Vitamin D
Vitamin D is the most significant immune system answer to be found, at least thinking simply, keeping the whole shebang squished into a solitary nutshell. Vitamin D is more powerful than its cousin, Vitamin C, even though that vitamin is generally the one recommended when influenza and the common cold rear their ugly, viral heads. "Sunshine Vitamin D" is the building block of the immune system, and it is generally translated directly from the sun, Earth's own shining star. Provided here is a wealth of news information and related studies in consideration of Vitamin D, and its powerful answer to the placebo of flu vaccines:
Vitamin D-The Sunshine Vitamin
An important part of Dr. Christopher's Incurables Program is the sunbath. He recommended that you "take a sunbath each day in the nude and not through glass but in the direct sun." There are two types of ultraviolet light from the sun, UVA and UVB rays. UVA rays are longer and penetrate deep into the skin to produce a dark tan. When in the sun too long they cause wrinkles and sun spots. UVB rays are shorter and cause the skin to burn. They are also the only rays that make vitamin D. Vitamin D is actually a steroid and is a powerful antioxidant. It is an important nutrient in preventing cancer including skin cancers. It is important for proper immune function and to prevent autoimmune diseases. It helps with proper brain function, diabetes prevention and is needed for absorption of calcium and phosphorus.
"Only allow two minutes on the front and two minutes on the back the first day. Then add two minutes front and back each day, but no more." You should never stay in the sun long enough to get burned. The body stops making vitamin D once the skin starts to turn pink. When SPF sunscreen is applied it stops vitamin D production and may make you more susceptible to some skin cancers.
"The sun is the world's greatest doctor but must be used by building up the exposed time in the sun gradually so as to not burn." The best time for vitamin D production from the sun is 11:00 am until 1:00 pm or when the sun is the brightest. That is when the UVBs are most direct. They are not as effective when they come in at an angle and they are easily filtered out by smog, pollution, fog, clouds and windows.
"If it is a cloudy or cold day, use a sunlamp, but do not allow a burn." The best source for vitamin D is from natural sunlight, but in the winter, it is not possible to get adequate amounts of vitamin D from the sun. Sunlamps or tanning beds are another option and some provide
both UVA and UVB rays for vitamin D production.
Most salon tanning beds are calibrated to produce about 95% UVA light, but there are some that will produce both UVA and UVB rays. The same caution should be used with a tanning bed as with sun exposure and they can safely produce vitamin D in the winter months. Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University has shown that vitamin D produced by UVB radiation from a tanning bed maintains longer lasting and more consistent levels of vitamin D than taking vitamin D supplements.
Dermatologists have found that tanning makes the skin give off endorphin's which improve feelings of well-being and make you feel happier.
Sources: Herbal Home Health Care by Dr. John R. Christopher
Primal Body, Primal Mind by Nora T. Gedgaudas, CNS, CNT
Baby Boomer Diet by Donna Gates
Mercola.com/Tanning-Bed
Vitamin D: Go natural, avoid Flu vaccine
According to the findings from a 2010 study that didn't get any widespread attention, vitamin D is a highly effective way to avoid influenza.
(Mercola.com) -- In fact, children taking low doses of Vitamin D3 were shown to be 42 percent less likely to come down with the flu.
The randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study included 430 children aged 6-15, who were followed between December 2008 and March 2009.
Half were given 1,200 IUs of vitamin D3 daily, while the other half received a placebo.
Influenza strains were determined through lab testing of nose and throat swabs.
Eighteen of the children taking vitamin D contracted influenza Type A, compared to 31 children in the placebo group.
Type B influenza rates were unaffected by vitamin D use, however, the illness resulting from Type B influenza strains is typically milder than Type A.
Considering the fact that influenza was reduced by 42 percent at a dose of just 1,200 IU's a day, it's possible that even better results might be obtained with higher dosages—depending on just how deficient you are to begin with, of course, because it's not really the dosage that matters; it's the amount of vitamin D in your blood.
Vitamin D studied as flu-fighter
As fall marches into winter and hauls us deep into flu season, some experts suggest a big dose of Vitamin D could help sidestep that lurking virus.
Vitamin D, also known as the sunshine vitamin, has a well-established role in helping to maintain strong bones. It’s now under the microscope for role it plays, when in short supply, in a range of illnesses, from heart disease to cancer, to autoimmune disorders and infections, including influenza.
