[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.