[CodeWriter23]

> Did you even read the article? Here's what the main part of the article says (translated to English).

I read every word. It appears you failed to comprehend the article’s declarative nature and the complete lack of citing any scientific studies whatsoever. It is a direct line handwave from D3 to hypercalcemia that assumes since D3 is an agent in calcium uptake it must be the culprit (smoking gun fallacy) and completely lacks any critical thought about other factors that could block calcium uptake into the bones, for example all the sugar added to baby formula. It is also interesting they are targeting the 10,000 IU figure which is probably too much for an infant but is widely viewed by many practitioners to be the recommended adult dose.

I take it you’re one of those that does not trust Science.

[uxp8u61q]

That's a wild attack. I don't trust science? I'm literally a scientist...

I trust the ANSES and the ANSM, who actually employ scientists to make their recommendations, more than a rando on HN. My field is not medicine, so what good would links to medical studies do me? It's not like I'm going to read them or understand their methods or findings. I'd rather have specialized people summarize the findings for me. And it's not like you have provided links to medical studies for your comment.

[CodeWriter23]

So you're a scientist when it's your work, but you just take any authoritative body's word for it without any proof. This is the very nature of everything wrong with science in its current state.

[COM9]

Even in North America, it's the same thing: supplements aren't medicine.

And the major differentiating factor for that is not the same rules applies.

Pharma-grade Vit-D will get you pretty close to 10,000 IU. Supplements - as food-grade level reglementation applies - will totally will not.