Regarding the vitamin supplement fear porn

Thinking in context, and why you shouldn't believe everything you read online- even on Substack.

Correction 2.25.2024: As Robin Whittle pointed out below a few of the points regarding Vitamin D were misused.

For instance, the following sentence was changed from this:

In short, the UV rays from the sun are providing the energy to convert the structure of Vitamin D into the form Vitamin D3. The review article on mushrooms I provided has this figure to show this process:

To now state the following, with changes in italics:

In short, the UV rays from the sun are providing the energy to convert various precursor molecules into different forms of Vitamin D. For instance, the energy from UV rays helps to rearrange the structure of Ergosterol into Ergocalciferol (Vitamin D2), as well as 7-dehydrocholesterol into Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3). It’s the use of radiation that helps to facilitate this conversion. The review article on mushrooms I provided has this figure to show this process:

The following sentence was changed as well to not refer to Vitamin D and instead to precursor molecules:

In essence, our skin must become irradiated in order to rearrange the structure of Vitamin D from Ergosterol into the other forms, including Vitamin D3.

And the following sentence was also changed to make the distinction between precursors and different forms of Vitamin D (note that these should not have been conflated to be the same):

And note that even though most food sources contain Vitamin D it is generally in the form of precursors such as Ergosterol and Vitamin D2 rather than the much-revered Vitamin D3…

Please note that changes to the prior sentences are italicized within the following body of the article below. Sorry for not making the distinction and thanks to Robin Whittle for pointing it out.

---

Last week a Substack article came across my recommendation feed, and given the title I decided to peruse the contents of the article itself.

Given the title of this post many readers are probably aware of the Substack I am referring to, but I will post it for those interested:

Vitamin D is Rat Poison: The FRAUDULENT WORLD OF SYNTHETIC VITAMINS

By itself I wouldn’t pay any mind to articles such as these. But what worried me was the discourse around this article, as I started noticing people citing this article in various comment sections on this platform. More importantly, it wasn’t necessarily that this article was cited, but that it was cited as being wholly factual and being used as a castigation for supplements.

Now, this post isn’t intended to be a defense of supplementation. Rather, it serves as a comment on the growing issue I am seeing among those within the vaccine skeptical community, or maybe even the skeptical community at large where people who should be more discerning are still so quick to be trusting of whatever they come across.

It’s to this point that I find it necessary to offer some criticisms of this article, and thus hopefully providing context to readers so that they can be more informed and critical of what they are reading.

Be forewarned that the following information is not going to nitpick at every point. If there are some points that readers have questions on please feel free to ask those questions in the comments.

---

Natural, Synthetic, and is there a difference?

To start, the article in question initially points out that we get vitamin D from the sun and food, which then delves into the synthetic version of vitamin D3 and labeling the synthetic version with the name Cholecalciferol, labeling this compound a chemical.

For all intents and purposes, this compound is a chemical in the same way that any compound we come into contact with is a chemical. Quercetin is a chemical, Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are chemicals, vitamins and minerals are chemicals. By itself the idea of labeling something a chemical is a rather nebulous statement because most things can be defined as some sort of chemical.

But the more important point to make here is that readers are presented with two different perspectives, where on one hand readers are told where natural Vitamin D comes from but are told what synthetic Vitamin D3 is. The problem is that, irrespective of what the source is, a compound is a compound. That is, whether something is made naturally or whether it is made synthetically if the compound bears the same structure it has the same name.

In this case, it is not just the synthetic version of Vitamin D3 that is named Cholecalciferol, but it is the natural version that is named so as well. But readers aren’t provided insights into the natural version, only being told where to find it. It’s not as if the sun is hitting us with rays of Vitamin D3, and if sourced from foods we should be able to intuit that scientists were able to isolate this compound from food, otherwise how would we know which foods would be rich in Vitamin D3 if we have not isolated and characterized this compound? How would we know that mushrooms are rich in Vitamin D if we weren’t able to isolate and characterize Vitamin D from mushrooms?

