Excuse me if this has already been posted:
http://www.thelancet...0165-7/abstract
So as we know many non-skeletal disease correlate with low levels of 25(OH)D, and the conventional wisdom around here since I joined has been to get levels to at least 40ng/dl, and I have done as such. However, this study suggests we've had our causation backward, that the low levels are simply the result of disease, not the cause, and that there is no causal relationship between 25(OH)D levels and disease prevention.
So this is kind of a big deal considering what seemed to be an insurmountable flood of evidence suggesting the benefits of Vitamin D supplementation in disease prevention.
Thoughts? Does anyone have access to the full text?
Edited by rwac, reason: fixed link.
Edited by rwac, 13 March 2014 - 07:52 AM.