[arcticbull]

Again the article is saying that bad health and not going outside causes low vitamin D and that adding vitamin D through supplementation doesn't really help. What helps is going out into the sun, according to the article - and in particular, doing so regularly, and without sunblock. In part so you can synthesize your own, but also because it yields nitric oxide which dilates blood vessels and lowers blood pressure.

The article says vitamin D supplements are useless as evidenced by numerous studies.

> ... vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials. Five years ago, researchers were already warning that it showed zero benefit, and the evidence has only grown stronger. In November, one of the largest and most rigorous trials of the vitamin ever conducted—in which 25,871 participants received high doses for five years—found no impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke.

[LegitShady]

>What helps is going out into the sun, according to the article - and in particular, doing so regularly, and without sunblock.

This is all well and good if you live in california, but residents of alaska go out into the sun without their skin covered a lot less depending on the season.

What about vitamin d supplementation for people who cannot regularly go out and expose their skin to the sun?

>participants received high doses for five years—found no impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke.

Again, the issue isn't "does high vitamin d cure cancer", its "does low vitamin d cause issues, and do you have enough", as I already said.

But lacking vitamin d can cause illness, and too much vitamin d can cause illness. I never claimed it cured cancer, heart disease or stroke. You're arguing someone else's argument that has nothing to do with what I've said.