Quote Originally Posted by Driven View Post

As far as we know, the reactions that happen with D3 indicate that it's doing what you want it to do, which is help your body fight off infection.
Why then I have no "reactions" when I get my vitamin D directly from sun exposure?

Some people are more sensitive to it than others, or maybe have more infection to fight, and so have a worse reaction
When I started supplementing with D3 my skin was calm and clear. Why did the synthetic form of D3 made my skin red and warm and cause me to flush very often. Why none of this happened with vitamin D from sun exposure?

Like I mentioned in another post, it seems to be a trend that the people who have the worst reaction to it end up eventually getting the most benefit.
Why do people have to "react" so badly to something that's supposed to help? And again, why does natural D from sun exposure not cause side effects as D3 does?

I think there haven't been many success stories because 1) it takes so long
Why does it take so long for D3?

2) the reactions are discouraging
Probably because, instinctively, we know that something that's supposed to be good for you should not make you feel sick.

I think what happened in your case, and in many others, is that you took too much too fast, did some damage, and now just have to wait for recovery. Those who take a bunch, experience a bad reaction, then get better after stopping, obviously are going to translate that as "D3 is bad for me."
20,000 IU of natural vitamin D, from half an hour of sun exposure is a lot, isn't it? And yet the body does not react to it like it does to even 1,000 IU of the synthetic stuff.