Bill and I are in total agreement about mainstream medicine. Keep in mind that I worked in two of the largest hospitals in the mid-Atlantic region for 15 years as technical director of their cardio-pulmonary divisions. I witnessed mainstream medicine first hand and it was, and still is, anything but concise science. Depending upon which report you read, the general consensus is blood levels should be at least 50. My level was 10 and I get lots of sunshine exposure. I constantly monitor my level, which now hovers between 45 and 50 while taking 5,000 IU daily. When I was taking 4,000, which the article says is the highest that should be consumed, my levels were never higher than 30.

I don't place a lot of stock in newspaper articles that tend to sensationalize medical reports. In many instances you have to read the actual report in order to determine not only the sample size, but additionally, determine the validity of the study itself. There is a cottage industry out there of individuals that make a damned good living doing ridiculous studies. And the only way they keep this industry alive is by getting their points of view published in newspapers that thrive on sensationalism.

Keep in mind that most people have never had their vitamin D level measured. The same holds true for C-reactive protein and a host of other factors that determine whether or not you may be subject to cardiovascular disease. Doctors tend to ignore these factors and look strictly at cholesterol as if they were wearing blinders.

Of all the physicians and surgeons I worked with, I trusted only about 1 percent to work or me or members of my family. And, unfortunately, unless you have worked in the field and extensive and diverse, direct experience in the medical field, there is absolutely no way to determine how competent, or incompetent, your doctor is.

Sorry about the rant,

Gary