Contra Hoffman On Vitamin D Dosing

A careful, numerate rebuttal to Ben Hoffman's argument that Vitamin D studies use too-low doses. Scott reconstructs the ancestral-sunlight IU estimates (Hadza ~2000-4400 IU, not Hoffman's 32,000), the Garland/Dawson-Hughes serum-to-dose conversions, the Veugelers RDA statistical-error saga, and the IOM-vs-Endocrine-Society dispute, concluding the study doses (600-2000 IU) are physiologically reasonable and the no-effect results are trustworthy. The load-bearing general move is section V's base-rate argument: once the original (confounded) evidence for extraskeletal effects is invalidated, you must return to the low prior for any random metabolic chemical rather than retreating to 'maybe it works at higher doses.' Competent and honest but, as Scott himself flags, nitpicky and tedious; narrow in scope.

Quality 66 · Strong. Strong: a rigorous, well-sourced empirical takedown that does the tedious conversion work nobody else did, plus a clean transferable epistemics lesson (return to base rates when the original evidence collapses). Held below Excellent because the topic is narrow and the piece is admittedly nitpicky.

Claude’s paradigm shift 44 · Moderate. Notable/moderate: applies base-rate reasoning and a careful literature synthesis, but the framing is a restatement of Scott's standing 'boring bone chemical' position rather than a new frame.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. Within-discourse: sharpens a niche supplement-dosing debate among numerate readers; no material or policy reach.