3 ms·

No, your job is not to disprove me. Your job is to show evidence via studies that 100 ng/ml is better than 50 ng/ml, and you haven't yet shown any studies to do

No, your job is not to disprove me. Your job is to show evidence via studies that 100 ng/ml is better than 50 ng/ml, and you haven't yet shown any studies to do it. In contrast, I can in principle show evidence that 50 ng/ml is better than 30 because Covid studies say so. Until you do, you don't have a basis to ask people to get their level higher than 50. This is not about convincing me. It is about converting me. If you can convert me, I will convert many others, but you don't have the evidence to do it. If you are going to ask someone to gamble on a higher level, at least they deserve to know exactly why.

genewitch 2y ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076018306228?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09600... No risk of hypercalcemia in patients taking extremely large doses of vitamin D - D blood levels of 118ng/ml and calcium levels at 9.6 (8.5 - 10.6 is normal) not sure of the units and don't care since it's in the same range. oh and it was (mentioned in the DOI hotlink above) used to treat tuberculosis, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma - blood levels over 100ng/ml. I am unsure of what sort of evidence you need for ~100ng/ml being optimal. Preventing or curing covid? Preventing cancers? aiding treatment of cancer? Psychological and neurological health? In fact, that paper explains why the limit was set to 50ng/ml, so maybe that will nudge you a bit ;-)
genewitch 2y ago
also here's two doctors discussing the reasoning and how to achieve 100ng/ml https://youtu.be/2hO7fniCbmw?t=139 https://youtu.be/2hO7fniCbmw?t=139 you can rewind, but the timestamp is where that discussion starts. If you don't have time; partially an IU of D is the amount a 10 gram mouse needs, daily. So a 60kg human needs 6000IU, daily. Overweight people need more, underweight people need less. This was discovered ages ago (several decades).

genewitch 2y ago

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076018306228?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09600... No risk of hypercalcemia in patients taking extremely large doses of vitamin D - D blood levels of 118ng/ml and calcium levels at 9.6 (8.5 - 10.6 is normal) not sure of the units and don't care since it's in the same range. oh and it was (mentioned in the DOI hotlink above) used to treat tuberculosis, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma - blood levels over 100ng/ml. I am unsure of what sort of evidence you need for ~100ng/ml being optimal. Preventing or curing covid? Preventing cancers? aiding treatment of cancer? Psychological and neurological health? In fact, that paper explains why the limit was set to 50ng/ml, so maybe that will nudge you a bit ;-)

genewitch 2y ago

also here's two doctors discussing the reasoning and how to achieve 100ng/ml https://youtu.be/2hO7fniCbmw?t=139 https://youtu.be/2hO7fniCbmw?t=139 you can rewind, but the timestamp is where that discussion starts. If you don't have time; partially an IU of D is the amount a 10 gram mouse needs, daily. So a 60kg human needs 6000IU, daily. Overweight people need more, underweight people need less. This was discovered ages ago (several decades).