The Case for a National Vitamin D Optimisation Program

A Lifesaving, Cost-Effective Public Health Strategy

Across the globe, countries are grappling with a growing public health crisis including: rising levels of chronic disease, surging cancer rates, and aging populations. These trends are creating an unsustainable burden on healthcare systems, economies, and families. As populations age, the number of sick and dependent individuals rises, while the pool of healthy, working-age people (those who generate income and provide care) shrinks. In this context, it is imperative for national health authorities to adopt low-cost, high-impact interventions that can improve public health outcomes and reduce long-term healthcare costs. One such intervention stands out for its safety, affordability, and scientific backing - vitamin D optimisation.

Vitamin D Deficiency: A Widespread and Ignored Issue

Vitamin D plays a crucial role in immune function, bone health, and cellular regulation. Yet, deficiency is extremely common. In the United States alone, an estimated 40% of adults have insufficient vitamin D levels, with higher rates among older adults, people with darker skin, and those living in northern latitudes.

In fact, 2013–2016 official survey data in the United States found that 92% of men, more than 97% of women, and 94% of people 1 year of age and older ingested less than the recommended daily amount of vitamin D from food and beverages. It is important to remember that the recommended daily amount is set to avoid specific deficiency related diseases and based on averages - it is not based on optimal health.

In the United Kingdom, 20% of people have low vitamin D levels that are associated with serious disease, and some reports suggest that 60% of the population are considered as having insufficient levels of vitamin D.

Widespread vitamin D deficiency in the UK has been known about for sometime. In 2010 researchers called for urgent intervention for the elderly and the National Diet and Nutrition Survey in 2011 stated “There was evidence of an increased risk of vitamin D deficiency in all age/sex groups.”

Despite this, vitamin D deficiency remains underdiagnosed, underappreciated and undertreated.

However, the neglect runs even deeper than that. All of the high-profile health authorities disregard vitamin D as an important factor. The American Cancer Society, on their website, encourages people not to check their vitamin D level. At the same time the organisation acknowledges the role of vitamin D in the immune system, the reduction of inflammation and the control of the growth of cells. All of these functions are of course important in the prevention and treatment of cancer.

The American Cancer Society and alike, repeatedly claim there is not enough evidence to support the use of vitamin D supplementation. They also do not seem to be motivated to collect this evidence.

It is not clear how much of the American Cancer Society’s total assets of $1.8 billion have been allocated towards researching vitamin D and cancer.

If these organisations were genuine, wouldn’t vitamin D to be a top research priority? Knowing the widespread deficiencies and how easy it would be to implement a vitamin D health initiative.

American Cancer Society building Atlanta, Georgia.

Vitamin D Studies "Designed to Fail"

A growing number of researchers and clinicians argue that many vitamin D studies, particularly randomised clinical trials, have design flaws that limit their ability to show benefits. Including:

Wrong Dosing Strategy

• Low doses (e.g., 400–2,000 IU/day) are often used in trials, even when participants are deficient. Whereas most experts recommend 5,000 - 10,000 IU/day, depending on body composition.

• Some studies didn’t adjust the dose based on participants’ baseline vitamin D status, so people who were already sufficient in vitamin D received the same dose as those severely deficient. For people with existing adequate vitamin D levels additional supplementation may not show benefit. Benefits are often greatest in those who are deficient, and those results are diluted when mixed with the already sufficient participants.

Lack of Measurement or Achievement of Target Levels

• Studies often fail to measure whether blood levels actually increased to effective thresholds (e.g., 40–70 ng/mL). Making it hard to correlate outcomes with physiological changes.

Short Duration

• Clinical trials are often only 2–3 years long but chronic diseases take decades to develop. Which makes it unlikely to detect meaningful changes in incidence or mortality.

Poor Adherence

• In some trials, participants did not consistently take their supplements, but were still included in the analysis. This again dilutes the measurable impact of the intervention.

Failure to Stratify by Risk

• Outcomes may be more visible in high-risk populations (e.g., older adults, those with chronic inflammation, darker skin, living in northern latitudes). Some trials lump everyone together, missing subgroup benefits.

For Example

The VITAL trial is one of the most cited clinical trials on vitamin D and cancer. It was a large randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that included 25,871 people 50 years and older. This trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health but has, strangely, been reported as a negative trial even though the results showed a benefit.

Participants who received vitamin D supplementation, and had a normal BMI, experienced a 38% reduced risk for advanced cancer. This was despite the fact that the trial suffered from some of the issues mentioned above. The dose of vitamin D administered was 2,000 IU/day, which is extremely unlikely to raise blood levels sufficiently.

Differentiation between normal BMI participants and obese participants is important. We know that obesity makes it very difficult to increase blood levels of vitamin D. The overweight and obese require considerably higher dosages of supplemental vitamin D. Therefore, in the VITAL trial, people who were overweight had an 11% reduced risk and the obese group (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) experienced no protective effect.

Had the correct dose been used for the different groups of people, we would expect to see a much greater reduction in cancer risk.

The Broader Impact on Chronic Disease and Aging

Beyond cancer, low vitamin D levels have been linked to increased risk of:

• Cardiovascular disease

• Autoimmune disorders (e.g., multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes)

• Osteoporosis and fractures in older adults

• Infectious diseases, including respiratory infections

Optimising vitamin D status would improve immune function and mobility in older adults, reducing hospitalisations, falls, and dependency. This, in turn, alleviates the pressure on younger generations who are increasingly tasked with caring for elderly family members while contributing to the economy.

The Role of Nutrient Synergy

For vitamin D to be absorbed and utilised effectively, other nutrients must also be sufficient:

• Magnesium: Essential for converting vitamin D into its active form

• Vitamin K2: Helps direct calcium to bones rather than arteries

• Zinc and boron: Support vitamin D metabolism and immune function

• Healthy fats: Vitamin D is fat-soluble and requires dietary fat for absorption

Without these cofactors, even high doses of vitamin D may be less effective.

Speeding Up Vitamin D Repletion

In individuals with very low vitamin D levels, standard supplementation may take weeks or months to restore optimal levels. However, faster repletion is possible using medically supervised loading doses, sometimes via high-dose oral or intramuscular routes. These approaches can be especially beneficial in patients with severe deficiencies, malabsorption issues, or urgent health needs.

Policy Proposal: A National Program for Vitamin D Optimisation

National health authorities should adopt a proactive approach to vitamin D optimisation, involving:

1. Routine screening for vitamin D levels, particularly in high-risk populations

2. Public health campaigns to raise awareness about the importance of vitamin D and safe sun exposure

3. Subsidized access to supplements, particularly for low-income and elderly populations

4. Professional training for healthcare providers to understand the broader role of vitamin D in chronic disease prevention

Conclusion

Vitamin D optimisation is one of the most promising, low-cost interventions available to modern healthcare systems. It offers substantial potential to reduce cancer and chronic disease incidence, improve quality of life, and support healthy aging. In a time when healthcare systems are under immense pressure and nations face the twin challenges of aging populations and rising disease burdens, a national program to monitor and improve vitamin D status is not just wise, it is essential.

Governments that act now will not only improve the health of their citizens but also reduce long-term healthcare expenditures, bolster economic productivity, and build resilience into their public health infrastructure for generations to come.

You can also support the production of my documentary films by making a one-off donation: