In the video above, I have merged and annotated my 2 video reviews of “Vitamin D Guidelines for Healthy Children and Adults” (JAMA 2025) with their errors and my corrections listed below
Context and orientation:
Major medical organizations (eg AMA) and their journals (eg JAMA) are in business to maximize profit via 1) hegemony/dominance and 2) sales of drugs/injections/surgeries. They have no interest in making the population healthy and thus independent from utilization of medical sales and services. As such, any review that they provide on “alternatives” and nonmedical options will be slanted toward slander and denigration.
Their 18 errors and my corrections
Medical fallacy: Synthetic drugs are given a free pass while nutrition is constantly attacked. Correction: Nothing can be more logical and thus "scientific" than giving the body what it needs to function properly and optimally.
Medical fallacy: Nutritional interventions are denigrated if they are not perceived as "blockbusters" while drugs are praised even when they have essentially zero clinical efficacy but show "statistical significance" due to use of huge trials that find minor benefit. Correction: Vitamin D showed 70-80% cure rate in several clinical trials against acute Covid; such benefits with high safety completely eclipse any drug or injection on the market. Vitamin D also shows remarkable efficacy against human papilloma virus (HPV).
Medical fallacy: Attacking the laboratory test (ie, 25ohD) to denigrate the therapy of vitamin D administration.
Strategy: Ignore the data and focus on pseudoscientific/pseudosophisticated bullshit criteria such as "knowing the expertise of the authors of the guidelines" and “estimated quantitative benefit.” Correction: Just look at the clinical data to inform decision-making. Vitamin D showed 70-80% cure rate in several clinical trials against acute Covid; such benefits with high safety completely eclipse any drug or injection on the market.
Medical fallacy: Appeal to “caution” and hyperprecision to enforce inertia and inaction.
Strategy: Medical authors use fake decision-making criteria and unconventional terminology such as “estimated quantitative benefit” and "average effect estimate" in order to delay and monkeywrench intervention. Correction: Just look at the clinical data to inform decision-making. Vitamin D is a human nutrient-metabolite necessary for health and survival.
Medical hypocrisy: Impossibly high and fake “burden of proof” and “ironclad” standards for “blockbuster” nutrition while drugs can be approved based on drug advertising and fake data from drug companies.
Error: "A vitamin is something that our bodies cannot make."Correction: This is an irrelevant definition that skips the function of vitamins; this definition is wrong because the body can make several vitamins including lipoic acid and niacin; this definition ignores the important concept of conditionally essential nutrients which has been established for at least 25 years; they are also ignoring the concept of Biochemical Individuality that Roger Williams published more than 70 years ago.
Error: Food sources except for fish liver oil are inadequate for the provision of vitamin D in amounts required for meeting the physiologic requirements of adults at 3,000-5,000 IU per day established by Heaney et al Am J Clin Nutr 2003 and Vasquez et al Altern Ther Health Med 2004
Error: Editor denigrates people as taking vitamin D supplements "empirically" as if they don't have evidence. Correction: The data on the value of routine vitamin D supplementation has been established for at least 21 years (Vasquez et al Altern Ther Health Med 2004) and continues to get stronger
Error: They are at least 15 years behind the research in their claim that 25ohD is simply the storage form of vitamin D. Correction: 25ohD accounts for most of the biological activity of vitamin D at the receptor
Error by omission: They only mention cathelicidin as a mechanism of vD-mediated immunomodulation. Correction: vD plays many roles in anti-infection defense, immunomodulation, anti-inflammation, and downregulation of viral replication; see my 2001 video review. Vitamin D also shows remarkable efficacy against human papilloma virus (HPV).
Error: Over emphasis on statistics when they have not even discussed proper dosing. Correction: vD effects are dose-dependent therefore any mention of effect has to be contextualized per the dose and duration and serum response of the treatment. Dosage too high, dosage too low, and delayed administration are some of the most common strategies to corrupt nutrition research.
Error: Medical authors corrupt the conversation on nutrition by routinely ignoring basic Pharmacology. Correction: Such absurd ignorance of basic pharmacology knowledge would never be permitted in discussions on drugs but is a common strategy in the negation of nutrition to make the field appear unscientific and mysterious.
Error: Clinical guidelines omitted key data in physiology and clinical trials to obfuscate the topic. Correction: Such unprofessional behavior and omissions of important data is scandalous.
Error: They admit to using "average weighted dose and duration" which is a strategy to skew the conclusion toward inefficacy because most or many of the studies will have used too short a dose for too short a duration. Correction: They need to be looking at quality of data and not just lumping everything together in order to strategically overlook the importance of dose, duration, and serum response.
Error: They strategically exclude data showing the importance of optimized serum 25ohD levels so that they can create the false illusion that laboratory testing is unworthwhile. Correction: The clinical data supporting optimized serum 25ohD levels is sufficient, consistent and actionable.
Error: The major goals of medical reviews on nutrition are confusion and inaction. Correction: They should perform competent reviews of the literature with appropriate clinical contextualization. The major medical organizations and journals use a wide range of tactics to confuse the topic of nutrition, with the major goals being indifference, inaction, confusion and repulsion in order to keep the population of patients and doctors sick and uninformed and therefore dependent on drugs and injections.
Here is the citation
Gillman MW, Fu LY. Vitamin D Guidelines in Primary Care. JAMA.2025;333(20):1779–1780. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.5544
Here is my personal copy with a few highlights and notes
Here is a compilation of most of my published articles and additional notes on vitamin D
Here is what they should have shown people so that doctors would take action
VITAMIN D (Goldmine1) in CHRONIC PAIN: Deficiency, Supplementation, Mechanisms, Synergy
See video embedded above for my 2021 review of the role of Vitamin D Deficiency/Supplementation in Chronic Pain
VITAMIN D (Goldmine2) in MOOD, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, and BRAIN FUNCTION: Deficiency, Supplementation, Mechanisms, Synergy
See video embedded above for my 2021 review of the role of Vitamin D Deficiency/Supplementation in MOOD, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, and BRAIN FUNCTION
VITAMIN D (Goldmine3) in BARRIER DEFENSE AGAINST INFECTION, INFLAMMATION, ALLERGY: Deficiency, Supplementation, Mechanisms, Synergy
See video embedded above for my 2021 review of the role of Vitamin D Deficiency/Supplementation in BARRIER DEFENSE AGAINST INFECTION, INFLAMMATION, ALLERGY
VITAMIN D (Goldmine4) in INFLAMMATION and IMMUNOMODULATION: Deficiency, Supplementation, Mechanisms, Synergy
See video embedded above for my 2021 review of the role of Vitamin D Deficiency/Supplementation in INFLAMMATION and IMMUNOMODULATION
VITAMIN D (Goldmine5) in Antimicrobial Antiviral Defense against Clinically Important Viral Infections
See video embedded above for “VITAMIN D (Goldmine5) in Antimicrobial and Antiviral Defense against Clinically Important Viral Infections”
Share this post