Vitamin D vs. Flu Shots

November 8, 2018

New research shows vitamin D helps prevent infection. Will the crony medical establishment listen? Action Alert!

Flu season is upon us again. To prevent the flu, we’re told that the best remedy is to get a flu shot—a shot which is consistently ineffective, and, incredibly, still contains mercury in many cases. We at ANH-USA have been beating the drum about vitamin D and its well-documented anti-viral capabilities for years, and there is new evidence demonstrating vitamin D’s role in preventing respiratory infections. When faced with the choice of a cheap, safe, and effective natural immune defense against the flu, or an expensive, dangerous, and ineffective vaccine that makes drug companies billions of dollars—which will our crony health officials choose?

The study, which pooled data from 25 studies that included more than 10,000 participants, found that vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of respiratory infections (cold and flu) by 10 percent overall—and there are reasons to think this figure greatly understates the degree of protection. The protective effect of the sunshine vitamin was even more dramatic in those who were deficient. For the deficient, which about 40% of Americans are, the risk of infection was reduced by half with vitamin D supplementation. This builds upon earlier findings from a 2010 Japanese study which found that vitamin D supplementation was as effective as the vaccine at preventing colds and flu.

Predictably, the media tries to diminish these findings, with one article stating that “not everyone is convinced that this study should lead us to the supplement aisle.” We’re then told that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has determined that adults need only 600 IU of vitamin D—an amount that most Americans do not get from sun exposure or their diet alone. The IOM also said that a vitamin D blood level of 20 ng/mL was adequate—recall that this was President Trump’s blood serum level for vitamin D, which the White House doctor found perfectly fine.

This is nonsense. The Vitamin D Council, for example, recommends 5,000 IU of vitamin D per day to achieve at least 40 ng/mL; other integrative doctors we respect advise that the D serum level needs to be around 70 in order to avoid viral infection. Other calculations have shown that IOM recommendations are only about one-tenth of what is needed to cut the incidence of diseases related to vitamin D deficiency.

What this means is that most Americans are not getting the vitamin D they need, in part because health authorities at the IOM and elsewhere in the government are mistaken when telling Americans how much to take. That we do not get enough vitamin D in our diet or through sun exposure to meet a paltry 600 IU means that the number of Americans who are deficient must be staggering. It is a crime that health authorities are not telling people to take vitamin D supplements.

The good news is that this study shows that those who are deficient in vitamin D—likely most Americans, given how wrong the IOM is about how much vitamin D we really need—can reduce their risk of cold or flu by 50 percent. That is more effective than the flu vaccine usually is, and without the list of possible side effects such as: fever, headache, sore throat, fatigue, muscle pains, fainting, nausea, and more. Some flu vaccines contain mercury, a potent neurotoxin, that has been shown to cause neurological damage similar to that seen in autistic patients. Flu shots also contain aluminum, another neurotoxin that has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease and many other illnesses. Other research has demonstrated that children with autism can have up to ten times the safe amount of aluminum in their brains, suggesting that aluminum exposure is linked with autism spectrum disorder.

Between 2000 and 2018, there have been more than 500 adverse events reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. This may not sound like a lot, but recall that only a small fraction—perhaps as little as 1%–of adverse events actually get reported. That means that in reality there were closer to 50,000 adverse events over the last 18 years. Vitamin D is often more effective and does not come with these risks.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind when taking vitamin D. First, experts recommend taking vitamin D3, which is the same form of the vitamin created by the body when the skin is exposed to sunlight; vitamin D2 is a synthetic version made by irradiating fungus and plant matter. D3 has been shown to be 87 percent more potent in raising vitamin D concentrations in the body. Additionally, other vitamins and minerals can help you get the most out of supplementing with vitamin D, such as vitamin K, magnesium, zinc, boron, and vitamin A. You can read more about vitamin D cofactors here.

It’s time for the government to stop guaranteeing profits to the vaccine industry by pushing the flu shot and start telling Americans about the benefits of vitamin D.

Action Alert! Tell Congress, the FDA, and the CDC to tell Americans about the benefits of vitamin D for preventing flu and colds. Please send your message immediately.