To that, here’s a review article¹ on mushrooms and their Vitamin D content for those interested. Note that the main form sourced from foods is Vitamin D2 and not Vitamin D3- more on that later.

The main point here is that readers are provided two different perspectives on natural versus synthetic Vitamin D, but through this mangling of information are somehow not being told information that can put into context that synthetic and natural compounds are inherently structurally the same- remember that if they are not structurally the same they wouldn’t have similar mechanisms of action. This doesn’t mean the processing and sourcing of these compounds are similar, but that the end result is the same in the form of Cholecalciferol.

On irradiation

I’ll jump ahead here and address the comment made regarding irradiating.

To not take things out of context I will post the excerpt from the article here:

You’re not going to believe this, but it’s true. Synthetic Vitamin D3 is typically produced with irradiation of 7-dehydrocholesterol from lanolin obtained from the wool of sheep. I know that sounds confusing AF, so let me break it down in normal-people-speak:

Lanolin is a waxy substance that is naturally secreted by wool-bearing mammals, such as sheep.

What they are doing is blasting the lanolin with UV light and heat. They claim they are getting the 7-dehydrocholesterol in the lanolin to “turn into” what they will then call (synthetic) “vitamin D3”. This is how it has been done since it’s (alleged) discovery in 1935.

Again, sounds a bit scary, especially when not within the proper context that our friend Mr. Sun can provide us.

Because what exactly is the sun doing to us that helps us to produce Vitamin D3?

In short, the UV rays from the sun are providing the energy to convert various precursor molecules into different forms of Vitamin D. For instance, the energy from UV rays helps to rearrange the structure of Ergosterol into Ergocalciferol (Vitamin D2), as well as 7-dehydrocholesterol into Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3). It’s the use of radiation that helps to facilitate this conversion. The review article on mushrooms I provided has this figure to show this process:

In essence, our skin must become irradiated in order to rearrange the structure of precursors into various Vitamin D molecules, including Vitamin D3.

What’s so strange about this point is that most readers should be well-aware of the natural production of Vitamin D3. It’s not as if this has been the subject of discourse for the past few years where people have commented on going out in the sun in order to make Vitamin D3 ourselves, with general rebuttals commenting that too much UV radiation can increase the risk of skin cancer. It’s usually the heavily pro-sunscreen side that suggests that we should wear sunscreen when going outside and take supplementary Vitamin D3 in order to avoid the harmful rays of the sun.

This is also why people with darker pigments tend to get less Vitamin D3 within the Northern Hemisphere as both the intensity and the duration of sunlight exposure are far too low to overcome the radiation protection that is provided from melanin and other darker skin pigments.²

From Carlberg, C.

But again, I must ask why is it that people who should be aware of this method of obtaining natural Vitamin D3 are so quick to fall into this fear over irradiation? Certainly these same people should avoid going out in the sun, because the mechanism by which natural Vitamin D3 is obtained is similar to what is happening to the lanolin from sheep wool.

Or is it that within the right context readers can be made to believe something that would otherwise be inconsequential?

Note that in this case the same precursor is mentioned both within the context of natural Vitamin D3 production as well as the synthetic one by way of the compound 7-Dehydrocholesterol (a chemical no less!).

And note that even though most food sources contain Vitamin D it is generally in the form of precursors such as Ergosterol or in less effective forms such as Vitamin D2 rather than the much-revered Vitamin D3, and even then most food sources obtain their Vitamin D2 by way of, what else, exposure to radiation! The review from Cardwell, et al. even makes mention of irradiation mushrooms in order to obtain higher levels of Vitamin D2. It’s likely levels of various Vitamin D molecules from food are dependent on the degree and intensity of which these compounds are exposed to UV-radiation.

So to put it bluntly, irradiation is itself a nebulous concept if not placed into the right context. Are readers picking and choosing what ways they should fear irradiation, or is the proper context that is missing? Or why is it that given the grand scheme of everything going on does it appear that some readers are not making the proper connections that would dissuade blindly believing whatever they come across? It’s not as if the discussion surrounding vitamin D3 and sunlight would forget the crucial part that is UV-radiation.

