“first, do no harm” seems to be the thread of this caution though, so not exactly unexpected from a doctor.
I’m not a health nut, just someone who has annual physicals. Doesn’t it make more sense to encourage people to spend their time and money on annual checkups and tests, rather than encouraging them to buy supplements they might not need—or, worse, that might harm them? Supplements seem cheap at first, but the costs add up over time.
We should be encouraging people to see doctors, not to make uninformed health decisions that might not be right for them.
I believe there is a safe level. In Sweden the government recommends everybody to take 10 micrograms daily, with some groups at 20 micrograms, and this advice is very commonly followed. As far as I understand it that advice does an awful lot more good than it does harm.
This sounds too risk-averse, and I worry that it scares people off taking Vitamin D at all; yet a low level would be good for most people.
I live in a northern latitude, and Vitamin D deficiency is widespread. What should the public health system recommend? It seems there are two choices:
(a) Regularly test the Vitamin D levels of the entire population, and recommend zero Vitamin D supplements for any individual who has not been tested recently.
(b) Find an average "safe" level that will help most and cause damage in very few.
From a perspective of an individual physician I would see how you might want to cover your risk and go for (a), but thinking about it as a whole population, I would think (b) is the best.