We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
and we're seeing people show up with vitamin D levels of 80 and 90 which is that just doesn't make sense to me that that's a place where we want to be especially if you're dealing with the patient again I'd love your input on just the higher rate of coronary calcification that we see in this population too so it does make me nervous to just drive there vitamin D higher there better
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.
Very high levels of D (>80ng/ml) are not good because body absorbs too much calcium which builds up in arteries.
High levels of vit.D (80ng/ml) can cause calcification of arteries