It’s the latter argument that itself has made me rather disheartened, as it seems like some Susbtack readers will come across information but not be able to utilize them in different contexts.

On Dosage, Additives, and MSDS

One main point I will make is regarding the discussion over some of the additives discussed in the Substack in question.

Note here that the author mentions Mangnesium Stearate and Microcrystalline Cellulose in some Indian formulation of Vitamin D.

First, note here that this formulation doesn’t seem like a commonly found formulation as Vitamin D is fat-soluble, meaning that the form you will typically find it in is in a gel capsule, and you can get a general feel for the solubility of different supplements and vitamins by way of their formulation.

For instance, here’s an example of Kirkland’s Vitamin D3 supplement in gel form. Note that the other ingredients are oils and gelatin, with gelatin likely serving as the capsule itself.

Note that this doesn’t mean that tablet forms of Vitamin D3 are unavailable. Nature Made has one with ingredients such as cellulose and magnesium stearate.

Note most people are not likely to come across the formulation of Vitamin D3 unless they seek out the tablet form or take it in the form of a multivitamin. You’ll likely be carrying the gel capsule form in your cabinet.

Nonetheless, let’s point out these two compounds in question.

The rather glaring one would be the Microcrystalline Cellulose, which readers are told is rather toxic.

But let’s take a moment and ask yourself- does the word cellulose seem familiar? If you have heard it before it’s because cellulose is a carbohydrate found in plants. It juxtaposes starch which we mammals can readily digest. In contrast, cellulose is what comprises dietary fiber and other parts of plants that we don’t have the proper mechanisms of digesting, and generally serve as structural compounds critical for plants. We essentially consume cellulose when we eat any plant material.

If the microcrystalline makes this seem scarier, be mindful that this just refers to how the cellulose is broken down into finer particulates.

Again here the fear sans any context may make microcrystalline cellulose seem scary (I mean, it is a big word after all). Are the same people concerned about cellulose as an additive eating plant matter? Because you’ll likely be getting a larger dose of cellulose from plants than you would be from supplements.

Plants help to keep you regular after all!

But then why the scary SDS? Bear in mind that an SDS is constructed based on anything that may be related to a possible hazard. More seriously concerning SDS’ may make note of teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, or other possible acute and long-term toxicity. But they may also note things that are related to just the nature of the product.

For instance, comments regarding the safety from inhaling microcrystalline cellulose would apply to any powdery substance irrespective of what it is due to the fact that powders can irritate the lungs and eyes (anyone who bakes and gets puffs of flour in the air would be aware of this). It’s not uncommon to see possible skin or eye irritants for any compound’s MSDS.

Here’s an SDS on HPLC-grade water, which is nothing more than water with ions and salt removed (i.e. pure water), which notes water as being a possible skin irritant, and may cause nausea and vomiting when consumed in large amounts:

I guess water is really toxic then! I hope you all know that 100% of the people who have ever consumed water have died!

Overall, the problem is that an SDS does not tell us much about the actual toxicity for these compounds outside of a lab environment as people are likely to be exposed to different forms and higher doses of these compounds within a lab and manufacturing setting. These SDS are also nothing more that a way of idiot-proofing reagents, as if to tell people you shouldn’t be consuming your lab reagents, idiot!³

That’s why these products contain instructions that they aren’t for eating or drinking, similar to packages of mixed nuts which may contain a warning that the product may, in fact contain nuts!

As to Magnesium Stearate, note that this refers to the ionic form of Stearic Acid, which is a fatty acid found in plant and animal fats. Predominately, this compound is found in animal fats with milk containing a relatively high level of Stearic Acid.⁴⁵ One plant to show a high level of Stearic Acid is none other than the cocoa plant⁶ (what a coincidence!).

