How sloppy studies and ignorant scientists discredit vitamin D.

Vitamin D is an immunoregulating hormone. Having 25(OH)D3 bloodserum values of 50-100ng/mL highly reduces the risk of being affected by almost all existing diseases, including allergies, cancer, and depression. However, there are two significant interrelated problems regarding Vitamin D.

1. Most MDs and researchers have no expertise in nutrition, let alone clinical or functional nutrition. And this is the primary reason why the methodology of almost all vitamin D studies is flawed.

2. Many vitamin D studies consequently manifest a false image of vitamin D. They conclude that vitamin D is ineffective even though the opposite is true.

Due to the Covid "pandemic", many studies on vitamin D have been conducted in the last two years. Many studies conclude that vitamin D is ineffective, if not harmful. The website VDmeta.com provides an overview of the Covid-related vitamin D studies. In this article, I address the methodology of these articles. But let’s first take a look at the three criteria a vitamin D study must fulfil to be meaningful.

1. Proper Dosage

The vitamin D dosage administered in the study must reflect physiologic requirements and natural endogenous production. Consequently, it should be in the range of 4,000-10,000 IU (depending on age, weight, and skin colour) to achieve a vitamin D bloodserum level >50ng/mL. My diagram below illustrates the claim that proper immune system function requires at least 50ng/mL, as Robin Whittle explained in this article.

2. Duration of Supplementation

The participants of the studies must supplement with vitamin D for at least six months. It can be expected that the vitamin bloodserum level plateaus after about four months. However, another 2-4 months are required to cause biochemical changes within the participant’s body. This means that a conducted study does not begin with administering vitamin D, but instead, 2-4 months after achieving vitamin D sufficiency (i.e. >50ng/mL of 25(OH)D) is reached.

3. Achieved Bloodserum Levels

As stated above, the participant’s blood-serum level needs to be between 50-100ng/mL 25(OH)D. Higher 25(OH)D levels than 100ng/mL could be clinically problematic. Also, one should always supplement vitamin D with about 200µg vitamin K2-MK7 to avoid calcification.

Vitamin D Treatment Studies

The website vdmeta.com lists the following treatment studies. Especially nine studies that show adverse effects of vitamin D catch the eye. Let’s take a closer look at them.

Cereda et al. (2020)

The authors of this paper claim that vitamin D supplementation increased mortality by 73%. The study’s methodology was as follows.

Vitamin-D Dosage: 800 IU per day (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU)
Duration of Supplementation: 3 months (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Bloodserum Levels: average of 32,9 ng/mL (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

And yet, the authors concluded that “25OHD supplementation was not associated with the severity of COVID-19. On the other hand, a trend toward a 2-fold higher mortality in users was found.” I have absolutely no clue how this paper passed the peer-review process.

Murai et al. (2020)

This randomized clinical trial performed by Murai et al. claimed that treatment with vitamin D increased the death rate by 49%. Let’s check out their methodology.

Vitamin-D Dosage: a single dose of 200,000IU (FAIL! Over a six months period, between 800,000 and 1,800,000 IU wouldld be required.)
Duration of Supplementation: 1 day (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Bloodserum Levels: average of 44,4 ng/mL (INSUFFICIENT! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

Even though the recorded achieved bloodserum level was at a much better range than the placebo (average of about 20 ng/mL), almost no patient achieved higher levels than 50ng/mL. Also, biochemical changes within the body could not have occurred within such a short time.

Fun-fact: the patients were administered 200,000 IU of vitamin D in combination with 10ml of peanut oil. It is known that peanut oil increases inflammation processes within the body due to its high omega-6 fatty-acids content.

Ullah et al. (2020)

This study claimed that treatment with vitamin D increased mortality by 42%. The study was obviously taken offline.

Aldwihi et al. (2021)

In this study, Aldwihi et al. claim that supplementing with vitamin D increased the risk of hospitalization by 49,3%. The respective study is a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study that included adult patients (≥18 years) in Saudi Arabia who could understand Arabic and who had recently recovered from COVID-19.

Vitamin-D Dosage: n/a (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU)
Duration of Supplementation: n/a (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Bloodserum Levels: not measured (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

A shame that studies like these actually get published.

Pecina et al. (2021)

This study compared the vitamin D status of severe and non-severe covid patients.

Vitamin-D Dosage: n/a (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU)
Duration of Supplementation: n/a (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Bloodserum Levels: n/a (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

This publication is a joke. The authors took blood samples from all study participants and categorized them into two groups: >20ng/mL and <20ng/mL. They then concluded that the “vitamin D status was not related to any of the primary outcomes reflecting severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients”. Comparing vitamin D-deficient patients with other vitamin D-deficient patients is junk science — no clue how this paper made it through peer review.

Assiri et al. (2021)

A retrospective cohort study claiming that vitamin D administration increased the chance of dying by 66%.

Vitamin-D Dosage: n/a (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU)
Duration of Supplementation: one month? (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Bloodserum Levels: n/a (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

I’m horrified that this study made it through peer review. Nowhere in that study neither the dose nor the duration of treatment were mentioned. Also, the patients’ blood serum levels were not measured.

Cannata-Andía et al. (2022)

In this treatment study, participants received a one-time oral dose of 100,000 IU of vitamin D3. The study claims that those who received such a treatment had increased risks of 44 and 117% dying from Covid.

Vitamin-D Dosage: 100,000 IU once (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU per day)
Duration of Supplementation: once (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Bloodserum Levels: ~30 ng/mL (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

This study didn’t meet any of the above-mentioned criteria.

Jolliffe et al. (2022)

This randomized controlled trial study claims that those treated with vitamin D required 41% higher hospitalization. Let’s take a look at their methodology.

Vitamin-D Dosage: 800 IU or 3200 IU per day (FAIL! Required: 4,000-10,000 IU per day)
Duration of Supplementation: 6 months (ALMOST SUFFICIENT! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Bloodserum Levels: 30-40 ng/mL (FAIL! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

This study was better conducted than the others but did not meet any of the abovementioned criteria.

Mariani et al. (2022)

This randomized controlled clinical trial claims that treating patients with a single dose of 500,000IU cholecalciferol increased the chance of dying by 124%.

Vitamin-D Dosage: 500,000 IU (OK!)
Duration of Supplementation: once (FAIL! Required: >6 months)
Achieved Bloodserum Levels: Average 102 ng/mL (OK! Required: 50-100 ng/mL)

Administering 500,000IU vitamin D without vitamin K2 is dangerous. Also, the average value of 102 ng/mL means that some patients were far above that value. As stated in criterium #2, at least two months are required for biochemical changes to take effect. Scientists/MDs who know nothing about vitamin D should not be allowed to conduct such studies.

Conclusion

Lots of information about vitamin D is out there. Many real experts have been stating for decades which blood-serum levels are desirable. Also, the metabolic pathway of vitamin D is well-known. The fact that all of these papers made it through peer review does not say much for these particular scholars and scientific journals.