Our bodies make their own vitamin D when we expose the skin to the sun’s UVB rays. But our long winters provide minimal sunshine and weak UVB rays, erasing the opportunity to synthesize this important vitamin for many months.
Health data released by Statistics Canada in 2010 reported about 10 per cent of the population, or 3 million people, had inadequate blood concentrations of vitamin D, and within that group, 1.1 million were outright deficient in vitamin D.
The U.S. Endocrine Society stresses the importance of vitamin D in maintaining health. It points out nearly every cell in the human body interacts with the vitamin, and that the activity of many genes — up to a third of the entire human genome — is affected by vitamin D.
To compensate for the lack of sunshine during the cold season, we can increase our intake of the few foods containing the nutrient, such as fatty fish, and those fortified with vitamin D, such as milk and orange juice, or we can take vitamin D supplements.
But although the Endocrine Society says evidence suggests vitamin D deficiency may increase the risk of many diseases, it stresses in a news release published last year that no hard evidence currently exists showing that taking vitamin D supplements prevents or treats illness beyond those that related to the bones.
“Why is there so little data on vitamin D and non-bone diseases?” the society asks.
It speculates the answer has to do with the fact that only recently have researchers realized that vitamin D is not harmful at new, higher doses, and few studies used enough vitamin D to raise blood levels to the required level.
In fact, how much vitamin D people should take is a controversy raging between policymakers and vitamin D advocates.
Last year, the Institute of Medicine (IMO) issued new guidelines based on the recommendations of a panel of experts in the field. The study, funded by both the Canadian and U.S. governments, tripled the daily dietary allowance to 600 international units (IU) a day from 200 IU a day, and set a daily ceiling of up to 4,000 IU.
These are also the current Health Canada recommendations.
The IMO’s report says evidence supports a role for vitamin D and calcium in bone health, but not in other health conditions. It says emerging evidence indicates too much of these nutrients may be harmful and challenges the concept that “more is better.”
Reinhold Vieth, a clinical biochemist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who has studied the nutrient for some 20 years, says whether we synthesize the vitamin in large doses via sunshine on the skin or we swallow a supplement makes no difference to how the nutrient behaves in our bodies.
Zoltan Rona, an MD who practices complementary and alternative medicine in Thornhill and author of Vitamin D, the Sunshine Vitamin (Alive Books) recommends 10,000 units a day to his adult patients.
In fact, with so little sunshine in our winters, adults won’t get much response from supplementation without taking at least 5,000 units a day, Rona says.
Vieth points out medical organizations such asOsteoporosis Canada, the Canadian Pediatric Association and the Endocrine Society recommend a daily dose of 1,200 units to 2,000 units.
Vieth recognizes policymakers have to take a cautious, conservative course, because their recommendations cover a spectrum of people and their guidelines stay in place for a long time.
“Canada is relatively aggressive,” Vieth says. “In the U.K., for people under age 60, there’s no policy, because, according to the government, there’s enough sunshine in Britain to provide sufficient vitamin D.”
The Vitamin D Council, a U.S. non-profit organization whose stated aim is to end the worldwide vitamin D deficiency “epidemic” through awareness and research, advises a two-pronged approach to guard against influenza.
It suggests taking on average 2,000 to 5,000 IU a day of vitamin D3 (the form of vitamin D produced by UVB rays on the skin) and getting a flu shot.
“Vitamin D may also reduce symptoms of influenza and reduce the risk of developing pneumonia following influenza. Vaccines strengthen the body’s ability to fight infection. Therefore, combining high levels of vitamin D and anti-influenza vaccines provide the best protection,” according to the Council’s web site.
Vieth agrees with the council’s approach.
“Vitamin D is likely to make a difference; a flu shot is likely to make a difference. The public wants to know in black and white, but you can only go by probabilities.”
The Amazing Avocado
Last month when the movie Green Lantern was released, Subway outlets in the US decided to add a special ingredient, avocado, to commemorate the event. And while one should not expect to gain superhuman powers after eating the popular fruit, avocados do offer a source of vital minerals that are guaranteed to improve one's well-being.
In Port of Spain, avocados go from as low as $15 to as much as $30, depending on the size of the fruit and the type. One Charlotte Street vendor said the fruits usually come into season around mid-June, and a crop is available until the end of September.
