Largest Ever Clinical Study on Vitamin D Shows We're Wrong About Crucial Benefit

This article comes from someone who is well-credentialed but not in the specific topic of Vitamin D. His attribution of its current popularity is based on a flawed hypothesis: That the current popularity surrounding it is about fracture cases in senior homes. He focuses on correlations of fractures to supplementation, speedily dismissing any other evidence of benefits as cherry-picking, giving no figures about how many overdose cases he is seeing(what cases there are must be quite rare, since I've observed that clinicians writing about D3 have gradually bumped up their recommended upper limits for the past decade running with no end in sight), and failing to discuss other causal factors of his main point(e.g. D3 has been shown to be anti-inflammatory which would lead to less pain, more mobility and increased fall risk). I have to conclude that it's a scare piece.

I will stick with my D3 supplements, TYVM.

  The results showed no association between vitamin D levels over a lifetime and the risk of fracture.

Actually, the paper says mostly the exact opposite: "There is high quality evidence that vitamin D plus calcium is associated with a statistically significant reduction in incidence of new non-vertebral fractures. "

The article focuses on the limited apparent benefits in the smaller populations and only on hip and vertebral fractures. Well, sure, I can see how an 80-year-old who has been D-deficient for a lifetime will not have his brittle bones suddenly cured by D or Ca suppementation.