Profile image
By Liberty Peckels
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Vitamin D Proven Far Better Than Vaccines At Preventing Influenza Infections

Tuesday, November 15, 2011 21:31
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(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 thatvitamin 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 (…).

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

We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • HereAmI

    The analysis seems a bit odd on this one. I can see that 18% of those in the placebo group, and only 10% of those in the vit D group got sick, giving us the 8% reduction idea, but to me it seems that if you take vit D at these levels you have only 18 / 31 the chance of contracting flu, ie only 60% of the chance, therefore a 40% reduction in your odds, which sounds a lot better. Also there are 4 different groups here, only 1 / 4 of whom got the vit D, so how does that analyse out ? Also, we are told that the dose was either 1200 or 2000 iu, which was it ? And 167 plus 168 does not equal 334. A further twist is that the water-soluble form of Vit D, which is only made in the skin by the action of sunshine on cholesterol, and in the presence of sulphur, is the form which is active in producing the cathelicidin and anti-microbial peptides which are involved in D-mediated immunity; the form given here, ie an oily suspension, should not in theory have such a marked effect in reducing infection rates. So the experiment which really needs to be done is one which compares sunlight exposure and no vitamin at all,( because the body can make it itself ) to a flu vaccination. That would be the real revelation, I suspect.

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global


Top Alternative




Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.