One of the more popular varieties is the Pollock, which is "buttery" in texture and has a relatively small seed in comparison to the fruit. There is also a darker fruit which, for some "zaboca aficionados", is not as tasty.
Early civilisations knew the health benefits of avocados, and other peoples soon grew to love and find varied uses for what has been also called the "alligator pear".
The ahuacate—the Aztec word for testicle, named for its shape and reputation as an aphrodisiac —had been a staple food in Mexico, and Central and South America since 500 BC. In the 16th century, Spanish conquistadors fell in love with the fruit after observing its prized status among the Aztecs. In 1915, a cadre of California, USA, farmers, in an effort to make the fruit more marketable, came up with a new name: avocado. They informed dictionary publishers of the change and that the plural was spelled "avocados", not "avocadoes". Today, California accounts for nearly 90 per cent of all avocados grown in the United States.
Like most fruit, the avocado ripens once plucked from the tree. But its flesh is unlike any other: buttery, not sweet; somewhat nutty and oily in flavour; firm enough to be sliced or diced, yet pliable enough to be mashed into a paste or puree.
There are more than 400 varieties of avocado, but Hass has become the most popular in the United States. Named after postal worker Rudolph Hass who purchased the seedling in 1926 from a California farmer, the distinctive purplish-black fruit has a thicker skin and smaller body than other varieties. Farmers found the Hass easier to cultivate, and its higher oil content and good nutty flavour appealed to consumers.
Avocados present a mouth-watering array of serving options. They can be sliced and served with apples, nuts and cheese. In their most popular form, guacamole, they are mashed with salt, lime, garlic, cilantro, chiles and tomatoes, depending on the recipe. A friend feeds her infant spoonfuls of avocado straight from the skin: the perfect baby health food. Indonesians blend them into drinks with sweet condensed milk. Brazilians add it to ice cream. Californians put it in their maki (sushi rolls).
Grilled corn kernels, diced red onions and mango elbow each other for attention until chunks of avocado mediate and mellow the mix into a tasty salsa—an unstable structure turned stable. An ordinary salad of greens, tomatoes and raw veggies turns almost decadent with slices of avocado.
The fat in an avocado gets a bad rap. While it does contain saturated fat—a little more than one gramme per quarter-segment— the fruit is high in fibre and has more potassium than bananas. Of all fruits, the avocado is highest in protein. As a bonus, the natural oils of the fruit are good for your skin and provide a refreshing alternative to over-the-counter facial products.
The average avocado contains 300 calories and 30 grammes of healthy polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat. One avocado contains 81 mcg (microgrammes) of lutein, an important nutrient for healthy eyes. They are also a source of Omega 3 fatty acids, which offer many health benefits, including increasing calcium absorption and deposition. They contain a good helping of several foundation supplements essential for bone health:
• vitamin K—which works in synergy with vitamin D to help regulate osteoclast production (osteoclasts remove old bone to make way for new bone deposits)
• vitamin D—which, among many other important functions, plays a crucial role in preventing falls and fractures.
• vitamin C—a potent antioxidant that's crucial for the production of collagen, a protein that maintains, among other things, healthy bones and cartilage.
• boron—a trace mineral involved in bone metabolism and vitamin D activity that reduces the amount of urinary calcium and magnesium excretion.
• copper—a multi-tasking mineral present in an enzyme that produces collagen and elastin.
• folate (folic acid)—one of the B vitamins.
Avocados are plentiful in the markets and from roadside vendors. Make as much use of this fantastic fruit while it is available.
Mozart's early death possibly caused by Vitamin D deficiency
Mozart would have lived longer if he had got out in the sun more, scientists said yesterday.
They believe the maestro, who was dogged by illness and died at 35, suffered from a deficiency of the sunshine vitamin D, brought on by his habit of writing at night and sleeping during the day.
Dr William Grant, author of Medical Problems of Performing Artists, said: “If he’d access to supplements, he’d have doubled his lifetime’s output.”
Coffee, Tea, Vitamin D Help Fight MRSA Superbug
Friday July 15, 2011 (foodconsumer.org) -- A new study suggests that drinking hot tea or coffee may reduce the odds of carrying in the nose Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus or MRSA which is a superbug many people are fearful of. Another study suggests that taking vitamin D supplements may also help prevent the pathogen from causing a health condition.
