3 ms·

>Most definitely not, but then again, Doctors err on the side of caution for obvious reasons Let me rephrase this slightly: Doctors err on the side of caution

>Most definitely not, but then again, Doctors err on the side of caution for obvious reasons Let me rephrase this slightly: Doctors err on the side of caution in terms of the liability of performing a medical intervention (Such as advising to take a supplement). There are many cases where the advice from an MD minimizes their liability and risk but doesn't optimize health for the most number of people. It's much harder to sue over a lack of an intervention than it is to sue over an intervention that produced a negative outcome. Both happen for sure, but there's a systemic bias in the process. In general, this is probably a good thing, but it's nuanced.

password11 4y ago
> There are many cases where the advice from an MD minimizes their liability and risk but doesn't optimize health for the most number of people. That may be true in general, but is there any evidence that regularly taking 20,000 IU/day if vitamin D is optimal for health? I see a lot of articles making an affirmative recommendation not to take more than 4,000 IU/day. Ex: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/too-much-vitamin-d-may-harm-bones-not-help https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/too-much-vita...
- Enginerrrd 4y ago
  Oh, I only mean for it to apply in general. With regard to vitamin D, I think there are more people that would benefit from Vitamin D than there are MD's willing to recommend they take it and get the requisite blood work done to confirm appropriate supplementation rate. However, in general, 20,000IU/day every day is quite high and should be done cautiously if at all.