Found this in the paper today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...theyre-not.html

Scroll down to the vitamin D section - they are saying that 400 iu a day is LETHAL. People like Holick say that piddly amount is worse than useless and that at least 5000 iu a day is the bare minimum we need in winter months.

I wish papers would check their facts before they print.

I wish that, also.

The full text of this paper "Vitamin D and Cancer Mini-Symposium: The Risk of Additional Vitamin D" by REINHOLD VIETH Is freely available online at the Grassrootshealth website under the Documentation tab. It states "Evidence from clinical trials shows, with a wide margin of confidence, that a prolonged intake of 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 poses no risk of adverse effects for adults, even if this is added to a rather high physiologic background level of vitamin D." Hypovitaminosis D in British adults at age 45 yr by Elina Hyppönen and Chris Power shows the average UK adult averages 50nmol/l 20ng/ml vitamin D over the year and remains below the 80nmol/l level required for optimum absorption of calcium and no where near the 135nmol/l 55ng/ml associated with least incidence of chronic illness, peak muscle performance or the level at which human breast milk flows replete with vitamin D3.

Just in case my contribution to the Daily Mail comments doesn't get printed the above is what I submitted.
It worries me that The Daily Mail can be so irresponsible. This morning I was alerted to the article with this email.
Hi Edward
I am a firm believer in the benefits of vitamin D3 regarding prostate cancer.
However, this article in the Daily Mail worried me a bit.
Vitamin D
Ninety percent of our vitamin D is made by our bodies from sunlight. But the light in the UK is only strong enough from April to September each year leaving us depleted in winter.
Vitamin D is stored in the fat rather than being flushed out in the urine like vitamin C, so taking too much over a short space of time (more than 400 IU ) per day can be lethal.
This worries me as I take 4000 IU of D3
calciferol a day
Kind regards
Rob
Here is my reply to Rob
You really mustn't believe everything you read in the The Daily Mail.
Try and find any evidence that anyone has ever died from taking more than 400iu/vitamin D3?
Cholecalciferol vitamin D3 is biologically identical to the substance UVB makes when it acts on Cholesterol in your skin. Lay naked in the sun at midday on a sunny summer day and your skin produces up to 20,000iu/D3 in a very short time. But we do not find people die from it. In fact all the evidence points to those with higher vitamin D3 levels leading longer healthier lives.
It's true that your body stores excess vitamin D naturally and that is why it is advantageous to raise our 25(OH)D levels above 40ng 100nmol/l as it's only after your body's daily needs have been met that you have sufficient excess to store to last you through the winter.
By the time you've reached 55ng/ml 135nmol/l your body has a reasonable level of stored D3 to meet most eventualities and that is why we see least chronic illness at that level.
For fighting cancer it may be better to have slightly higher levels 70~80ng/mL 175~200nmol/l are suggested as these are the NATURAL levels those living naked under the sun naturally attain and maintain and ensure there is always a good reserve of D3 available to deal with inflammation etc.
You'd need to be taking around 10,000iu/daily to reach those levels though. Your 4000iu/daily is just about sufficient to keep you above 40ng/ml 100nmol/l through the winter.

To reach the levels at which adverse events have been recorded you'd need roughly 40,000iu/daily for over six months and even then because it's likely if you have a cancer diagnosis your body actually uses more D3 than those without chronic illness it's doubtful any adverse event would occur. You can monitor your current level with a 25(OH)d test.
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/d-action
I don't see any benefit from having levels above 80n/ml but I wouldn't worry about levels around 100ng/ml 250nmol/l. You have to be well above 150ng/mL 375nmol/l before any adverse events could be found and the simple answer to having too much stored D3 is to STOP taking excessive amounts. Simply NOT taking D3 together with staying out of the sun means your 25(OH)d level naturally depletes.
There is an absolutely huge safety margin when it comes to vitamin D3 safety and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to get up to date with the most recent scientific evidence.
Cheers
Ted

In the words of Vincinni: "Morons".

So the only risk of too much iron is constipation? What happened to "There is enough iron in this bottle to seriously harm a small child?

I went back and checked through the comments to see if mine had been accepted.

But I was more interested in reading some of the others I though this one particularly interesting as I tried to find out how to contact Professor Fairweather-Tait to explain why I was annoyed by the report. This is what he got as a reply.

As the statement, taking more than 400IU of vitamin D per day can be lethal, is totally inaccurate and alarming, I contacted Professor Fairweather-Tait. In response Professor Fairweather-Tait and another lady (presumably her secretary/assistant ) responded as follows:
"I don't know anything about this article or who to contact. I certainly didn't say what I'm reported as saying. I remember talking to a journalist many weeks ago about infant formula in the UK that was provided (just after WW2) to low income mothers, which was fortified with vit D, and actually caused the death of one or more babies because the wrong amount of vit D had been added. I used this to illustrate the concerns in the UK about the potential dangers of giving too much vit D."
She also copied me on the following e-mail she sent to the Daily Mail journalist:
"There is an error in the quoted upper level of vitamin D and I have been contacted and asked to request a correction .........................."
- Alan Ruth, Greystones, County Wicklow, 16/9/2009 12:08

So I bit of creative editing had been going on that attributed to this scientist words she had never said. Looks like the moron was the journalist.

PS Pleased to note the standard of replies was better than some I've had to deal with to recently. But we still need more people to participate in these online comments boards. I know it's tedious but unless people who have some understanding of the science contradict the rubbish that is printed the more journalists can think they can get away with writing utter tosh.