The study in the July-Aug 2011 issue of Annals of Family Medicine found individuals who drank hot tea or coffee lowered the odds of nasal MRSA carriage by nearly 50 percent.
This study was conducted by Eric M. Matheson, MD, MS and colleagues of Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina.
The study was not a trial. The findings do not mean that drinking tea or coffee would definitely reduce the risk of carrying MRSA, which can be a risk for people with the weak immune system.
Even if tea and coffee do lower the likelihood of nasal MRSA carriage, it remains unknown why these beverages could offer such a protection against MRSA.
Tea and coffee are not the things that may protect against MRSA. Vitamin D is another thing people may use to fight MRSA.
D Yousseff of East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, TN reported last month that inpatients who had lower serum vitamin D or vitamin D deficiency were more likely to have higher costs and service utilization compared with those who had higher levels of the vitamin.
This study appeared in the June 2011 issue of European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.
It is well known that vitamin D is antibacterial. It is involved in the production of certain proteins that boost innate immunity against microbes and viruses.
Are you getting enough of the Sunshine Vitamin?
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT) - We have had no shortage of the Sunshine Vitamin this summer, but you still may not be getting enough of it.
Doctors say we are Vitamin D deficient because we're not exposing ourselves to the sun. But if you do spend time in the sun, are you increasing your risk of Melanoma? We talked to to doctors.
It's an early trip to the park for the Feagins'.
Learn more about Vitamin D
"The kids do so much better when they get some outdoor time. Also so they can get sunshine without sunscreen on for just a few minutes every day," says Jenifer Feagin, a mother of three.
Don't think she's a bad Mom, she's right. By leaving the sunscreen off for a few minutes a day, she's allowing the kids' bodies to make Vitamin D.
"What I tell patients to do is get out in the sun, 10 minutes or 15 minutes, or if you're getting a little pink, then put your sunscreen on," says Dr. Barry Sunshine, who adds excessive use of sunscreen leads to Vitamin D deficiencies.
Without the "sunshine" vitamin, your body can't fight the flu, bacterial infections or cancers.
"Why do we have flu season in the winter? We have it because we don't make enough Vitamin D, so we don't make the antimicrobial polypeptides," says Dr. Sunshine.
But what about your risk for Melanoma?
"I don't think we need to stay out of the sun, I think we need to be smart in the sun," says Dr. Daniel Ibach, a medical oncologist with Thompson Cancer Survival Center.
He says not to be afraid of skin cancer.
"It's not bad to be out in the sun, we all need to be out in the sun, but you have to protect from the burns. So it's not necessarily just the sun, but it's the burning of the sun."
Your body needs 5,000 International Units of Vitamin D a day. If you're in the sun for about 10 minutes, Dr. Sunshine says you'll get 10,000 IU's.
"You have to have it on your arms, your legs, the best place is the torso."
It's a way Feagin keeps her kids stay healthy. Then she applies the sunscreen.
"It's a hard balance, but you have to decide what's best for you and your family, do what you can to keep your family healthy and safe."
If you can't be out in the sun, you should take a supplement. You get some Vitamin D from food, but Dr. Sunshine says not nearly enough.
He recommends you get your Vitamin D checked.
Vitamin D for lung health?
New research suggests that vitamin D deficiency may be linked to reduced lung function. In a study published in the journal Chest, researchers found that people with interstitial lung disease may be more likely to have low levels of the so-called sunshine vitamin.
Interstitial lung disease constitutes a group of disorders, the majority of which are marked by progressive scarring of lung tissue. In tests on 118 patients with interstitial lung disease, the recent study's authors found that 38 percent of patients were deficient in vitamin D and 59 percent had insufficient vitamin D levels. It's possible that low levels of vitamin D may play a role in the onset of interstitial lung disease, according to the authors.
An essential nutrient available in certain foods (such as fortified milk), vitamin D is produced naturally by the body during exposure to the sun's ultraviolet rays. But since it's difficult to obtain your recommended daily intake of D solely through dietary sources and sun exposure, many medical experts recommend increasing your vitamin D levels by taking a dietary supplement.