Again, those who are made to fear Magnesium Stearate are likely consuming Stearate and Stearic Acid in the foods they are eating, and likely at higher doses, but it’s not as if people will stop drinking milk, eating animal products, or consuming chocolate though, right?

So why add these compounds to vitamins? It may help with stabilizing the formulation. For instance using a fatty acid such as Stearic Acid may help to better stabilize the fat-soluble Vitamin D3 as Stearic Acid is a solid at room temperature. The cellulose may be serving the same purpose, but in this case the cellulose is likely serving as a bulking agent as well.

And this brings up the idea of bulking agents and dosing.

Given the author mentions his/her prior days in bodybuilding I should mention that I take pre-workout supplements and are somewhat privy to these supplements.

I won’t speak on the state of my body, but if you look at any pre-workout supplement, let’s say Creatine Monohydrate you’ll notice that most of these products don’t have any fillers added. Here’s an example of one product label for Optimum Nutrition’s creatine powder:

Most of these supplements may not have filler or bulking agents added, but note here the intended dosage of creatine. A daily pre-workout use of this supplement hovers around 5 grams, or around one heaping tablespoon of this stuff before your workout. Other supplements, such as L-citrulline D-malate hover around 10-12 grams as a recommended pre-workout dosage.

In the case of these supplements the dosages are so high that no filler or bulking agent is needed- you legitimately have to use a scooper to dish out these supplements.

In contrast, most vitamins have daily allowances in the lower microgram range.

For instance, one reported daily recommendation for Vitamin D is around 600 IUs. One IU of Vitamin D is around 0.025 micrograms, so 600 IUs would be around 15 micrograms daily. Let’s not take into consideration whether this recommendation is valid, but on the surface note the stark contrast in dosing and size relative to 5g of creatine one is expected to take on average prior to a workout.

Five grams is equivalent to 5,000 milligrams, or 5,000,000 micrograms daily of creatine! That’s about a 333,333.333333…(you get the idea…)-fold higher level of creatine one is expected to take of creatine relative to Vitamin D. And even at the highest dose available of Vitamin D of around 50,000 IU that’s still around 4,000 times more creatine that I am taking relative to the highest dosage of Vitamin D available.

Sorry for the confusion, but what I am getting at is that the daily allowance for vitamins is so small that it would be nearly impossible for people to properly dose these vitamins in their purest forms. In that way, bulking agents allow for more controlled dosing. You’re far less likely to overdose on single-dose tablets or gel capsules containing 1,000 IUs of Vitamin D than you are to take Vitamin D in a pure form and trying to measure out micrograms of the substance. And it’s not like many people would even have analytical-grade scales within their homes to begin with to even measure out such a tiny dose.

In that regard, bulking agents aren’t selling you fake levels of vitamins- you are told how much of a vitamin is within a certain tablet or gel (although this number may vary from what the manufacturer reports), with the additives helping to provide the supplement in a manner that people can take, otherwise most people will likely die from rampant overdosing.

Remember that it’s the mantra of pharmacology to enforce the idea that it’s the dosage that makes the poison. Anything can be made toxic, but it’s the degree of that exposure to that compound that contextualizes whether something we take may be effective of it may be toxic.

Note that many animal and plant toxins have been used for therapeutic purposes when dosed far below their lethal levels, including highly toxic plants such as Lily-of-the-valley and its cardiac glycosides.

It’s strange that the article in question makes commentary regarding dosing, yet doesn’t appear to contextualize the dosing for these additives or vitamins, or why additives and bulking agents may even be added in the first place.

That’s why, in particular, the idea of Vitamin D3 being a rat poison should be considered rather absurd on the surface. Wouldn’t the initial idea be that rat poisons would inherently contain enough Vitamin D3 to be lethal to rats, and wouldn’t that context be necessary for readers so that they understand how to contextualize this dosing?

It’s rather frustrating how quickly people seemed to have grabbed onto the idea of “rat poison” just because some video of a woman says so- who is this woman and why should I just suddenly take her word?