27 responses to “Vitamin D vs. Flu Shots”

  1. Dust of the Earth says:

    Until we start electing officials not beholden to industry interests, I can’t really see this happening. Fortunately, more Democratic congressional candidates this season were refusing big money, although many of those were defeated during the primaries. I haven’t heard of any Republican candidates refusing big money. Corporate cash is a poison to our republic.

    • Excuse me says:

      Democrat or Republican, or the minute 3rd Party lawmaker, they all dance with them that brung ’em. You want change? You want campaign finance reform. I believe there should be NO money allowed in ANY election. And term limits should be enforced.
      You know those so-called public airwaves and internet bandwidth? As a prerequisite to operate, they should provide a brief window of time to state positions of candidates. Most campaigning done today are just attack ads, often so erroneous they should generate defamation suits, but the election cycle is designed to flummox voters and essentially divide the country into warring camps.
      Now, try to make that happen. How do you think the Legislative Branch will react? More laws will be written–against the electorate.

      • Dust of the Earth says:

        I’m not sure if you’re trying to critique me or just elaborate on my comment, but I agree with you. Maybe some states can pass laws by citizen groups putting questions on the ballot for the electorate to vote on directly. Then we can work our way up to federal. Also, a potential constitutional amendment to do away with the Citizens United supreme court decision that in 2010 legalized unlimited corporate cash that can be spent on elections is making its way through the states, so hopefully that eases the situation a bit although not the whole solution.

        • Excuse me says:

          It was meant as an elaboration. Sorry if I tend to bloviate. The Citizen United decision was a big misstep in my opinion. I know many political Liberals and Conservatives that were alarmed by the equation of money equals free speech as a throwback to a Pre-Revolutionary Royalist mentality. (Only the well-heeled should have input into the governing process…) A Constitutional Amendment to undo it is a pretty big hoop to jump through.

          • Dust of the Earth says:

            The constitutional amendment is indeed a big hoop to jump through, but as far as I know, it’s the only way to undo it. So no matter how impossible it might seem, we have to keep pushing it in our state capitals. It HAS passed some state legislatures, and other amendments took years to finally enact, so I believe it can be done if we work for it and keep talking about it to spread the word.

    • Kuesl says:

      Read today’s “Wall Street Journal” (November 9, 2018)
      Review & Outlook (on the Opinion page) – “The Democrat’s Cash Tsunami” (The party that runs against money in politics had a huge financial edge.”)

      • Dust of the Earth says:

        I know the Democratic Party as a whole actually had more cash this year than the Republicans, provided of course mostly from Wall Street. (I believe the Texas senate race with O’Rourke against Cruz had the most cash of all.) But some individual candidates refused corporate money, especially during the primaries. The vast majority lost their races however. What we need are more candidates refusing corporate cash and for opposing candidates to agree to not use corporate cash.

    • Joe Brake says:

      The worst congressional opponent ever of natural remedies such as vitamins was not a Republican, but rather a Democrat named Henry Waxman, who retired several years ago, after making a career out of trying to destroy the supplement industry.

      • Dust of the Earth says:

        Ok? Didn’t he receive enormous donations from the pharmaceutical industry? I’d prefer if nobody from any party received corporate money. Our representatives should be beholden to the ordinary people in their districts (without of course infringing on individual rights) instead of their corporate donors. Now, maybe Henry Waxman would have hated supplements no matter what, but if he couldn’t count on pharmaceutical cash maybe he would’ve been more open to changing his mind.

      • Dust of the Earth says:

        Joe Brake, I replied to the questions you asked me, but you’ve deleted the comment. I saved my answer in my notes in case you wish to ask again.

        All I’ll address here is that I believe you’ve misunderstood me. I wasn’t trying to claim Democrats good, Republicans bad. I thought it was a good thing that some candidates this election cycle (who this time happened to be Democrats) were refusing big money and trying to gain support from small donations of supporters. I would love it if this was the norm among all candidates, Democrats, Republicans, and third party or independents alike. And equal time to introduce themselves and their policies to all Americans free of misleading ads.

  2. Anh Phan says:

    My name is ANH, also means Alliance for Natural Health, but I didn’t create ANH-USA.org. I think I can take care of myself, no need to wait for politician approved How to take care of myself. However, If you find this article about vitamin D useful, please share with your friends, and love one. Just remember, Vitamin D needs many other factors to support its function.

