06/02/2021
D3 is not what they measure in your blood when they check your “vitamin” D hormone levels.
You’ve been duped.
“Further, an increase in 25D levels induced by vitamin D supplementation may lead to long-term disease progression by facilitating proliferation of the intracellular CWD bacterial pathogens.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20140722205327/https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=5380
Even Harvard questioned the changes in “healthy” D levels a decade ago and saw no evidence for them to arbitrarily create a new epidemic of D deficiency. The only ones who benefit from supplementing D3 are older frail women with autoimmune disease, but it’s not addressing the cause of their autoimmune. Who really benefits? The D testers who saw a 95-fold increase in testing after the ranges were changed.
“In this piece, several of the leading epidemiologists and endocrinologists who were on the original IOM committee argue for a lowering of the currently accepted cutoff level of 20, stating that the level they estimated as acceptable was never intended to be used to define vitamin D deficiency. They feel that we are over-screening for vitamin D deficiency, and unnecessarily treating individuals who are perfectly fine.
Based on their analysis, a more appropriate cutoff for vitamin D deficiency would be much lower, 12.5 ng/mL. They examined a massive amount of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2007 through 2010 and found that less than 6% of Americans had vitamin D levels less than 12.5. A cutoff of 12.5 ng/mL would most certainly eliminate the “pandemic” of vitamin D deficiency.”
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/vitamin-d-whats-right-level-2016121910893