Read Next

Professionals: Present a confident exterior, consult with colleagues/references in private

Some good replies to the post "Conflict of Interest: On Confidence, and Confidence."

One of things that stood out to me is how a couple commenters assumed that because they're reasonable, other people should also be reasonable. I mean, if a doctor checks something carefully in a reference book in front of me, I think that's a good thing. You probably do too.

But many people don't think that way.

A lot of people have unrealistic expectations of the world, especially of professionals like doctors.

There was a brilliant comment by Kate Johnson, who is a veterinarian. Kate writes -

More Vitamin D

On A Fixed Point

In a reply to a reader, I found myself elaborating on things about Vitamin D3 that I didn't go into in my post. My answer is a bit tinged by my own worldview, a bit off-topic (surprise!), and opinions are solely my own, but don't let that dissuade you from doing your research into this powerful vitamin. 

Glad to meet a fellow D-bomber who doesn't parrot the party line of kidney damage (which happens with non D3 types). I've only taken 4,000-8,000 IU for about 3 years (depending on if I forget to take that 2nd one per day) with no supplemental sunlight and last I tested my levels were only at 55 I think. I use Carlson's Vitamin D 4.000 IU Cod liver oil gelcaps. After seeing your dose I definitely have to up a notch :D. It's funny but anything over 20 or 30 I think in the 'conventional' medical paradigm worries the docs who aren't in on the benefits of D3. They always tell me of kidney damage and that one new england milk study (which used d2 instead of d3). I'm not immortal but ever since I've started C-D bombing as I call it (1-2k grams Vit C per day and 4-8k IU Vit D per day and maybe triple that when sick) I have only gotten sick once a year or so if even that. Now doing some no/low carb action to supplement that been feeling great so far - recovered from near metabolic syndrome myself.

W-in-H: D-bombing is a most fitting descriptive :) It's heartening to meet another soldier that has seen beyond the entrenched view on recommended Vitamin D3 doses. 


Don't get me started on the establishment. They're dogged by super-slow regulatory processes, research bias, and a legal minefield around consumer protection (that last one we need, without the mission creep). To that, add the preventative nature of D3, the fact that it's not Rx, and all those faulty studies, and I'm not surprised they'd shirk at recommending higher doses. They're also liable if their recs go wrong, so why mess it?

Rendering New Theme...