    • Ron_2020 says:

      There was no mention that the Vitamin D “type” must be D3 and . . . one MUST take Vitamin K2 so that it will be absorbed properly.

  3. tsvieps says:

    Yes on Vit D does not necessarily mean no on vaccines is wise. This is certainly true for Polio, Small Pox, etc. I am less certain about flu shots, but even a 30% reduction in getting the flu could be worth the dangers from small amounts problematic chemicals. And I do not think that flu shots are expensive.

    The series of comments about greedy industrial complex buying off the government and the medical industry just seems like fantasy to me. And this is from a fellow who would not be alive now if I followed only the advice of the MD world. But I also would not be alive without some Big Pharma drugs.

    • Dust of the Earth says:

      Our allopathic health care system works pretty well in emergencies. But for chronic care it does terribly. The problem is that for decades other systems of health have been sidelined (hence the term “alternative medicine”) and ANH works towards being a counterweight to the powerful voices that say the allopathic pharmaceutical way is the only way.

      The corporate control of our government is not limited to the pharmaceutical industry nor is it a fantasy. Just by simple observation alone, you can see that there are issues where the vast majority of citizens think one way and the government acts another way – the legal status of cannabis, labeling of GMO food items, the minimum wage, etc. This should never happen in a constitutional republic. And Congress spends more time fundraising than meeting with constituents. In 2014, a groundbreaking study was published by two Princeton researchers (Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page) finding the US government more closely resembles an oligarchy or a “corporatocracy” than a republic. From the abstract: “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.” There are steps the citizenry can take to undo this situation, but you must realize it’s happened first.

      • tsvieps says:

        This discussion just became more political than can be resolved here. Sure organizations: Corporations, unions, etc, all pull and tug for influence. But when you start talking about minimum wage and “corporatocracy”, you long ago left a discussion about protecting access to non-MD medicine. So I will drop out.

        We simply have a different outlook. I worked decades for a very moral international corporation, HP, that never stole anything from anybody and made a huge contribution to the welfare of the world. You have an anti-business chip on your shoulder; it is obvious to me there is nothing I can present that will change your position one iota. I will not try. But you can always move to Venezuela where corporate greed has put in check, along with their economy.

        • Dust of the Earth says:

          I’m sorry if my comment seemed too political, as you say. I tried to keep it neutral.

          But you are assuming things about me I never said or implied. Thinking our political representatives shouldn’t receive money from businesses isn’t anti-business. Many people all over the political spectrum agree with that statement. I patronize businesses of my choosing. I don’t think they should all go away. The word “corporatocracy” was used in the article I referenced to get the details of that paper I mentioned – that’s why I used it. And I mentioned the minimum wage as an example because in the recent election, I know of at least two states (Arkansas and Missouri) which raised their minimum wages through direct citizen ballot questions even though their state governments continue to oppose minimum wage raises – which means there’s a disconnect between elected leaders and constituents that shouldn’t exist in a constitutional republic. Of course their should be debate and citizens who oppose minimum wage increases should be allowed to discuss why they oppose it. I thought it would be a good idea to mention something besides natural health as an example, but maybe that was a wrong idea.

          I originally replied to your comment because I saw you write that the above discussion seems to you like a fantasy, and I wanted to explain that no, I didn’t make it up, I got the idea from a serious political research article. It’s ok to disagree on political opinion. I tried to leave my political opinions on everything except money in politics out of the comment, but maybe I didn’t quite succeed. (And I never said anything at all about corporations stealing things. I don’t know where you got that from. Nor why I should move to Venezuela, a country undergoing an economic crisis due to many factors.)

          • tsvieps says:

            “And I never said anything at all about corporations stealing things. I don’t know where you got that from”

            I was reacting to you going off about corporations taking over the govt and overriding the opinions of common citizens. You used a made up term “corporatocracy”.

            To me that implies a view where corporations are running amok, unchecked and stealing from the people. That is, I thought it was a play on the term “kleptocracy”. I mentioned Venezuela because that is a once prosperous country that was taken over by people with a strong anti-corporate sentiment and driven into the ground as it announced it was supporting the masses against greedy companies.

