists love names and acronyms). Many seniors have dozens, if not hundreds of these. Since then, armies of skin doctors have been billing Medicare for treating millions of AKs with liquid nitrogen devices resembling tiny blow-torches. Studies show that over half of all these bumps disappear on their own. Only one percent change to skin cancer after a year and four percent after four years, and these are virtually all slow-growing and easily treatable.
At about the same time, to handle this pandemic, dermatologists dreamed up the most expensive skin procedure ever seen, “Mohs” surgery. Many of these specialists bill Medicare hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for this alone. I have an acquaintance who does ten of these cases every Friday and gets paid about $15,000 each.
Patients spend up to a full day sitting around an accredited surgicenter operating room while dermatologists remove slices of their tumor bit by bit. They examine each morsel under the microscope as it comes off. A bill is submitted for each cut. There is another for processing each bit into a slide, and yet another for each look into the microscope. This goes on until they have removed all diseased tissue.
After this, the area is “reconstructed.” This involves a lot of sewing, sometimes in areas as small as a dime. Insurance pays more if this is performed on a separate day, so the patient often gets sent home with a hole in their face. Sometimes the patients get referred to plastic surgeons, who may use surgical center charges and other tricks to make even more money. In return, the plastics try to dig up skin cancer cases to send to dermatologists for Mohs treatment. These get bounced back to them for reconstruction.
At first, dermatologists did Mohs only for selected patients using careful criteria. Some areas of the body are critical for function and appearance, and their preservation can be essential. For example, this procedure produces excellent results for skin cancers of the nose and corners of the eyes. Other tumors have an octopus-like spread with indistinct borders. Here, Mohs is used to remove just the tumor with as little normal tissue as possible. These issues have all been worked out by dermatologists and published in their journals.
The older methods involved scratching, burning, or cutting away skin cancers. The holes were often left to heal without stitches, and we would then follow the patient for recurrence. With the use of a greasy antibiotic ointment a few times a day, normal healing regenerates the skin within a few weeks. The results are typically reasonable, even on the face.
Although this is adequate for the vast majority of skin cancers, dermatologists now perform Mohs indiscriminately. Robert Stern, a Harvard dermatologist, said, “The decision to utilize [Mohs] is likely to reflect the economic advantage to the provider rather than a substantial clinical advantage for the patient.” He reported wide variations in usage by the practice and region and estimated that the costs of Mohs surgery in the US were $2 billion in 2012. A panel charged with developing reimbursement criteria produced vague guidelines that are used to justify almost anything. The experts who were making money made the rule—that they could do nearly anything they wanted.
Mohs is primarily used to remove basal cell or squamous cell skin cancers, which rarely leapfrog to other areas of the body. It is not appropriate for melanomas, which surgeons remove along with a sizable chunk of surrounding tissue to prevent these metastases. Mohs primary advantage is that it reduces the chances of having to perform a second procedure for local recurrence. It also allows the surgeon to leave as much healthy tissue as possible.
The older, much less expensive method is to have the patient return a few months after cutting the skin cancer out to be sure there was no regrowth. This follow-up check takes only a few moments if no further work is necessary. Subsequent removal procedures are usually easy.
Mohs surgeries are medically minor procedures that require only local anesthesia. But the fees are often higher than those for complex, lengthy, and hazardous general surgeries. Dermatologists spend money on lobbyists, who do their job defending exorbitant reimbursement for skin procedures.
Melanoma is the only skin cancer that routinely metastasizes and kills people. The dermatologists almost universally refer these cases to plastic surgeons for removal and then to oncologists for chemotherapy. Few skin doctors want to get involved with a fatal disease.
But when the dermatologists became cancer slayers, they began crying about the exploding numbers of melanomas along with the other skin tumors. As a result, they discovered so many that they made the claim that melanomas were increasing faster than any other cancer. This epidemic now seems to be on the point of slaughtering anyone who dares to walk outside in sunlight.
Left unsaid was that small, early tumors require only a simple procedure rather than an overpriced, supposedly complicated plastic surgery. Treating low-grade (thin) melanomas in seniors does not prolong their lives, either. However, once discovered, since progression into a fatal disease is unpredictable, they are cut off.
Because of all this, far more melanomas are being identified, but the total deaths are not increasing. Like thyroid and kidney cancer, the disease-specific mortality for melanoma has not gone up one iota (Worried Sick by Nortin Hadler). All the extra procedures to chase them, however, cost us time, pain, money, and anxiety.
