Vitamin D News

[Johnnycomelately]

This thread is intended to be a look at Vitamin D in general. There some threads that address specific benefits, but I think that a broad look should serve well. I hope that those threads thrive, and that cross postings will help with our learning of all aspects.

This post #1 is voiced as a gripe, by Nurse Practitioner textbook author Dr. John Campbell, about a 2014 paper which described a near tenfold error underestimating the needed IU to get a blood concentration of the established needed amount. Turns out, the needed IU daily was and presumably is, 8,895.

Since reading on Avalon, pretty sure from Bill Ryan’s posts, I have stepped up my Vit D3 to 10,000 (10k) IU each day. From one of those posts, I know that 10k is quite safely below the ~40k per day toxic amount/threshhold. Much thanks Bill, and anyone else who has spread this word.

Besides for general health, my interest has been preventing infection in unhealing patches of Venous Stasis. Since ~6 years, and I learned a lot through the COVID years. I am now getting compression wraps on that thing (Canadian freeish healthcare for a rare clear win), with potions to clean and salve, even a layer with fricken SILVER lol. Home care 3/week now, should be going to 2/week soon, and I expect to have to drive across the city to their base clinic at some time. They say it will get my leg, what I call “divots”, to heal, then I will be putting on my own compre$$ion stockings for the rest of my life. Oof. At least, one of the ladies said that I am probably eligible for either full or three quarters gov support on that bill.


Vitamin D mistake

Dr. John Campbell

3.28M subscribers

Dec 7, 2025

A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D (2014)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...

US, nearly 15 times too low

UK, 0ver 22 times too low

IOM calculation

600 units (15 mcg), 97.5% of people will achieve
63 nmol/L

(25.2 ng/ml)

Correct calculation

600 units (15 mcg), 97.5% of people will achieve
26.8 nmol/L

(10.7 ng/ml)

Requirements based on correct calculation

8,895 IU of vitamin D per day may be needed to accomplish that 97.5% of individuals achieve serum 25(OH)D values of 50 nmol/L or more.
The "Average" vs. "Individual" Mistake

Canada studies

Diet gives 232 IU of vitamin D per day

Institute of Medicine (IOM), RDA vitamin D 600 IU per day, (aged 1 to 70 years)

Now called the National Academy of Medicine
https://nam.edu

UK is even worse
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamin...
UK, 400 iu or 10 mcg
600 iu per day to achieve serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels of 50 nmol/L or more in 97.5% of healthy individuals.

Levels of 50 nmol/L or more have been shown to benefit bone health and to prevent disease and injury.

The IOM based their RDA for vitamin D on an aggregation of 10 supplementation studies, (32 dose protocols)

carried out during winter months, at locations above 50th parallel

IOM regressed the 32 study averages, dose: plasma ratio

On the basis of this, IOM estimated that 600 IU of vitamin D would achieve an average 25(OH)D level of 63 nmol/L

Requirements based on correct calculation

8,895 IU of vitamin D per day

This dose is well in excess of the current RDA of 600 IU per day and the tolerable upper intake of 4000 IU per day.

The public health and clinical implications of the miscalculated RDA for vitamin D are serious.

With the current recommendation of 600 IU, bone health objectives and disease and injury prevention targets will not be met.

We recommend that the RDA for vitamin D be reconsidered to allow for appropriate public health and clinical decision-making.

The Big Vitamin D Mistake

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...

Explanation of the statistical error

The "Average" vs. "Individual" Mistake

The Institute of Medicine’s goal was to find a vitamin D dose that ensures 97.5% of individual people reach a healthy blood level (50 nmol/L).

The statistical error occurred because the IOM analysed the averages of different studies rather than the data of individual participants.

They looked at 10 studies and took the average blood levels achieved in those studies.

They calculated a statistical range (Confidence Interval) based on those averages.

They found that with 600 IU, 97.5% of the study averages would hit the target.

The Problem

There is much less variation between "averages" than there is between "individuals."

By using the averages, the IOM accidentally "smoothed out" the data.

They assumed that if the average person in a study was fine, then almost everyone was fine.

The Classroom Analogy

Imagine you want to ensure every student passes a test.

