[LinuxBender]

It sounds like there are a ton of confounding variables possible, not to mention your own personal biases in interpreting any potential causality.

Absolutely 100% this. For years I was following the scientific method, reading countless papers on PubMed, binge watching videos from micro biologists and eventually reached the conclusion that if I continued down that path my progress would be paralyzed by the scientific method itself. To use those methods properly in a controlled manor would take thousands of years that I simply don't have.

In summary, I have long since dropped the scientific method on the cutting room floor and instead use the "shoot in the dark" or "shotgun" methodologies. I don't have to tell you this comes with many risks, but I have weighed the risks and benefits and concluded that this was the right path for me. Anecdotally I am very pleased with my progress. I have reversed many chronic health issues. I look and feel decades younger than I did a decade ago. That is of course my own biased opinion of which I hold in high confidence. I would never expect anyone else to do what I am doing nor would I try to convince anyone that I am doing the right thing.

As for the original topic of vitamin D3 which isn't a vitamin at all, I stand by my words that the RDA is far too low for most people today given the lack of sunlight exposure, the poor diets, the high levels of stress and inflammation from bad diets and so many more factors. I should add the disclaimer that I am a doctor though most doctors are not really trained in this and what little training they receive in medical school is crammed into their heads and lost as fast as they gained it.

[TameAntelope]

> I stand by my words that the RDA is far too low for most people today given the lack of sunlight exposure, the poor diets, the high levels of stress and inflammation from bad diets and so many more factors.

You aren't qualified to make this statement, doctor or no, especially considering it's in direct contradiction to consensus medical advice.

[dragonwriter]

> especially considering it's in direct contradiction to consensus medical advice

The RDA, in general, is not necessarily the same as current consensus medical advice. In fact, ISTR that it has actually been clearly established that the RDA for Vitamin D was, given it's premises, based on erroneous calculations, and that there is broadly accepted clinical evidence that it is too low, but the government just hasn't acted to update it.

[TameAntelope]

We're not talking a few thousand IU above RDA, the person I replied to is 10x higher than the "Tolerable Upper Intake Level":

> The Tolerable Upper Intake Level is the maximum daily intake unlikely to cause harmful effects on health. The UL for vitamin D for adults and children ages 9+ is 4,000 IU. [0]

[0] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-d/

[LinuxBender]

I agree with you. That is why even after decades of digesting NIH studies, weeding out the epidemiological studies given that to your point most are highly conflated and confounded I have concluded that nobody is qualified to make statements on this topic. Either way time will tell who took the right path. My morbid goal is to outlive all the grandchildren of the people that are my age so that I can give talks on how science has been tainted. Sorry I know that is morbid.