Yesterday (2024-6-13) the two readers also wrote to the United States' endocrine association's latest guide on vitamin D. The first one is Qiu Wenjing, a physician of the kidneys. He and I have never met each other, but I think he is a close friend in academics and have invited him to be the recommended truth about my new book, Vitamin D, in 2020.

Dr. Qiu first briefly introduced the latest guide to the endocrine association, including "Don't check vitamin D", and then said: Professor Lin, I think you have read this article. Your years of "work" finally got official recognition.

The second reader of the letter is Alberto. He puts the two translated articles in the response column of this article.

The original English text of the first translated article is published on 2024-6-3 in Medscape's ‘Don’t Screen’ for Vitamin D: New Endo Society Guideline ("Don't Screen" Vitamin D: New Endocrine Association Guideline).

The original English text of the second translated article is published on 2024-6-7 in Medscape's Vitamin D Test Inaccuracies Persist Despite Gains in Field: CDC (Despite progress in this field, the uncertainty of the Vitamin D test remains: CDC).

The latest guide to the endocrine association mentioned by Dr. Qiu and Alberto is the Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline published on June 3, 2024.

For the new guideline, "Don't check vitamin D", my confusion in the treatment of brain cancer published on 2017-10-20 and vitamin D published on 2018-2-1, the reader responded to it: No one knows what "vitamin D is normal".

What I published on 2018-3-13 is "Normal Vitamin D Value" to explain more in detail (1) What is the best vitamin D concentration, but it has not reached a consensus yet, and the accurate vitamin D measurement method is still only in research and development. (2) Unlike other vitamins, the concentration of vitamin D in the blood fluctuates with inheritance and environmental factors throughout the year. In other words, it may be normal to "overly &ldquo" at some point, and at some point it may be normal. (3) The current vitamin D measurement methods still have high variations, which may lead to incorrect diagnosis of lack of vitamin D. In other words, for the same blood sample, one hospital measured “ "excessively ”" but another tested “ "normal ”"

My vitamin D published on 2019-11-11: What is the “ correct ” level? Vitamin D: What’s the “ right” level? (vitamin D: What is “ correct ” level?), and one of the paragraph titles is "Exactly positioning the “ healthy ” level is tricky."

I published the Vitamin D paradox on 2019-12-26 quoted two articles: "The concentration of serum vitamin D in African Americans is about half of that of white Americans, but the incidence of fractures is only half of that of white Americans. … According to this As a result, researchers suggest that the total vitamin D concentration should not be reviewed. "

I still cannot find enough evidence to support the vitamin D screening report 5 articles published by the American Medical Association journal JAMA on whether vitamin D screening is required.

The blood I posted on 2022-11-30 could not detect vitamin D. The bones were normal. It was pointed out that some people could not detect vitamin D, but the bones were completely normal.

I said in the Vitamin D horse published on 2024-2-2 (1) Many professional organizations, including the USPTF, the National Medical Association, the U.S. Medical Council Foundation and the U.S. Clinical Pathology Association, now support "don't start a review based on Vitamin D" to reflect this fact more appropriately: these tests are medically unnecessary, waste money, time and resources, and help general vitamin D. Lack of misconceptions, (2) In addition, endocrine will be revising its guide on Vitamin D, abandoning Michael Holick’s carefully selected profit-driven initiatives, and using only reliable random control and clinically relevant data.

For Michael Holick, please see:

The father of Vitamin D Wan Ling Pill

The father of Vitamin D Wan Ling Pill, the child abuse proof

The father of Vitamin D vs The father of Vitamin D Wan Ling Pill

Finally, I am very grateful to Dr. Qiu for saying "Your years of "work" finally got the official recognition." However, in terms of transmitting correct medical information, being "officially recognized" is far better than being "commonly recognized". Please see the Promotional public chasing science and disdaining real science.

Recent notes: One hour after the article was published, reader Arthur Ting left a message on his face: "Official recognition" is far worse than "People's recognition"! well! The water is clear and the water is washed.

Original text: Do not review vitamin D: Official recognition

Responsibility editor: Gu Zihuan