Keith from Olive

This meta-analysis is complete BS. In order to get any sort of effect on the immune system, the D3 dose must be much higher than that studied. Most people who get benefit take somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 IU - and take it in combination with zinc, mag., A and K2-7. All or almost of the studies aggregated appear to be significantly under-dosed. The only question is, was this study intentionally flawed or were the investigators that stupid? "We also conducted subgroup analyses according to vitamin D dosing regimen (administration of daily vs weekly vs monthly or less frequent doses), dose size (daily equivalent <400 IU vs 400–1000 IU vs 1001–2000 IU vs >2000 IU), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months)" There was no attempt to specifically look at dosing levels that have been shown to actually to work. There was no daily dose size of 5000 IU or 10,000 IUs or even a combination of these two dosing regimes studied. Yet, these are the dosing schedule that are most recommended. Why were these higher dosing regime aggregated with the 2,001 IU dose? And how many people were actually on these higher doses in that >2,000 group? Furthermore, studies using vitamin D3 and vitamin D2 were aggregated. D2 is known to have minimal effect. Basically - another BS study to justify the status quo.