Again projection, I followed your first link that is simply re-stating the starting assumptions by referencing "studies". In the references there are links but on following the links we get more of the same, we don't get to see if they are randomised, double blind placebo controlled trials or simply observational studies perhaps funded by people with an interest in the outcome.

In my previous post, the YouTube link has a university professor calmly and rationally looking at the evidence in favour of routine vitamin supplements. Each case he presents at first looks very promising in support until his reveal of what happens when the data is subject to critical examination or a proper randomised trial is done. Over and over what we see is conventional "it must be beneficial, look at the data" overturned by "Actually the high quality studies show the opposite".

The other glaring flaw in what you present is addressed in my two original questions you fail to reply to: What actual clinical issues are documented in quality studies by these alleged deficiencies? For example are we seeing 25% of the world's population suffering from Rickets?

I don't have a problem with correcting a vitamin deficiency that has been demonstrated with peer reviewed science. However a very lucrative industry worth 151 Billion dollars in 2021 https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/dietary-supplements-market Has an obvious vested interest in convincing people that they must have deficiencies in something which is addressed by using their products daily. If this was merely a waste of money that would be one thing but what persuaded me to stop taking them several years ago was the mountain of evidence that they could be actively harmful and when not in the form of food didn't necessarily work in the same way inside the body.