Cat Man said: "...however I don't understand how the salmon has to be wild in order to give someone the Vitamin D they might need to help with inflamation. Are you suggesting farm raised salmon does not have the same benefits?"
I'm sorry I didn't express myself clearly. In no way was I saying that it "HAS" to be wild, or that "ONLY" wild salmon would be useful. I mentioned wild salmon for two reasons. First, some research has found that farmed salmon is significantly lower in vitamin D than wild salmon -- at least one study that I know of found it to have only 1/4 the amount of vitamin D found in wild salmon. Second, many of the contaminants of concern in fish tend to concentrate in fatty tissue, so fatty fish such as salmon, tend to carry higher concentrations of those substances.
Again, my emphasis was on the apparently better nutritional profile offered by wild salmon. Naturally, the most important thing is for those who can/will eat salmon to do so, regardless of its source. It's an exceptionally nutritious food, not only for its potential anti-inflammatory properties, but for many, many other reasons. If only farmed salmon is readily available or affordable, it should certainly still be eaten for its very important health benefits, which far outweigh any small risks or nutrient deficiencies.
My primary point was that sufficient Vitamin D should be consumed. It has been fairly well established as a critical element in immunity, sometimes called the "antibiotic vitamin" and it is currently undergoing several studies of its anti-inflammatory properties.
Some people can't or won't consume fish at all. If cod liver oil is acceptable, I encourage them to explore this option. If that's not good, then take a vitamin D supplement.
No matter what, consult a physician before significantly altering your consumption of Vitamin D. There are several instances where large amounts are contraindicated, and if dosage is to excessive, it can be quite toxic.