Vitamin D: Not Just for Milk Drinkers
Cancer. Diabetes. Asthma. Eczema. Name the immune system disease. What do they have in common? It could be a deficiency in Vitamin D, say researchers at the University of California. Other studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition find asthma, eczema, and influenza significantly helped by increased levels of Vitamin D3.
Many years ago, our country's milk supply was fortified with Vitamin D, to combat the disease of rickets. Rickets made our bones soft. We began to associate drinking milk with strong bones. Then, we were told too much sun would give us cancer. People began staying out of the sun, and milk-drinking became reserved for kittens and children. Guidelines by the Food and Nutrition Board suggested 400 I.U.'s per day as the recommended intake. Now, studies report that nearly seventy percent of children are deficient in Vitamin D, and experts are calling for the recommended intake to be increased by ten times, to 4,000 I.U.'s per day. Other experts suggest that those with a compromised immune system, take 10,000 I.U.'s per day.
Basically, that's a tablespoon of cod liver oil, a salad made with kale greens, and twenty minutes in the sun. Every day. Alternatively, you can take vitamin supplement pills. For me, taking vitamin pills carries with it a culture of illness. Pills, pills, pills. My brain associates taking pills with being sick, so I'd rather assign myself twenty minutes on a deck chair reading a book. My brain thinks that's a vacation. I can dress up the kale salad with some crispy red bell peppers, roasted pumpkin seeds, and hazelnut oil with lemon juice. Maybe a little wild-caught salmon on the side. Suddenly, instead of being a sick person taking pills, I'm a jet-setter, lounging luxuriously on my deck with a high-class appetizer. Maybe a mineral water with a slice of lime, in a champagne glass, to top it off.
As a remove my sunglasses and toast the day with my bubbly champagne split, I'm a happy and healthy person. My asthma abates; my eczema recedes. The mind assures the body that all is well. Taking pills, even vitamin pills, is a sad body signal. Lounging in the sun is a happy body signal. I'd like to see the study that recognizes my mind as a player in the drama of disease.
Read more: http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/vitamin-d-not-just-for-milk1/#ixzz1FjRT7Q5D
8000IUs of Vitamin D daily necessary for "miracle" anti-cancer nutrient
(NaturalNews) The reign of censorship and suppression against vitamin D is now coming to an end. Even though the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and many institutions leading the cancer industry (including the ACS) have intentionally tried to downplay the ability of vitamin D to prevent cancer, a new study appearing in the journal Anticancer Research lays out the simple, powerful truth about vitamin D that we've been teaching at NaturalNews for years: A typical adults needs 4,000 - 8,000 IUs of vitamin D each day to prevent cancer, MS and type-1 diabetes, not the ridiculously low 400 - 800 IUs recommended by the U.S. government.
8000 IUs of vitamin D daily necessary to raise blood levels of "miracle" anti-cancer nutrient, declares groundbreaking new research.
The new research was conducted by scientists at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha. It is groundbreaking research because it establishes the relationship between vitamin D dosage and circulating vitamin D levels in the blood.
This is a first. It is crucial information for the health care revolution that will be necessary to save states and nations from total health care bankruptcy in the coming years. Vitamin D turns out to be one of the simplest, safest and most affordable ways to prevent degenerative disease and sharply reduce long-term health care costs.
Up to 8,000 IUs needed daily
"We found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4,000 to 8,000 IU [international units] are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of several diseases -- breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes," said Dr. Cedric Garland. (http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2011/02...)
Dr. Garland is the professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center. He went on to say:
"I was surprised to find that the intakes required to maintain vitamin D status for disease prevention were so high -- much higher than the minimal intake of vitamin D of 400 IU/day that was needed to defeat rickets in the 20th century."
Study reveals 90% vitamin D deficiency rate across U.S. population
This particular study involved over 3,000 volunteers who were taking vitamin D supplements. Researchers drew blood samples from them in order to determine their levels of 25-vitamin D (the common form circulating in the blood).
The results were shocking even to the study authors, revealing that 90 percent of those studied were deficient in vitamin D, falling below the 40 - 60 ng/ml range now considered healthy. (Most nutritionally-aware experts in the natural health world recommend higher ranges of 60 - 70 ng/ml, actually.)
