Andrew Huberman· PhD
This has all been done with Mendelian randomization. And so it really does hammer home the importance of measuring your vitamin D levels and being very proactive about that.
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.
This has all been done with Mendelian randomization. And so it really does hammer home the importance of measuring your vitamin D levels and being very proactive about that.
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.
While the optimal level of vitamin D for people with multiple sclerosis is still unknown, a range of 40-60 ng/ml has been suggested as a good target.
Children of moms who were vitamin-D deficient while pregnant had a 90% higher risk of multiple sclerosis as an adult https://t.co/lcYhN4Pt2y