This was meant for Gwerbret (but he deleted the comment). Now is to whom may concern :) Standing by your words you think this paper is shady and you are questioning the work and results behind it. Moreover your comment somehow is on the very top it misleading the users or at least ridiculing the paper. Answering to you: It is indeed very much connected to the LEVELS of Vit D not the absence of it. You fail to understand and acknowledge the importance of the results (even though you already know and confirm the benefits of Vit D). Regulating the levels of it (keeping them higher then average) it prevents health issues by regulating many biological functions/pathways, raising the immunity and lifespan in general. This is the real cure which prevent incredibly terrible future health issues and suffering.

Edit: Just for this effort, this paper deserves Credit. Bravo.

> Just for this effort, this paper deserves Credit. Bravo.

I just went out and did a study myself. But I got 10,000 people, and 100% of the participants gave usable data, with a full record of every action taken, and every possible result. My study shows with 99.99% confidence that vit D is actually _bad_ for you. I hope you will congratulate my positive result (saving people from the dangerous effects of vit D !!) Or at the very least, congratulate me for my effort.

Obviously I completely fabricated that. Do you see how _claiming_ something doesn't mean it's true? Can you see the many red flags in my paragraph above? The other posters are pointing out similar red flags in the main article that's been shared.