[casenmgreen]

Do we need to be skeptical of NIH because of Trump? or they're still okay?

Also, remember - don't take D on its own. Always with magnesium, or you get harmed by it, for all that it also does you good. Body is not built for raw D.

Also also remember, D2 is a vitamin, D3 is a hormone.

[beejiu]

> Also also remember, D2 is a vitamin, D3 is a hormone.

As a naive person, what's the consequence of this?

[anamexis]

I don't think this paper is associated with the NIH besides being hosted there.

[Squealer2642]

To be clear, NIH hosts an online database called PubMed that contains almost all published biomedical literature. If the article is open access, then it also hosts a copy of the article on PubMed Central.

This is the link to the article in the PubMed database: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28768407/

You can click on the DOI link to go to the article hosted by the journal.

[winternett]

If you're looking to build and maintain healthy vitamin D levels, D3 is generally the better supplement choice, according to health experts and studies. Consult your doctor to determine your needs and the best form for you, especially if you have a deficiency or dietary restrictions. -Google Gemini

I think it's important to clarify understandings for non-scientific/med community each time these types of technical discussions occur.

[binary132]

you should always be skeptical of claims and seek to understand their basis and methodology.

[buildsjets]

I mean, I agree MAHA sucks, and Kennedy is a fool and and loser, but the PDF is only hosted at the NIH. It was published in a journal owned by the Korean Society for Preventive Medicine, and the researcher is from Attikon University Hospital, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece. And it was published WAAAAAAAY back in 2017.

So do your research or something.