The Devil's in the Details

This study is all over the health news, but I am linking to Medscape because they have some additional information.

Future Trials Unlikely to Support Vitamin D Supplementation

A new meta-analysis of trials of vitamin D supplements for the prevention of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cancer, or hip fracture in seniors finds that, in general, taking vitamin D does not lower the incidence of these outcomes. Moreover, in a sequential meta-analysis, the researchers showed that any future clinical trials would also likely find that vitamin D supplements would not reduce the incidence of these outcomes by 15% or more.
"The take-away message is that there is little justification currently for prescribing vitamin D to prevent heart attack, stroke, cancer, or fractures in otherwise-healthy people living in the community," lead author Mark Bolland, PhD, from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, told Medscape Medical News in an email.

Oh really.... let's look closer...

They obtained data from 44 reports of 40 individual randomized controlled trials. The vitamin D doses in the supplements ranged from 200 to 1100 IU/day, or 100,000 to 150,000 IU every 3 months.

Those levels are way under current recommendations...

In 23 of the 32 trials (73%) that reported baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin-D levels, the average baseline level was less than 50 nmol/L, "which is widely considered to be normal, although some people think higher levels, eg, from higher than 75 to 80 nmol/L, are normal," Dr. Bolland explained. In most studies, among participants who took the supplements, 25-hydroxyvitamin-D levels increased to normal levels.

Which you just admitted are questionable...

The study participants were typically women in their 70s or 80s.

 Pardon Me?   Women who have calcium deficiency and likely have no teeth left??  

The finding by Dr. Bolland and team that the "the body of evidence is already sufficiently large" so that future trials will not change the conclusion that vitamin D is not of use in most people ...

Maybe not "most" people- but how about "sick" people?  Who aren't already elderly and frail?
This review study proves nothing.   You cannot extrapolate these results to all people.  Proper clinical trials are showing results.
Why am I getting the feeling someone doesn't want us taking vitamin D?