I think Dr. Oz is trying to please everyone and in reality doing nothing for most.

He stays away from dosing, because the medical doctors would get mad at him. (they themselves are typically misinformed about Vit D treatment as well as the historical failures with B12 as well).

By diluting the information, and omitting critical information like Dr. Oz does, he dilutes any good that may come of it.

And the audience shenanigans most days are so irritating, I have to turn him off!

Just goes to show that Doctors protect their trade avidly, and really do not want informed patients. You see Oz do it on almost every program! Tease with a bit, and withhold the important rest.

Are there any name brands that are safer & less chance of being tainted or misrepresented?

The Consumer labs website used to let you read some things before blocking the rest , but now they want you to join & pay before reading much at all there.
[Is Your Vitamin D Supplement Delivering What You Expect?
Less Vitamin D Than Listed, Lead Contamination Among Problems Discovered. But Several Top-Quality Products Identified.

High Price Doesn't Mean High Quality with Resveratrol Supplements!
20% of Selected Brands Flunk Resveratrol Review

Statin Levels Vary 100-Fold; Contamination in 4 of 10 Products]
https://www.consumerlab.com/


Is there any good free sites that has similar information?

One thing I did NOT like about ConsumerLab...is that that automatically renewed my membership and charged my Visa without my permission.

I did not renew the next time around... I cancelled the card entirely. If one uses a PayPal card you might get billed forever!

Anyway, I have used NatureMade, Now, (for several years) and now I use Puritan's. All have GMP membership etc.

For a while I recommended only the oil gel caps, thinking since D is oil soluble, those would be best. But I found a study using powder and they found good absorption with that too.

There have been some small studies to show, that oily liquid form and dry...are both well absorbed. Here is one example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20485915

Lucky for us that Vit D is easily handled by our GI tract. (not like B12 which requires every high doses and empty stomach.)

So I would go with GMP manufacturers...NOW and Puritan's are very inexpensive.

One thing to keep in mind is that with liquid type gelcaps, there are only a few manufacturers who make this form, so when you buy it from supplement suppliers, they probably all share those same sources.

I used iherb.com to get my NOW form. When I started trialing the new Puritan's methylcobalamin, last spring, I reordered my D from them, since I was paying the shipping. I still am using those extra bottles. It seemed more convenient at the time.

ConsumerLab I found to be perhaps not really needed --to spend that money to discover that certain brands always, appeared safe. Puritan's and the other GMP places never were on the reject lists. It is like $20 a year for their info. There have been critiques that perhaps ConsumerLab is a front for certain companies...but I don't know if that is true or not. But it has been suggested.

Cod Liver oil... is one exception. I'd avoid this because the LIVER oils, from fish can have alot of contaminants. I'd wonder at the quality of removing those...including dioxins etc.

How commercial Vit D3 is made:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D

This is interesting:
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/2011...iskinsomewomen

And even more surprising...the low dose used. Imagine what could be accomplished with fixing low D levels with higher doses?

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110...nm/us_vitamind

Keep in mind that some studies are well done and others not.

Vit D is getting much attention now, and with all nutritional studies there are reports pro and con. Also the %'s often vary as well.

While I was on vacation a new study on skin cancer was published. It showed that Vit D may help reduce melanoma risk but not skin cancers like basal cell or squamous (two less invasive types).

This is one example:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SkinCar...ry?id=14318361
There are many links now on Google repeating this bit of information and they all state this quote in a similar manner:
I have been following nutritional studies online for over a decade. The inconsistencies found occur for many nutrients, therefore Vit D is no different. Today while most medical authorities encourage essential fatty acid intake, the studies still show that good benefit vs no benefit still exists. This may have to do with the variance exhibited by each person genetically or not controlling other factors in the choice of people in the studies. Genetics, race, gender, types of foods eaten, exposure to the environment and its contaminants may all vary in one way or another.

So far the Cancer Institute says it best:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...tion/vitamin-D

Doctors still vary in their recommendations for disease prevention. My doctor who is a very conservative person has remarked she wants ME at 70ng/ml. I am currently at 43, and I am finding it difficult to increase my D which is 5,000 IU D3 daily, because of my feelings on the subject. Also people vary in how they respond to D supplements, some increase blood levels quickly on seemingly lower doses and others like me seem to need more D3 to raise appreciably.

The IOM and other big medical associations still are recommending small supplement doses compared to what some specialists are doing. And there are not many reports of hypercalcemia coming out yet linked to high dose Vit D (above 600IU daily) intake.

If one goes to this link.... one can see the list of very reputable physicians at teaching hospitals who endorse the newer guidelines. http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

So the bottom line? Please get your Vitamin D level tested, and if you have chronic medical issues, correct very low levels as your doctor recommends. You may use the information I've collected here to help YOU decide how much Vit D3 you need to take, for your own unique situation. I personally find that taking my Vit D3 dose, I have greatly reduced colds and upper respiratory illness to which I was prone to before.

Some medical neurological thought for some conditions, like multiple sclerosis, is much more aggressive than for other medical conditions. For MS patients where there is much evidence that sun exposure prevents MS endemically, their goal for testing is 100ng/ml. Which is the highest goal I have seen so far. For any others here, I would not personally recommend this level. My level of 43 is working well for me, and I only reached it at 5,000 IU daily.

Here is an interesting article about how much calcium one should take:

http://www.familypracticenews.com/ne...f57d10978.html

You can see by reading this how various studies are difficult to interpret and how confusing information gets quoted in laymen's articles.

mrsD, thank you very much for the excellent information you provide. My Neurologist recently ran quite a bit of bloodwork and I received a call last night from his staff. The only problem that came up was a Vitamin D Deficiency, my number is 16. I do used a multi-vitamin that provides 1600 IU but obviously it's not working.

On the information you provided I purchased the NOW brand D3 5000 IU.

Again, thank you for taking the time to provide such useful information.

for those who want to go "whole hog" healthy origins puts out a 10,000 U cap..

Thanks to poster Apollo for finding this link for us today:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/237943.php