A bit disappointed. Anything has a one in a million chance of killing us. What we know is that vitamin D yes, has a chance of hurting, and also has an orders of

A bit disappointed. Anything has a one in a million chance of killing us. What we know is that vitamin D yes, has a chance of hurting, and also has an orders of magnitude higher chance of helping. I was hoping for more information about how to make the risk trade-off, and what we got is an anecdote. The general rule is to also take into consideration both magnitude of the potential harm and its probability, in order to avoid a wipe-out (you can't recover your losses if you're broke or dead). But even if we take this into consideration, and take the anecdote in the article as a reference point for a "bad case", it's still in the "no lasting harm" category. And very obviously an outlier, since she showed symptoms while test results were in the green. If anything, this confirms that as a population we should supplement more on Vit D, and when unable to test Vit D levels, we should still chose in favor of supplementation. If it were otherwise I'd have expected better arguments against it. I didn't update much after reading this. The upper limit is still pretty common sense: don't use high dose supplementation daily for years without testing. Very likely ok to use in any other scenarios: high doses like 50.000 per flu episode, or 1000 or so daily. Never mix sun and supplementation.