The U.S. government's Institute of Medicine has intentionally downplayed vitamin D recommendations, seemingly in an effort to keep boosting the profits of the cancer industry by denying any real benefit to vitamin D. The IOMs most recent recommendations seemed designed to actually cause vitamin D deficiency in the U.S. population (http://www.naturalnews.com/030598_v...).
The IOM has even gone out of its way to artificially lower the threshold of vitamin D deficiency by claiming that 20 ng/ml is a sufficient level. This magically transforms a "deficient" person into a "non-deficient" person by merely changing the definition. So a person with a level of 22 ng/ml, for example, is not considered "vitamin D deficient" by the established medical system, even though their vitamin D levels are so low that they may not be able to prevent cancer, MS or type-1 diabetes.
Why the truth about vitamin D is a huge threat to the established for-profit medical system
As NaturalNews has documented and reported many times over the last several years, the medical establishment -- and especially the cancer industry -- has willfully engaged in attempts to prevent people from learning the truth about vitamin D in order to protect the lucrative profits generated from sickness and disease. Vitamin D represents a greater threat to the medical establishment than any other single nutrient for three reasons:
1) Vitamin D is FREE (you can get it from the sun, without a prescription).
2) Vitamin D prevents over a dozen high-profit diseases and health conditions (osteoporosis, cancer, diabetes, MS, and others).
3) Vitamin D is extremely safe, even when taken in supplement form, because it's a natural vitamin / hormone that the body recognizes.
Or watch the incredibly popular video from the Health Ranger that explains how African Americans, Asians and Latinos are being exploited by the cancer industry through vitamin D censorship and encouraged nutritionally deficiencies:
Highlights from the study
• The study examined 3,667 people and their vitamin D intake habits.
• Vitamin D intake of 10,000 IU / day had no toxicity.
• For those severely deficient in vitamin D, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 10 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.
• For those with existing blood levels above 30 ng / ml, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 8 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.
• For those with existing blood levels above 50 ng / ml, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 5 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.
• In other words, vitamin D supplementation has a curve of diminishing returns. Those with existing high levels of vitamin D do not experience as much benefit from vitamin D supplements as those with low levels (which is roughly 90% of the population).
• Vitamin D sales have increased 600% since 2001 (due largely to the efforts of those in both the natural health and honest science communities who are telling the truth about vitamin D).
• Vitamin D is remarkably safe! From the conclusion of the study:
"Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity."
Yes, that's 40,000 IUs per day.
See the abstract reprinted below.
Why nearly everyone in first-world nations needs more vitamin D
Thanks in large part to this remarkable research, it's now clear that all the intelligent people are going to up their vitamin D intake to something in the range of 8,000 IUs per day (or more), especially through the winter months.
Based on this study, I am personally increasing my intake to 10,000 IUs per day from October through April (in North America). And I'll be sure to get plenty of sunshine during the other months.
"Now that the results of this study are in, it will become common for almost every adult to take 4000 IU/day," said Dr. Garland. "This is comfortably under the 10,000 IU/day that the IOM Committee Report considers as the lower limit of risk, and the benefits are substantial."
"Now is the time for virtually everyone to take more vitamin D to help prevent some major types of cancer, several other serious illnesses, and fractures," said Robert P. Heaney, MD, of Creighton University, an experienced biomedical scientist.
It seems the conventional cancer industry, the IOM and even the FDA will not be able to censor the truth about vitamin D much longer. The truth is getting out, thanks in large part due to you, the NaturalNews readers who share these stories and help educate and inform your friends and family members.
Spread the news: Take more vitamin D! Please share this story on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. Let people know that the research is in, and vitamin D is a remarkably safe "miracle" nutrient that nearly everyone needs to be supplementing. This is especially true if they have darker skin.
(We recommend vitamin D3 from quality nutritional supplement companies. Beware of cheap "multivitamin" sources that you find at common retailers. Go for quality supplements from reputable sources.)
