The problem with your comment IMO is that, while there's a fair bit of foundation to both questions of efficacy of vitamin supplements in general (it's a very incestuous industry with a history of collusion and abuse), and to megadosing in particular (most micronutrients are generally considered to be limiting only when lacking from a diet -- consuming more than limiting factors tends not to be associated with benefits and can be associated with harm, such as where overconsumption of one nutrient blocks uptake of another, or has toxic effects of its own).
But to claim that all supplements, and vitamins, are bullshit, without substantiation, is simply not justified. There are in fact clear cases where supplementation has proven beneficial where a deficiency exists (vitamins C, D, and B-complex vitamins in particular).
And it seems HN are calling you on that.
I do generally agree that eating a balanced and nutritious diet is your best insurance.
Yes - if you have a known vitaamin deficiency, you should (and your doctor would recommend) be taking vitamins to correct it. I hope this is not controversial.
However if you are healthy (i.e. have no known condition requiring treatment with vitamins), then there is no solid evidence that vitamins or supplements improve health outcome. If you disagree the burden of proof is on you: Point to multiple double blind studies by reputable researchers showing consistent and significant (practically not statistically) positive results. This may happen but AFAIK has not happened to date.
About 77% of the population is deficient in vitamin D.[0] You can't say "vitamins are bullshit" because only deficient people need them when a huge majority of the population IS deficient.
Sensible theory so then you need to run experiments to see if supplementing Vitamin D in "healthy" people actually improves their health outcomes. There are many reasons the theory might be wrong (ex. Natural variation of "normal" vitamin D levels). Unfortunately so far these studies have been mixed - even some negative outcomes.
From what I understand, the paper did a survey of Vitamin D related statistical studies. Then, went ahead and said that there existed a reverse causal link (Depression -> Stay Inside -> Low Vitamin D) as to why certain correlations existed. I am not going to make any judgements as to the causal conclusions they make. However, can you please clarify where you got the "negative outcomes"? There is no such thing mentioned in the NYT article, neither in the abstract of the Lancet paper.
The negative outcomes are not in those short summaries but the are easy to find. However just as a few positve studies don't prove Vitamin D is good for you a few negative studies don't prove it is bad. However negative studies do add to balance of evidence against use.
There is also the risk of overdose in any widely used supplement. Thankfully few of the 60,000 cases of vitamin toxicity in the US annually are Vitamin D (Iron is the riskyist).
A short walk in the sunlight is the best source of Vitamin D because your body naturally regulates it's production to near the optimum amount! I often wonder if the extreme avoidance of sunlight by some people is actually unhealthy...
I hope you don't take any prescription medicine, do not drink, do not sleep near electronic devices, sleep 8+ a night and eat only food that has none of the weird chemical preservatives which nobody knows the long term effects. How is the air pollution in your city? What about the weather? How much fluoride do you consume a day? Do you get stressed? Do you drink caffeine? Have you ever taken antibiotics?
But to claim that all supplements, and vitamins, are bullshit, without substantiation, is simply not justified. There are in fact clear cases where supplementation has proven beneficial where a deficiency exists (vitamins C, D, and B-complex vitamins in particular).
And it seems HN are calling you on that.
I do generally agree that eating a balanced and nutritious diet is your best insurance.