---

There are likely more points to be made, so I’ll leave some of that to the comments and I’ll try to address some questions.

One thing I will add is that the videos included, again, lack serious context. There’s some serious issues with the information provided in the 4:28 minute-long TimTruth video, as the presenter seems to mix up what led to the discovery of Vitamin A and Vitamin D.

This review article from DeLuca, H.F.⁷ suggests that it was assumed that Vitamin A found in cod liver oil was what contributed to helping with rickets, but when the Vitamin A was destroyed the oil was still found to have helped, suggesting that another vitamin was likely responsible for helping to treat rickets. Additional testing was also done to note endogenous production of what would come to be Vitamin D.

Note here that the point isn’t to castigate the article, but my intent was to point some of the issues in the thinking process, as well as providing context that hopefully alleviates some of the rampant fears. It’s really the immediate trust of this article that raised concerns and how often I have seen it brought up that made me curious, as well as concerned.

That’s because it feels as if many people who have learned to be skeptical are still operating under a paradigm of blind trust/cynicism. They are far-too cynical of any information that may come from health officials or federal agencies even though there may be instances when some of the information that comes out may be accurate. In contrast, they may be far too trusting of people who they may agree with, to the point that they become gullible to any information found here on Substack or anywhere else online.

I like to argue that we all have some intuitive bullshit meter, but that it has not been calibrated properly meaning we rely on wrong heuristics. We still rely on appeals to authority even though we question the need for authority figures. We rely on credentials rather than evidence to infer the veracity of information. We rely on the charisma and personality of figures rather than their content.

It doesn’t help that so-called fact-checkers have bastardized the idea of fact-checking, even though we encourage people to do their own research and make conclusions based on the evidence that they come across.

There’s a serious issue going on here that appears to pop up in more frequency. Maybe this will be saved for another article.

Note that I am also not wholly in support of supplements. If any argument was to be made against the use of supplements, I would instead bring into question the actual dosage of these supplements, whether there are any contaminants, or if the additives may induce some sort of allergic reaction in select individuals, as highlighted in Lisa Brunette’s account of her mast cell activation:

The problem with herbal and dietary supplements

In short, be careful to assume that everything you read online is true, do your own research to figure out pertinent context, and always try to view things from a critical lens and with a good deal of skepticism.

---

Substack is my main source of income and all support helps to support me in my daily life. If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists such as myself to provide work outside of the mainstream narrative.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent

1. Cardwell G, Bornman JF, James AP, Black LJ. A Review of Mushrooms as a Potential Source of Dietary Vitamin D. Nutrients. 2018;10(10):1498. Published 2018 Oct 13. doi:10.3390/nu10101498

2. Carlberg C. (2019). Nutrigenomics of Vitamin D. Nutrients, 11(3), 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11030676

3. Funnily enough, during my undergrad a manager in the lab I was working in drank some of this lab-grade water to see how it tasted. From what I heard the response was “nothing”, as in pure water just has no taste whatsoever. It’s worth thinking about when you see labels on purified/spring water which may have some sub-header with the phrase “minerals added for flavor”. It’s not really the water you are tasting, but the added minerals.

4. Loften, J. R., Linn, J. G., Drackley, J. K., Jenkins, T. C., Soderholm, C. G., & Kertz, A. F. (2014). Invited review: palmitic and stearic acid metabolism in lactating dairy cows. Journal of dairy science, 97(8), 4661–4674. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-7919

5. Månsson H. L. (2008). Fatty acids in bovine milk fat. Food & nutrition research, 52, 10.3402/fnr.v52i0.1821. https://doi.org/10.3402/fnr.v52i0.1821

6. Katz, D. L., Doughty, K., & Ali, A. (2011). Cocoa and chocolate in human health and disease. Antioxidants & redox signaling, 15(10), 2779–2811. https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2010.3697

7. Deluca H. F. (2014). History of the discovery of vitamin D and its active metabolites. BoneKEy reports, 3, 479. https://doi.org/10.1038/bonekey.2013.213