So other conditions and other supplements. I believe a papers have said 10,000 is perfectly safe. And, you just gotta take it with vitamin k if you're really concerned.
You have already been advised that "a papers [sic]" is not the appropriate way to review science. As many papers as possible would be preferable. In particular, most studies may look at only a very short term toxicity (e.g. we gave people X much for three months, no-one died so it's fine). But what about six months? A year? Ten years? Did that study just happen to not chance upon someone, where other studies have had patients suffering adverse effects?
What you said has been proven wrong or at least how much you think it has an affect. If people with vitamin d deficiency just needed one big dose to get them back to normal, then there'd be data on that and there isn't.
Show me any study that shows a single big dose of vitamin d will get someone up to normal levels from deficient levels because that is what you argued. Where's the data to prove it?
You are very ignorant about this topic. Can you please not make grandiose statements about what has been proven when you have no idea what's going on - if only to save yourself from looking so foolish? If you take one big dose, you will probably be replete for a period of time (relating to size of dose), but levels will decrease over time. Thus the question is not whether one big dose (say, 50,000IUs) will make you sufficient, but for how long it will make you sufficient.
As to providing you a study, I've got a few lined up. But I'm having fun more waiting to see if you can find them yourself, seeing as they should be easy to find with the elite science skills you think you have.
So 3 doctors that all take over 3,000 IUs a day just so happen to have poor absorption? At least 2 were under 30ng/ml taking 2,000/day. Fauci takes 6,000/day, no clue what his levels are or his goal though.
Three doctors were evidently trying to get very high vitamin D levels well above what anyone can recognise as significantly beneficial. Yes, if you want unnecessarily high levels of vitamin D, you will need to take correspondingly large quantities. Or, you can just settle for a decent amount and take much less.
Chicago had Lollapalooza and look at all the people bunched together outside and no super spreader event. So what data shows you masks are needed outside in any circumstance?
1) A lot of attendees of a nationally renowned festival don't live in the city it's hosted, so checking Chicago infections is not measuring the right sample. 2) A lot of attendees are likely to be young, with mild / asymptomatic cases and don't get tested to find them. 3) This far into covid, a lot of them are also likely to have some immunity, via prior infection or vaccination.
It's good news for sure. But it really doesn't show what you think it does.
Show me a good mask study, something on par with what is needed to show a drug is effective.
There are effectively no single studies that show drugs are effective, either.
Is the FDA really that trustworthy? 
