Bryan Johnson· Author
a meta-analysis [1] with total 26,916 participants showed evidence of around 14% increase of cancer mortality in people with serum vitamin D below 30 nm/L
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
a meta-analysis [1] with total 26,916 participants showed evidence of around 14% increase of cancer mortality in people with serum vitamin D below 30 nm/L
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
we know that there's a lot of data out there observational data that's correlated vitamin D levels to low vitamin D levels to higher all cause mortality risk higher uh cancer mortality but there's always that question of healthy user bias maybe people with higher vitamin D are outside and more physically active and of course you try to correct for as many you know confounding factors as possible but you never really can establish causation
And we know in humans if we look at what's called mandelian randomization. So there are many many studies that have measured vitamin D levels in people and correlated that with a higher all-c cause mortality.