4 ms·

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: h

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/ 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 4y ago
> 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 4y ago
> 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.