The IOM method

They looked at the average scores of 30 different classrooms. They set a curriculum so that 97.5% of classrooms would have a passing average.

The Reality

Even in a classroom with a passing average, there are students who fail.

The Correction

To ensure 97.5% of students pass, you have to look at the lowest-performing students, not the class average.

The Consequence

When the authors of this paper re-calculated the numbers using the variation of individuals (rather than study averages),

they found that the current RDA of 600 IU does not cover 97.5% of the population.

Instead, it only ensures that 97.5% of people reach a blood level of 26.8 nmol/L (far below the target of 50 nmol/L).

To actually get 97.5% of the population to the healthy target of 50 nmol/L, the math suggests you would need a dose of 8,895 IU per day.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AtoxkK7MeKc

[JackMcThorn]

I need to point something out here.

I take 1,ooo IU per morning. My last lab result was 36.8 ng/mL [of a range of 30-100 ng/mL- so I am at the low end of normal, but okay.] which converts to nmol/L of 91.9 which is above the 'healthy target' by 41.9.

I would be skeptical of these presented high doses - and I would be careful.

[rgray222]

In 2009, I was diagnosed with cancer, which was a huge shock because cancer didn’t run in my family, so I never thought about it as a health concern. At the same time, I was also told I had a severe vitamin D deficiency. I ended up having major surgery, and thankfully, the doctors were able to remove the cancer completely with clear margins. One doctor at the Duke Oncology Center told me he believed my low vitamin D levels played a huge role in my cancer development. Emerging research suggests a potential link between adequate vitamin D levels and a reduced risk of certain cancers, but no definitive proof yet. Vitamin D is important because it helps control how cells grow, supports your immune system, and reduces inflammation, all of which can influence cancer development. I am making this post because I never made the connection between vitamin D and cancer, and I don't want others to make the same mistake. It's an easy, natural fix, either through diet or lifestyle, so pay attention.

[Johnnycomelately]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
In 2009, I was diagnosed with cancer, which was a huge shock because cancer didn’t run in my family, so I never thought about it as a health concern. At the same time, I was also told I had a severe vitamin D deficiency. I ended up having major surgery, and thankfully, the doctors were able to remove the cancer completely with clear margins. One doctor at the Duke Oncology Center told me he believed my low vitamin D levels played a huge role in my cancer development. Emerging research suggests a potential link between adequate vitamin D levels and a reduced risk of certain cancers, but no definitive proof yet. Vitamin D is important because it helps control how cells grow, supports your immune system, and reduces inflammation, all of which can influence cancer development. I am making this post because I never made the connection between vitamin D and cancer, and I don't want others to make the same mistake. It's an easy, natural fix, either through diet or lifestyle, so pay attention.

Hi rgray222, am glad you outlived that cellular malfunction. Here is a brief (10:30) talk about Vit D and cancer. Dr. John C has done other interview vids which got deep into the various biology and chemical mechanisms of it. Also, iirc, Dr. M. Raszek at YT chan Merogenomics has done vids on that.
.
.
.

Posted by JackMcThorn (here)
I need to point something out here.

I take 1,ooo IU per morning. My last lab result was 36.8 ng/mL [of a range of 30-100 ng/mL- so I am at the low end of normal, but okay.] which converts to nmol/L of 91.9 which is above the 'healthy target' by 41.9.

I would be skeptical of these presented high doses - and I would be careful.

Hi Jack, thank you for your goodwill. In this vid are discussed recommended blood levels (100 nmoles/L, not the official 50) and safe supplement dosage rates. Prominent is their caution if one has “renal failure”, because overload of kidneys processing D to Calcifediol.

Calcifediol is also available, over da counter in some countries (Spain) and by prescription in others (incl my Canada and the UK).

Dosing Calcifediol helps bolster the immune system within hours, whereas D takes 1 - 2 weeks to get changed to that. Good idea for possibly jumpstarting recovery from sudden illness or trauma, especially if someone were low on D blood levels to start with.

Cheers.


Cancer and vitamin D

Dr. John Campbell

3.28M subscribers

Aug 13, 2025

More insights on preventing and treating disease at very low cost with oncologist and virologist, Professor Angus Dalgleish

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LmF1j33Iz1s