The gist of Ellison's arguments seems to be that since mainstream medicine is largely on the Vitamin D bandwagon it must be bad for you. I can understand why someone might think that way, given how mainstream medicine tends to attack items we know are good which represent threats t their patented drugs and sickness industry. However, his article also gives a very large clue as to why Vitamin D has been promoted and not attacked: most supplemental Vitamin D is made by mainstream medicine companies and it is hugely profitable.
I too am distubed by the onslaught of advice to supplement in place of getting vitamin D naturally from sunlight and dietary sources - which should obviously be preferable to anyone familiar with natural health and nutrition. However, I have yet to see any credible evidence of widespread dangers from supplemental vitamin D, and maintain the opinion that supplementation with the D3 version is advisable for those who cannot get it naturally and for whatever reason do not decide to get it from supplementation with fish or, better still, krill oil.