But this article isn't doing that. It's pointing out that early research with extraordinary results get shared widely (especially when the results line up with an existing preconception, outlook, or agenda), and then when the claims are investigated in more detail and start to fall apart under rigorous scrutiny, the counterfactual doesn't get shared as widely because it goes against those preconceptions, outlooks, or agendas.

Also, vitamin D isn't 0 downside. Elevated levels can cause calcium buildup and kidney stones.

I currently take 70,000 to 90,000 IU's per day. I had to build up to that and I take 2-4mg of K2 MK-7 and about 1.2g of magnesium per day. If I started at that level, it would have been brutal. In the past few years, I have intentionally stayed just below the level required to induce hypercalcemia. Anyway, the reason people are confused about this topic and why doctors warn about it is because they assume people will jump to high levels all at once and yes for sure, it will break up massive amounts of stored calcium in the gut and vascular system. I started at 2K IU's per day, then per meal, then worked my way up at 1-2K per week or so. I could tell when I was just below hypercalcemia as my vision would blur for a few hours. It has taken me a few years to reach the 90K limit. There are many other molecules involved in my efforts, such as natto, tocopherols and tocotrienols, many more than I could name here. I am not suggesting anyone do this unless they have a reason to and this is of course not medical or nutritional advise. Jumping to this level all at once for a prolonged period of time is at least as risky as taking a tissue plasminogen activator. That said, some hospitals will decide to do this.

Can confirm. Doctor recommended that I start taking Vitamin D daily after a physical a few years back. On their advice, I purchased a bottle at the doctor's recommend dosage level and started taking pills daily.

Within a week I stopped because I could already feel pain in my kidneys. Having had a kidney stone before, and having had to pass one (thankfully small) one, I immediately stopped taking the Vitamin D since that the only lifestyle change I had made. Things subsided after that.

Should I need to take Vitamin D in the future I will be starting at a VERY SMALL dose and slowly working up. Kidney stones suck.

Just curious what size was your daily dose?

It has been several years, but I think I was prescribed 5000 IU daily. As I recall I didn't have any troubling purchasing a bottle immediately at the store so it wasn't an uncommon dosage.

That was the next to last paragraph of the article. It is not meant as a standalone paragraph. It goes with the last paragraph, which is:

> The danger, Prof Van der Linden explains, is when people suggest the supplement is a miracle cure and should be substituted for vaccines, masks and social distancing.