Maria Ortega, ND ✚

The concentration gap is the part I wish was said louder. A 300µM in-vitro result is not a 3mg sublingual result, and conflating them is how a good mechanistic finding becomes a bad supplement claim.

I have started writing the specific form and dose on the handout I give patients, because "take fish oil" produced exactly the disappointing results the low-dose trials did.

On quercetin: strong in vitro story, modest human data, enormous online confidence. That gap is where credibility goes to die.

I still use it, and I tell patients exactly where the evidence stops. Saying "this is plausible and under-tested" costs nothing and keeps you honest.

Clinical pattern I keep seeing and can't fully explain: patients with autoimmune presentations tend to arrive with 25(OH)D in the teens and twenties. Correlation is cheap — low D is also a consequence of chronic inflammation, not only a cause.

What I'd want before claiming causation: randomized supplementation with disease-activity endpoints, not just serum normalization. Some of that exists now. It is more mixed than either camp admits.