The top line on the graph below is the number of tumors being found. The lower line is the number of deaths, which are unchanged (National Cancer Institute).
Melanoma
A generous observer might say that the above analysis has not entered the dermatologic consciousness and that there are no wrongdoings here. But the specialty’s ringleaders understand it—they orchestrated the entire thing. And they made the story terrifying through disease-mongering.
People over 85 years old get twenty percent of all Mohs surgery. Many are performed in the last year of life, and even in the last weeks before death. Demented people in nursing homes get frozen, biopsied, and operated on. These procedures hurt.
The skin doctors even got approval for a code to bill insurance for pimple-popping or “acne surgery.” During my training, when I reached a certain stage, they slapped the specially designed pimple extractor into my hand. I felt like a general surgery resident who was finally being given the scalpel to do my first appendectomy[1].

[1] Much of this material came from dermatologist David Epstein’s online blog and a 2017 NY Times exposé of dermatology by Katie Hafner and Griffin Palmer.
Henry Lahore's vitaminDwiki.com is the definitive source. His substack will give you the general idea rapidly. Here is an interview I did with him.
https://robertyoho.substack.com/p/269-doctor-tamara-santa-anna-and?utm_source=publication-search
We must supplement to be healthy.
The information in this book is a bit outdated, twenty years later. But Holick was one of the first to open my eyes to how misguided a lot of medical advice has become.
Holick was the guy who started the ball rolling again on Vitamin D (beyond research more than a century ago into rickets), so it is wise to listen to him. Just beware that a lot of water has crossed under the bridge since the book was written. If this book had been a greater financial success initially, I suspect he would have created updated editions as his research progressed.
Sun exposure is important for more than just Vitamin D production. The infrared heat from the sun makes me feel as great on a 15 F degree day as it does on a pleasant 80 F degree day. Your body is crying out for more of it, not less.
Since I live in the north, sun in winter is pretty much a no go and even then the murder pilots are spraying crap in the atmosphere blocking sunlight if there is any. I am almost 75 and not really concerned about not getting enough "D"...haven't been sick in almost two years. I take no drugs and have no major medical issues.
I have had sun exposure many days during the warmer months for decades and have not used sunscreen for about 40 years and very seldom get a burn. My brother died from melanoma 28 years ago. People were telling me to be careful in the sun because it is a hereditary thing. Hogwash.
I think the vitamin D question is different for everyone. It is never a one-size-fits-all proposition. There are far too many factors involved that science, doctors and experts have no clue about. Most doctors still think "D" is only a grade you get in school.
Many experts are selling supplements and that is why I have cut back on them quite a bit. How do we know what is in all these supplements that mostly come from China and India?
Looking at the MSDS reports for all the chemicals in these things is a bit spooky.
No one can tell me how supplements make vitamin D. There is NO replacement for sun exposure. Fortified foods offer some vitamins and minerals but how much? No one knows how much a body absorbs, requires and wants. It's all a big fat guess like 97% of medicine and health. Too many conflicts, propaganda, lies, fear mongering and false assumptions to be worried about it all.
I have survived for as long as I have for some reason...don't know what it is. Sure I am not as old as my 97.6 year old father who never gets any sun, does not eat particularly healthy, maybe takes a few drugs and supplements, and lives on his own where he has lived for 70 years. No one can say how long a person should live. I am thankful for every day I wake up alive.
if your father took vitamin D would he be healthier?
As there are suggestions that sun creams can cause skin cancer, some have been removed from market, I would suggest thst avoiding them altogerher. If you view getting sunburnt in a similar way to burning yourself with hot water you will find it easy to sun bathe. You wouldn't stand under a shower if it was too hot and you definately wouldn't get back in it the next day. Conversely you wouldn't avoid showering in hot water altogether. So moderate the amount of time you go into the sun starting early in spring and try to go out every day. Going to Turkey and lying out all day is just asking for trouble.
There is also evidence that sun cream is very effective at blocking vitamin D production. This matters as there are two types of skin cancer. The tyoe thst is easily treated is caused by excees sun exposure. The type that kills you is caused by lack of vitamin D and often appears in areas never exposed to sunlight.
I go to the dreaded tanning bed for 12 minutes a couple times a month through the winter, as an esthetician I have to keep it secret or risk losing clients but I feel and look better with UV - just do not burn your skin! They put a “tan tax” and all the fear mongering for a reason, it is anti-cancer of all kinds which hurts their agenda and biz model!!! 🙀🚫☀️👎🏻
There's a substack called Agent131711. He writes a lot about sythetic vitamines. Here's one of his posts for VitD:
https://open.substack.com/pub/chemtrails/p/vitamin-d-is-rat-poison-the-fraudulent?r=5c9y&utm_medium=ios
You might want to take a look at the evidence showing that one of the significant risk factors for sunburning and skin damage that can lead to potential malignancies is elevated linoleic acid / omega-6 fatty acids.
