NaturalNews.com article
Originally published September 16 2010

Vitamin D proven far better than vaccines at preventing influenza infections
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) If scientists discovered something that worked better than vaccines at preventing influenza, you'd think they would jump all over it, right? After all, isn't the point to protect children and adults from influenza?

A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections in children. The trial appears in the March, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094)

The results are from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. In other words, this was a "rigorous" scientific study meeting the gold standard of scientific evidence.

In the study, while 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the four month duration of the study, only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This means vitamin D was responsible for an absolute reduction of nearly 8 percent.

Flu vaccines, according to the latest scientific evidence, achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...).

This means vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children.

To further support this, what really needs to be done is a clinical trial directly comparing vitamin D supplements to influenza vaccines with four total groups:

Group #1 receives a vitamin D placebo
Group #2 receives real vitamin D (2,000 IUs per day)
Group #3 receives an influenza vaccine injection
Group #4 receives an inert injection

Groups 1 and 2 should be randomized and double blind while groups 3 and 4 should also be randomized and double blind. The results would reveal the comparative effectiveness of vitamin D versus influenza vaccines.

Unfortunately, such a trial will never be conducted because vaccine pushers already know this trial would show their vaccines to be all but useless. So they won't subject vaccines to any real science that compares it to vitamin D.

Tu_triky wrote:

Unfortunately, such a trial will never be conducted because vaccine pushers already know this trial would show their vaccines to be all but useless. So they won't subject vaccines to any real science that compares it to vitamin D.

Yup, vitamin D isn't a money maker when compared to vaccine research, production, etc....

bmwracer wrote:

Yup, vitamin D isn't a money maker when compared to vaccine research, production, etc....

Or any vitamin for that matter. What's almost criminal is that despite the huge deluge of recently released peer-reviewed medical research regarding the efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation and it's vital importance to the prevention of so many chronic diseases I bet most people never hear sh*t from their doctor's about it, unless they are fortunate enough to bring it up.

Tu_triky wrote:

Or any vitamin for that matter. What's almost criminal is that despite the huge deluge of recently released peer-reviewed medical research regarding the efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation and it's vital importance to the prevention of so many chronic diseases I bet most people never hear sh*t from their doctor's about it, unless they are fortunate enough to bring it up.

I know my doctor didn't when it was determined that my cholesterol was high: his first order of business was to shill meds... I was the one who suggested altering my diet.

Is it a wonder why people hate going to the doctor?

bmwracer wrote:

I know my doctor didn't when it was determined that my cholesterol was high: his first order of business was to shill meds... I was the one who suggested altering my diet.

Well you're the exception to the rule, I think. Many people are too sheepish to think for themselves at the doctor's office.

Quote:

Is it a wonder why people hate going to the doctor?

An excellent point. I know I do most of the time.

The sad fact is that the pharmaceutical industry dominates the practice of medicine in this country. And it's obviously not to our benefit. How can we as a country spend more money on health care by a staggeringly wide margin have such poor outcomes? All the drugs being pumped into ppl obviously ain't the answer.

Over medicated & under educated.

As they say, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." But when that pound of cure is profiting Big Pharma they don't give a rat's ass about that ounce and want to make sure you don't either!

Tu_triky wrote:

Over medicated & under educated.

The credo of our health care system.

bmwracer wrote:

The credo of our health care system.

I was recently discussing the matter casually with a friend of mine who is a P.A. (Physician's Assistant) and he said the same thing of his own accord. That is, despite the recently passed health care reform bill, he didn't think real change in the dispensation of care would come in our lifetime because of the dominance of the pharmaceutical industry. He said their influence was too pervasive for it to change anytime soon.

Tu_triky wrote:

He said their influence was too pervasive for it to change anytime soon.

The same could be said for the NRA... But I digress.

bmwracer wrote:

The same could be said for the NRA... But I digress.

Well yeah, I agree. Corporate Lobbying is far too influential. Oh well. C'est la vie.

Pops two vitamin D softgels.

Tu_triky wrote:

Pops two vitamin D softgels.

+1.

bmwracer wrote:

I know my doctor didn't when it was determined that my cholesterol was high: his first order of business was to shill meds... I was the one who suggested altering my diet. Is it a wonder why people hate going to the doctor?

On the other hand, I think a lot of people prefer taking pills instead of changing their diet or habbits...

7th-key wrote:

On the other hand, I think a lot of people prefer taking pills instead of changing their diet or habbits...

Good point.

A lot of people have been brainwashed over time that pill-popping is the easier solution as opposed to working things out.

Tu_triky wrote:

I was recently discussing the matter casually with a friend of mine who is a P.A. (Physician's Assistant) and he said the same thing of his own accord. That is, despite the recently passed health care reform bill, he didn't think real change in the dispensation of care would come in our lifetime because of the dominance of the pharmaceutical industry. He said their influence was too pervasive for it to change anytime soon.

Anyone who followed the health care reform bill and read it knew it was only going to make things worse. Ultimately the problem lies within the entitlement culture we've(not us in particular, but people in general) created. Pharmaceuticals create drugs and sell them, that's their purpose and it's brought about a lot of good. But the pill-popping mentality is all us. We want to eat 30oz steaks wrapped in bacon every night followed by a beer while watching television, but be athletic gods without exertion. Doctors are not nutrionists, and they offer pills as an option; the choice to fill that prescription is ultimately on us. The choice to pill-pop or live a better lifestyle is on us. "Live fast, play hard, die young", but nobody wants that third part while keeping the first two. That's the problem with our health care system, but nobody wants to look in the mirror and admit we're the problem.

bmwracer wrote:

The same could be said for the NRA... But I digress.

Unions have a far greater influence and, as evidenced by the last 15 months alone, more detrimental consequences.

When you say "got tested" you mean a blood test?

I didn't think they checked for that...

Sorry did not see your edit in time and I answered you on the other thread.

Can you move it for me please?

bmwracer wrote:

When you say "got tested" you mean a blood test? I didn't think they checked for that...

Yes, a blood test where they draw blood to test for Vitamin D plasma levels. There is no other way to know to determine Vitamin D levels other than taking a blood test.

Tu_triky wrote:

Yes, a blood test where they draw blood to test for Vitamin D plasma levels. There is no other way to know to determine Vitamin D levels other than taking a blood test.

Hmm, I'll have to dig up my last blood test to see if there are any entries for that...

bmwracer wrote:

Hmm, I'll have to dig up my last blood test to see if there are any entries for that...

It's a separate test that has to be ordered by the physician specifically. It's not part of any comprehensive metabolic panel.

Tu_triky wrote:

It's a separate test that has to be ordered by the physician specifically. It's not part of any comprehensive metabolic panel.

Oh.

You'd think a blood test would be all-encompassing to get maximum information about a patient's health...

bmwracer wrote:

Oh. You'd think a blood test would be all-encompassing to get maximum information about a patient's health...

It's all about the money, pal. More tests more money.