I agree, PS.

This individual is clearly of the common 'vacuum' mindset, citing papers and analysis that focuses on a single nutrient or supplement being tested, where he is not considerate of the synergistic value of other nutrients in protecting against the harm that excessive levels of other nutrients have the potential to cause. It is all about a balance, and when you tip the scales, you're always going to get less than favorable results - that is obvious.

To talk of D and only D is a mistake, IMO. You must discuss D in the context of a nutrient dense diet that contains adequate amounts of all other protective and synergistic elements to allow the others to function properly and protect from potential harm when excesses of others are consumed.

In reviewing those blog posts, I see what appears to be more analysis of vitamin D working in a vacuum (as expected). Review of these blog posts that call into question the benefit and potential harm caused by higher substrate D levels makes me wonder whether the author has reviewed any of the papers by Masterjohn that cite studies that show protection and synergy between the other fat soluble nutrients. Until I start seeing people's skeptical analysis incorporate these points regarding synergistic nutrient balance, it will remain difficult for me to look at such arguments and analysis with much interest.

The whole idea of calcification alone is not as simplistic as 'high vitamin D', which I found peppered in one of those posts (the comments at least). Even Zuleikka herself is proof positive that high D (I mean high D) does not equate to hypercalcemia. Her level would surely knock the socks off this author and certainly leave him scratching his head.

Indeed, the concept is the same on the surface, but you're really comparing apples to oranges here. Like the heart disease study Hutchinson cited, the opposite of excessive mortality is created with higher D levels, contrary to your analogy to the antioxidant trials.