#1. It is my current perspective that our Golden Sun has been and continues to be occulted.
#2. What is arrayed over our land and lives are synthetic white suns.
#3. These conditions explain a wide spread vitamin D deficiency.
#4. Natural vitamin D comes from fish, eggs, liver etc. how would these living beings receive vitamin D from the sun if human beings no longer are? Synthetic Vitamin D is brought to you by pharmaceutical companies, a no brainer.
#5. THE ONLY Fight in this matter is human beings learn the facts, demand transparency and demand the return of our SUN❤️... And the end of our murder!
We can discuss what a vitamin is or isn’t. We can also discuss the accuracy of tests.
Vitamin D isn’t a vitamin. It is a hormone.
I think it would be foolish to go to a pharmacy or Walmart and buy hormones over the counter. “Hi, I’d like a bottle of testosterone.” … “Put some adrenaline in my cart please.” Or “How about some of that T3?”
Dr. Tom Cowan discusses vitamin D and doesn’t endorse taking it. I think he’s right.
You know all that fun we’re having trying to isolate viruses? How do you isolate nutrients?
No nutrient stands alone. Not vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin B1, vitamin E or anything else. I think I read each plant may have as many as 10,000 nutrients in one plant. How many have been identified? Companies who produce supplements often have separated something without its cofactors. Then they synthesize it and call it healthy. It’s likely useless or harmful. The gut and liver have to process all this crap along with the crap food we eat, and the toxic drugs people take.
Vitamin D2 comes from fungal sources. That could be good or not so good. Vitamin D3 comes from sheep’s wool. It’s a “natural” substance, isn’t it? Do we eat sheep’s wool? I don’t.
How many of our processed foods are “fortified” with vitamin D and other bio-unavailable and often harmful substances? How many layers are there of vitamin fortification? Whether we’re talking about vitamin D, Iodine, B vitamins, minerals, etc. Vitamin fortification in the products made for humans and vitamin fortification in animal feeds (such as discussed in Dr. Mercola’s video on Iodine in animal feed and human foods.)
Vitamin D3 is found in some foods such as butter, eggs, grass-fed beef, liver, and cod liver. Animal fats are an excellent source of D3. Tallow, lard, and others.
Dr. Ralph LaGuardia:
https://medicalunderground.substack.com/p/lard-and-tallow-the-surprising-benefits
“Vitamin D from liver, egg yolks, milk, cheese, fish oil, animal fats like tallow, and lard is always vitamin D3. Vitamin D3 is also much more biologically active in the human body. When sunlight strikes your skin, your body uses that energy to convert a cholesterol molecule into vitamin D3.”
Here are two guys discussing Light, Vitamin D, Melatonin, Circadian rhythms, Skin as the largest endocrine organ, cortisol rising with lack of sunlight… This channel has superb interviews with people who are way ahead of the medical muddles we’re in. (There are a bunch of annoying ads.) Cameron Borg also has a Substack with excellent articles, (requires paid subscription).
https://youtu.be/mHchf6LD8Ro?si=hW_r4bi9BArWt-3f
Dr. Michael Holick (the author of the 2005 book summarized in this substack) now takes 7000 to 8000 IU of vitamin D3 per day and has a blood level of 81 ng/ml.
https://youtu.be/4ak24NtxhEg?si=4QzUIjcb8yXOl1UH
Dr. Ben Weitz from the podcast describes a good dose of Vitamin D3 for the average person as 5000 IU per day.
Dr. Michael Holick and the other doctor (Dr. Ben Weitz) in the podcast describe 40 to 60 ng/ml as being a good blood level and say even 100 ng/ml is safe.
And they say problems from calcification or other problems from taking too much Vitamin D is way overblown. Dr. Holick says we get enough Vitamin K2 from diet and that supplements of Vitamin K2 are not needed but that he doesn't have a problem with people taking Vitamin K2.
He says in the video link below that 2000 IU Vitamin D3 is good for thin people and 5000 IU to 10,000 IU per day is good for overweight and obese people.
Here is another podcast from Dr. Michael Holick from 4 weeks ago that I need to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IDsgmEIVdM&ab_channel=OsteoBoston