Vitamin D is not actually a vitamin and that is easily googled. You don't have to be a physician to know that.

She is absolutely correct that it is a steroid, not a vitamin. Vitamins are things your body cannot manufacture. Vitamin D is something we can manufacture.

She's apparently new to blogging and medical blogging is hard and I'm sure she will get better at effectively communicating what she wants to say with a little practice.

I agree with you that she shouldn't have stated "It is a medication" and I have stated that elsewhere and she clarified why she chose such phrasing and it's a somewhat minor nitpick because the latter part of the article does make it clear what she is trying to get at.

Thanks! Yes, I am very new to this. Hoping that by continuing to write, I'll get better. The comments on here are great for helping me understand how things are interpreted.

You will and you've actually been really well received. I wouldn't worry about the occasional negative remark. Those are going to happen and other people can often figure out that it's someone being weirdly pendantic or whatever.

Bill Gates has said something about "your unhappiest customers are your best source of learning." I like to view big negative reactions to my writing in that light and help me up my game for future pieces.

There are no soft launches and this is all grist for the mill.

I hadn't actually seen that about Vitamin D, I appreciate you pointing it out.

I wasn't arguing anything about it being a steroid -- but the overall intention of the article is to "be careful", is it not? If you "treat it as medication" (even if you're not saying it is), what's the intention of that communication?

I think the underlying message is that people do not respect the power of supplements -- or even food, really -- because we think of them as fundamentally different from "medication." I think the intent is "These things are, in fact, powerful and need to be taken seriously."

My personal framing is "life is chemistry" and every single thing you put into your mouth impacts your chemistry. Over time, it all makes a difference.

But I'm just a stranger on the internet with a medical condition and, like Rodney Dangerfield, I don't get no respect. (shrug)

It is significantly different than medication -- in death rate, OD rate, way that we modify the body, etc. I agree they have similarities but to treat them with the same level of caution (which feels like the emphasis here) would imply a similar level of risk, and I've seen no data that supports that. If you (or the author) has any, I would love to see it.

I'm not really interested in having some big argument with a stranger on the internet over this. I have already told you that I think you are being overly pedantic and her writing will likely improve and get clearer with practice.

I don't agree with you about food and supplements being less powerful than medication. But it's always a can of worms for me to try to present my point of view on that, in part because my so-called qualifications are "I'm a former homemaker who failed to die after doctors wrote me off for dead" and I have had people who think of themselves as very scientific tell me straight up that "Thirteen years of steady forward progress on your incurable condition is not proof you know anything. Wild coincidence. Stranger things have happened." (And now it's been like nineteen and a half years of "wild coincidence" and my patience for being dismissed over that is at an all time low.)

So while I have no objection whatsoever to talking at length with someone genuinely curious to understand why I think food and supplements are at least as powerful if not more powerful than medication, I have zero reason to believe that's what's going on here and I have zero interest in having some pointless internet fight where you dig your heels and decide I'm stupid and I dig my heels and decide you're a jerk.

I suggest you just set aside your judginess of the defects of this early blog post of hers and give her a little growing room and see where she goes with this and see if future posts by her make more sense to you. There's a pandemic on and we are all cranky and short tempered and so forth and doubling down on a minor point like this isn't going to go anywhere good.

> I'm not really interested in having some big argument with a stranger on the internet over this I'm not either -- but you've questioned something that I care about and have dug into quite a bit. And yes, you don't know me, but I consistently adjust my opinion with more data and engage happily with new information all the time and adjust my viewpoints consistently.

You've used quite a bit of attacking words and presumed I'm some internet troll (again without knowing who I am), by calling me pedantic, assuming I'm going to "dig my heels in", patronizingly telling me to "set aside my judginess" to "give her some growing room". I am excited to see evidence-based research by her as that's what she's talking about.

> So while I have no objection whatsoever to talking at length with someone genuinely curious to understand why I think food and supplements are at least as powerful

I beg to differ, as that's me, and yet you're still showing behavior despite me specifically asking for references to show you otherwise. I linked elsewhere (and can link again) my own.

I don't consider the main point of her article a minor point as you are describing, which is clearly something we disagree on, and yes, we're on short tempers (I'm no exception) but your post feels pretty hypocritical to me.

It's not intended to attack you. I am trying to tell you I know from long experience that someone arguing the way you are arguing is someone who isn't really interested in my point of view. You want studies and even if I come up with studies, it will somehow never be enough because of who I am and why I hold the opinions I hold.

I came back to say "I don't see this discussion going good places." That was intended to be a courtesy to let you know I'm sure your interest is sincere but I'm not someone in a position to "convince" you.

You and I see it differently. I'm not going to pretend that I think you are right. But I'm not someone with any credibility.

I didn't want to just give you the silent treatment. That seemed rude to me, but perhaps would have been wiser.

For reasons unrelated to you and this discussion, I am wishing I had never heard of Hacker News and that fact is probably making it difficult for me to not sound screechy no matter how hard I try today. You will need to excuse me, but I just cannot continue this discussion.

This is really interesting. I usually do not use anecdotes, but chose this to make one simple point. The point was not what you got from it, though, which means I failed in my messaging. The point was not to shift a definition (Vitamin D is a steroid hormone, and by definition Vitamin D is NOT in fact a vitamin). The point was that I would like people to think of Vitamin D as a medication, not a dietary supplement. I think when you frame it as a medication, people treat it differently. That was the whole point of the post. In the next post, I will go back to being completely scientific, which is my normal state.

I wouldn't over index on that comment, I thought your blog post was effective.

Strictly scientific is appreciated, but I don't think it'll land as effectively with the audience that most needs to read this kind of thing in the first place.

Thanks. It's hard to balance the strictly scientific with enough of the "softer" stuff to make it interesting for a wide audience.

I didn't say anything about strictly scientific. I think statistical/study-based + anecdotal is great.

I appreciate the response but I completely disagree (I wrote a larger post elsewhere). The amount of people who OD on medication and die or otherwise is significantly higher than any of those on Vitamins, let alone Vitamin D3. When an average of 50% of the population (study linked in other post), and a very small fraction of a % of those will every run into problems (which they can address through going to a physician if they have problems), I _do_ consider it a "very little downside".

I'm happy to look at data that says otherwise, but from my research I haven't found any.

The problem is that a lot of people taking Vitamin D may not need it. The percentage of the population with vitamin D deficiency depends on your definition of deficiency - and that changes. From large trials in humans, there is very little benefit to most adults in taking Vitamin D. If you are deficient and you are an elderly woman in a nursing home, then yes, we have good evidence that vit D supplementation will help you. If you are a younger healthy male, probably not.

Yeah, definitely. And over 99% of them won't have any problem in doing it. A significant problem is that people don't know that they have conditions or problems in the first place -- and when there is very, very little downside, it would be defined as "optionality" in the terms of Nicholas Taleb, and provides something we can do that will help in most cases, or at least, not harm.

Are you saying that you wouldn't suggest supplementing in young deficient males, who are otherwise healthy, or just that the evidence is unclear on the benefits but it's still probably worth supplementing in that case, under medical supervision?