Replies

Why do I get the feeling that this is “evidence” that the government would like in order to enact a new tax on vitamins?

Well ... while I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, and believe some of them myself, that's not the conspiracy theory I'd apply here.

My take is two-fold:

He actually raises a good question, whether the low levels of Vitamin D seen in disease are the cause (current main stream hypothesis) or the result (alternative hypothesis) of the disease.
As he points, Vitamin D is not your usual vitamin. It is not some simple substance that the body breaks down and uses to build the myriad of substances it needs. Rather Vitamin D is a secosteroid (like a steroid but with a broken ring). It directly interacts in complex ways with many reactions within the body.
The body makes its own Vitamin D, and as with any such non-essential nutrient of complex affect, one always has to ask whether supplementing it throws more body processes out of whack than it improves.
The main stream media is going to lap this one up. They love articles showing that vitamins are bad for you. That's because Big Pharma would love to kill off the vitamin and related health nut industries (such as the raw milk I love -- see my FR home page and my FR screen name;).
Any article that makes taking Vitamins useless, or even better harmful, gets the full support of Big Pharma, who can push popularizations of such articles on the willing (greedy and leftist) main stream media with great affect.
They have already mortally wounded the Vitamin industry in parts of Europe, and are trying to do so world wide, by some treaty we have signed that I don't recall the name of offhand.

Bottom line, after my preliminary look-see:

The article is good.
Vitamin D supplementation is more suspect.
The article will be well publicized.
It will increase the risk that the FDA tries to further limit the Vitamin industry.