by Mike Adams
the Health Ranger
September 16, 2010
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
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
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.
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
Group #2 receives real vitamin D
(2,000 IUs per day)
Group #3 receives an influenza
Group #4 receives an inert
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
So they won't subject vaccines to any
real science that compares it to vitamin D.
Vitamin D also
significantly reduced asthma in children
Getting back to the study, another fascinating result from the trial
is that if you remove those children from the study who were already
being given vitamin D by their parents, so that you are only looking
at children who started out with no vitamin D supplementation before
the trial began, the results look even better as vitamin D reduced
relative infection risk by nearly two-thirds.
More than six out of ten children who would have normally been
infected with influenza, in other words, were protected by vitamin D
Also revealed in the study: vitamin D strongly suppressed symptoms
of asthma. In children with a previous asthma diagnosis, 12 of those
receiving no vitamin D experienced asthma attacks. But in the
vitamin D group, only 2 children did.
While this subset sample size is small, it does offer yet more
evidence that vitamin D prevents asthma attacks in children, and
this entirely consistent with the previous evidence on vitamin D
which shows it to be a powerful nutrient for preventing asthma.
pushers aren't followers of real science
Now, given that
vitamin D3 shows such a powerful
effect in preventing influenza - with 800% increased efficacy over
vaccines - shouldn't CDC officials, doctors and health authorities
be rushing to recommend vitamin D before flu season arrives?
Of course they should. But they won't.
Because for them, it's not about
actually preventing influenza and it never has been. The
vaccine pushing camp is primarily interested in using influenza
as an excuse to vaccinate more people regardless of whether such
vaccines are useful (or safe).
Even if vitamin D offered 100% protection against all influenza
infections, they still wouldn't recommend it.
Why? Because they flatly don't believe in nutrition! It runs counter
to their med school programming which says that nutrients are
useless and only drugs, vaccines and surgery count as real
The vaccine pushers, you see, aren't followers of real science.
You could publish a hundred studies proving how vitamin D is many
times more effective than vaccines and they still would never
They are promoters of medical dogma rather than real solutions for
patients. They promote vaccines because... well... that's what
they've always promoted, and that's what their colleagues promote.
And how could so many smart people be wrong, anyway?
But that's the history of science: A whole bunch of really smart
people turn out to be wrong on a regular basis.
That's usually how science advances, by
the way: A new idea challenges an old assumption, and after all the
defenders of the old (wrong) idea die off, science manages to inch
its way forward against the hoots and heckles of a determined
This attitude is blatantly reflected in a quote from Dr John
Oxford, a professor of virology at Queen Mary School of Medicine
in London, whose reaction to this study was:
"This is a timely study. It will be
noticed by scientists. It fits in with the seasonal pattern of
flu. There is an increasing background of solid science that
makes the vitamin D story credible. But this study needs to be
replicated. If it is confirmed we might think of giving vitamin
D at the same time as we vaccinate."
Did you notice his concluding remark? He
wasn't even considering the idea that vitamin D might replace
Rather, he's assuming vitamin D only has
value if given together with vaccines!
You see this in the
cancer industry, too, with
anti-cancer herbs and nutrients. Any time an anti-cancer nutrient
gains some press (which isn't very often), the cancer doctor will
say things like,
"Well, this might be useful to give
to a patient after chemotherapy..." but never as a replacement
for chemo, you see.
Many mainstream doctors and medical
scientists are simply incapable of thinking outside the very
limiting boxes into which their brains have been shoved through
years of de-education in medical schools.
When they see evidence contrary to what
they've been taught, they foolishly dismiss it.
"The fact that an opinion has been
widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly
absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than
- Bertrand Russell
journals as guardians of ignorance
Medical journals largely function not as beacons of
scientific truth but as defenders of pseudoscientific dogma.
To have your paper published in most
journals, your paper must meet the expectations and beliefs of that
journal's editor. Thus, the advancement of scientific knowledge
reflected in each journal is limited to the current beliefs of just
one person - the editor of that journal.
Truly pioneering research that challenges the status quo is almost
always rejected. Only papers that confirm the presently-held beliefs
of the journal's editorial staff are accepted for publication. This
is one reason why medical science, in particular, advances so
Studies that show vitamin D to be more effective than vaccines will
rarely see the light of day in the scientific community. It is to
the great credit of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
in fact, that it accepted the publication of this paper by
Mitsuyoshi Urashima. Most medical journals wouldn't dare touch
it because it questions status quo beliefs about vaccines and
Medical journals, you see, are largely funded by the
pharmaceutical industry. And
Big Pharma doesn't want to see any
studies lending credibility to vitamins, regardless of their
Even if vitamin D could save America
billions of dollars in reduced health care costs (which it can,
actually), they don't want vitamin D to receive any scientific
backing whatsoever because drug companies can't patent vitamin D.
It's readily available to everyone for mere pennies a day.
In time, it will be recognized as superior to vaccines for seasonal
flu, but for now, we must all suffer under the foolish propaganda of
an industry that has abandoned science and now worships a needle.