            It is true that you did not directly say all large corporations are stealing. Just that corporations are over-ruling the voice of the people.

            Where we agree is that MD centered medicine does not have a monopoly on healing wisdom and they often ignore evidence to the contrary. I just do not see this as a corporate conspiracy. And I see unions as every bit as influential as large companies.

            But I see my own comments as being too political for a site that wants to encourage Natural Health, even they are a reaction to your comments. There are better places to discuss politics than here, so I will quit.

          • Joe Brake says:

            Your comments are never excessively political when you are defending capitalism against a left wing attacker. You should just keep on keeping on, in my opinion.

          • tsvieps says:

            Thanks for the support. I do understand that the FDA is biased against supplements. And certainly many large drug companies would be happy to force $100M trials on say green teas supplements because they can support such expenses.

            Yet I do not see such companies or corporations in general as overly greedy. Nor do I think they own our govt at any level lock, stock and barrel. Where I live govt unions have much more control of the state and local govt.

            And minimum wages, bad or good, are not a proper part of a conversation on good health practices. Federal laws about cannabis may be.

            I am only alive because the first good drug for my leukemia is very expensive. It works for many, but not all and many become refractive. Because of the potential profit for a drug that is somewhat better or can work more effectively in combination, at least 4 other drugs have been approved and several are in the pipeline. I am taking now a combo that has taken me from on foot in the grave to where I have lost about 98% of my tumor load.

            That said, I can see many ways that the FDA can make their process less expensive while saving lives, not endangering them. None of this has to do with corporate greed, much more with too much power at the agency and crusty, obsolete, cover your behind processes from an agency with monopolistic power.

            A small step in the right direction came last year as the Congress and the POTUS put through a “right to try law” for those near death. This would have been a huge benefit to me a 5 years ago.

          • Joe Brake says:

            Agreed on all your points. Glad your condition has been improving. Since private sector corporations and companies and their employees are paying the entire cost of funding government, and the government gets all of its funds from the taxpayers, of course the corporations should have a right to defend themselves from all the attacks. Their contributions to political action committees is the only voice they have in government; the voice of capitalism; the voice of freedom! Without capitalism freedom cannot exist.

    • Arimathean says:

      You only need to get vaccinated for polio and smallpox once. Those viruses are stable, so once you are immune you will always be immune. The flu virus, by contrast, mutates rapidly, so last year’s vaccination will probably not be effective against this year’s flu. That is the big difference between flu shots and other vaccinations.

      Two weeks ago, my first attempt to get a flu vaccination failed because they did not take my insurance. I was told it would cost me $40 if I paid cash. So I would say you’re correct – flu shots are not expensive.

  4. HudsonLink says:

    The Vitamin D Council does NOT recommend 5000 IU per day. It states that since Vitamin D is a body weight dose dependent vitamin, an individual finds their correct dosage at 1,000 IU per 10 kilograms of body weight. To find this, divide your weight by 22, and multiply the result by 1000. For example, a 110 pound person should take 5000 IU, and a 220 pound person should take 10,000 IU.

    • Joe Brake says:

      I wasn’t aware of that particular formula for calculating vitamin D requirement, but it closely agrees with the dosage I arrived at by having periodic blood testing and adjusting my vitamin D intake accordingly. I weigh 185 pounds, and have kept my vitamin D level in the 70 to 90 range for the past few years by taking 8000 units vitamin D3 daily. According to the formula you posted, I would need 8400 units, so I thought that was kind of interesting confirmation of the formula. I’ve been taking vitamin D for probably at least 40 years, but have only been getting the serum levels periodically tested for about 5 or 6 years.

      • tsvieps says:

        I stay in the range you seek with about 8k units in the summer, but more like 12 in the winter. Over 120 is likely too much, as under 50 is too low. Most MDs think 35 in enough, but they are behind the times.

    • NOLIKEO says:

      I had a problem with hair falling out years ago. Doc wanted to check my D levels. (I was taking 5,000 i.u. of D3 a day, at 5’6″ 120 lbs.) This was before anyone talked much about D levels. Turned out my levels we’re too high…I had no clue you could take too much. Backed off to 5,000 i.u. every other day. Hair stopped falling out. Lesson learned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *