Reply #55: "Vitamin D2 Toxicity: Caveat Emptor"(!) Confusion of Vitamin D2 and D3 in article?

[tiptoe]

...
The daily requirement of vitamin D for adults is now believed to be 1,000 to 2,000 IU (personal observation). In contrast, however, our patient ingested 600,000 IU with each vial of Soladek.
...

The patient's Soladek ingredients specify Vitamin D2 (Ergosterol Irradiado) @ 600.000 IU per 5ml vial.

The daily requirement "of vitamin D for adults of 1,000 to 2,000 IU" as described by the article's authoring doctors would seem in line with Vitamin D in D3 form (cholecalciferol), given info on the two types, D2 and D3, in the OP:

...
Prescription vitamin D is only available as vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol), known to be inferior to D3. Raising vitamin D blood levels into the optimal range from below the reference range routinely requires a daily dose of 6000 to 8000 IU’s of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) for two to three months. Staying in the optimal range requires a minimum of 1000 to 2000 IU’s per day  [i.e. of cholecalciferol], with potentially increased need during the winter months or for those in higher risk categories. Vegetarians should note that commercial D3 is largely derived from lanolin gleaned from sheep’s wool, rather than from fish oil. Vegans should be advised that supplementing with D2, derived from irradiating fungus, may require twice the amount of D3 proposed to make up for its inadequacies, but it may also be more toxic, because it does not exist naturally in the human body.
...

Patients are subjected to medical prescriptions for Vitamin D2. But, looking at a chart of comparative serum concentrations of D2 vs D3 over time (see Fig 1, 2 and 3: "Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans"), doesn't it seem, from a patient's point of view, more like a crapshoot than a confidence-matter, having to deal with D2 at all vs D3, given variety of personal and environmental factors in the context of known steep D2 efficacy swing?

Look at the comparative serum concentrations over time between D2 and D3 in the following graph (go to article to expand the image of Fig. 2):



D3 serum concentration over time is relatively stable after the first few days of application, compared to the consistently steep fall-off in concentration for D2. Why are people having to be confronted with and dealing with inferior, unmanageable D2 at all instead of D3?

The article would be of better service re-titled with a qualifier:

"Vitamin D2 Toxicity: Caveat Emptor"