A viewer asks: “Being aware of Creator’s previous answers on Vitamin D3 supplementation I was shocked to discover a paper from 2014 “A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D”. The paper claims that the Recommended Daily Allowance advocated by the Institute of Medicine for Vitamin D was incorrectly calculated! In fact, analyzing the data correctly, nearly 9000 IUs per day are required to achieve target levels (600 IU per day is the USA recommended level). I was struck by how closely the 9000 IU figure matched Creator’s “daily doses of 5,000 to 10,000 IU vitamin D3 will rarely be harmful.” What is Creator’s perspective on this “miscalculation” coming to light?”

This will help to explain prior information relayed by your channel concerning vitamin D, that on the one hand there is a relatively narrow therapeutic ideal for circulating D3 level, above which there will be no advantages and, in fact, perhaps a worsening of things. And then, his channeling about the huge increase in dosages that can safely be taken which are more than 10 times the recommended daily allowance for vitamin D3, sounds like reckless endangerment at first glance. What the data in this publication show is that as the doses of vitamin D3 go up when taken orally, they form a nonlinear broad and shallow dose response curve. So as the desired circulating level goes higher, much more vitamin D3 intake is needed by far than for more modest circulating levels to be achieved. What this shows clearly is the risks of truly getting to nonproductive and perhaps harmful circulating levels that are quite high is very hard to do through oral intake of the vitamin alone. This is why one needs to keep careful consideration of the degree of sunlight exposure and this your channel has pointed out, that these levels of taking up to 10,000 IU are appropriate for people in the wintertime getting little or no sun exposure, but this will be quite safe.