[knownastron]

That's a totally fair point.

What if instead of posting a link to a blog of a "random person" that summarizes a number of studies, I post the study directly: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30611908/

Title: Daily oral dosing of vitamin D3 using 5000 TO 50,000 international units a day in long-term hospitalized patients: Insights from a seven year experience

> During this time, we have admitted over 4700 patients, the vast majority of whom agreed to supplementation with either 5000 or 10,000 IUs/day. Due to disease concerns, a few agreed to larger amounts, ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 IUs/day. There have been no cases of vitamin D3 induced hypercalcemia or any adverse events attributable to vitamin D3 supplementation in any patient.

What would you say to this here?

[mrguyorama]

> 5000 TO 50,000 international units a day in long-term hospitalized patients

Is an extremely different claim from "20k units a day is safe"

[password11]

> the vast majority of whom agreed to supplementation with either 5000 or 10,000 IUs/day. A few agreed to larger amounts, ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 IUs/day.

This study is mostly about << 20,000 IU/day.

Also, abstract doesn't say precisely how "long-term" they were supplemented for -- was it weeks or years?

Medium term (~1w) loading doses are probably fine given that U.S. president was treated with this for COVID. But we're talking about 20,000 IU/day, every day, for months and years, which is why the study's vagueness about "long-term" matters here.