I do wonder why they would choose to give a staggering 200K IU's followed by 100K per month. Sounds exceedingly Un-physiologic, considering I think about
the most you can get from sunshine in one day is about
10K, and normally a lot less than that? Could harm actually be done in some unknown way with such a staggering 1 time dose, then not any more until next month? As oppose to a few thousand a day? I don't know, maybe. But at least it shows that even staggering doses do no harm, at least for anything they were looking for, or at least as far as any cancers they were looking at. Imagine if you decided one day to take 100 pills of 2000 units! Still, no apparent U shape curve I guess? The HR was no better, but also no worse? Is that right?
I have wondered before why, as they rarely do a study period, why when they do, they do one in what seems a very odd way, such as a 1 time dose of 200K. Like when the guys up in Canada did the vit D RCT on kids for colds(later repeated in almost the exact same way in China), announcing "no benefit". But did they do a plain old Placebo? Of course not. Their idea of a placebo was a lower- but still way more than adequate for small children- dose of Vit D. So though their conclusion was"no benefits to large dose", we are not told anything about
whether the already large(but smaller) dose had significantly lowered the incidence of colds. Because if you got a significant reduction- maybe even large reduction- from the 1st dose, how much more would you really expect from an even larger dose?
However, in both studies, almost hidden in the small print(you had to dig for it, the headline was "no benefit for colds"), was an additional Flu reduction of 50%. I.E., another 50% on top of whatever the smaller dose may have already provided. (and compared to last years flu shot of what? 10% effective?) A FAR greater benefit than provided by flu shots most years. But no need to put that in their head line, I guess. Sometimes I just wonder why they decide to do some studies in the fashion that they do, leaving things unanswered that could have easily been answered(like was there a benefit compared to placebo, or at least compared to zero supplementation?). Such actions can not help but make me wonder if their biases are the reason why. But no doubt they have their good reasons, and it is just all over my head. Regardless, I found an additional flu reduction of another 50% over whatever the smaller dose might have provided worthy of mentioning in a prominent way, even if they didn't.
There has also been an interesting RCT on vitamin D vs diabetes. Also, a very interesting study with breat cancer. NOT an RCT of course, but still very interesting considering that there was a straight line improvement for each 10 ng increase up to 60 ng. Which begs the question: how do you get to 60 ng with out either LOTS of sunshine or supplementation? I need to go back and add that study to my thread on Vitamin D vs diabetes.
PSA 10.9 ~112013
Bx on 112013 at age ~65yrs, with 5 of 12 pos with one G9(5+4), 1 PNI, T2B.
RALP with lymph nodes at Vanderbilt 021914. (nodes clear, SV+, G9 down graded to 4+5, 1 focal margin ) Pros. 106.7 gms!
only rare pad use after 1 year
PSA <.01 on 6/14 and all until 9/15 = .01, still .01 9/16, .02 on 3/17,6/17,10/17, .06 1/18, .06 4/18, <.05 7/18
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 7/23/2018 2:56:00 PM (GMT-6)