Here's the title and abstract of the original study:
Vitamin D Supplement Doses and Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D in the Range Associated with Cancer Prevention
CEDRIC F. GARLAND, CHRISTINE B. FRENCH, , LEO L. BAGGERLY, and ROBERT P. HEANEY,
"This paper provides a long awaited insight into a dose-response relationship between orally administered vitamin D3 and the resulting levels of serum 25(OH)D in over 3600 citizens. The results will allow new definition of high vitamin D dose safety and reduce concerns about toxicity. This is a landmark contribution in the vitamin D nutrition field!" - Anthony Norman, Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry & Biomedical Sciences, Emeritus, University of California Riverside
Abstract. Background: Studies indicate that intake of vitamin D in the range from 1,100 to 4,000 IU/d and a serum 25- hydroxyvitamin D concentration [25(OH)D] from 60-80 ng/ml may be needed to reduce cancer risk. Few community-based studies allow estimation of the dose–response relationship between oral intake of vitamin D and corresponding serum 25(OH)D in the range above 1,000 IU/d. Materials and Methods: A descriptive study of serum 25(OH)D concentration and self-reported vitamin D intake in a community-based cohort (n=3,667, mean age 51.3±13.4 y). Results: Serum 25(OH)D rose as a function of self-reported vitamin D supplement ingestion in a curvilinear fashion, with no intakes of 10,000 IU/d or lower producing 25(OH)D values above the lower-bound of the zone of potential toxicity (200 ng/ml). Unsupplemented all-source input was estimated at 3,300 IU/d. The supplemental dose ensuring that 97.5% of this population achieved a serum 25(OH)D of at least 40 ng/ml was 9,600 IU/d. Conclusion: Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity.
The recent increase in interest in vitamin D by the general public has fueled a better than 200% increase in sales of over-the-counter vitamin D preparations from 2008 to 2009, and a more than 6-fold increase since 2001 (1). Additionally, products with progressively increasing content of vitamin D have been introduced with similar rapidity. There seems to have been little precedent for a change of this magnitude and duration for other nutrients (e.g., vitamins C and E) that have enjoyed brief periods of popularity among the general public. There is essentially no information on how the public uses these products or on their impact on the vitamin D status of consumers.
GrassrootsHealth (GRH), a non-profit community service organization dedicated to promoting public awareness about vitamin D, has assembled a database that includes information on supplemental vitamin D intake by a self-selected population cohort, and links these intakes to measured values for serum 25(OH)D, various demographic variables, and a variety of health status measures. GRH data include values from many individuals with daily supplemental intakes in and above the ranges often used today for cancer prevention and co-therapy (2, 3).
This study used the GRH database to describe the relationship of measured vitamin D status to vitamin D supplementation, both as practiced by health conscious individuals and as related to cancer prevention.
Healthines: Healthy vitamin D
Vitamin D is sometimes called the sunshine vitamin because your body can get most of what it needs from the sun. Vitamin D is essential for healthy bones and teeth. It is especially important to women as it may slow down the progress of osteoporosis. Many men and women have insufficient vitamin D in Gulf countries, which is surprising when sunshine is so plentiful.
What is vitamin D?
Vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) is a fat-soluble vitamin found in food. Technically it is a hormone and it is produced in the body when the skin is exposed to the ultraviolet (UVB) rays in sunlight. Spending a few minutes outside each day should supply you with all the vitamin D you need. However sun exposure must involve at least some direct exposure to skin (hands, face, arms, etc.). Your clothing blocks the ultraviolet light that triggers vitamin D formation. Most people, including infants, require little or no extra vitamin D from food when regularly exposed to sunlight when the sun is high in the sky. Bright sunlight is not necessary; even a cloudy summer day will stimulate formation of some vitamin D in the skin, while a short summer holiday in the open air will increase blood levels of the vitamin by two or three times the amount.
What it does
The basic function of vitamin D is to aid the body’s absorption of calcium, helping build strong bones and healthy teeth. It may also protect against some forms of cancer. Studies have also shown that it is important in the prevention of osteoporosis, a disease that causes porous bones. Without sufficient vitamin D the body cannot absorb sufficient calcium from food.
Vitamin D deficiency
Vitamin D deficiency can be caused by a lack of vitamin D in the diet or by inadequate exposure to sunlight. Deficiency is seen more often in colder climates, or where weather dictates that the body is well covered by clothes. It can also be found in countries where women are completely covered. A pregnant woman with vitamin D deficiency may develop osteomalacia, (soft bones) and the new-born have a high risk of developing rickets. Because breast milk does not contain large amounts of vitamin D, breast fed infants who are not exposed to sufficient sunlight may develop rickets and usually require supplements. The body’s ability to manufacture vitamin D declines with age so vitamin D deficiencies are common in older people. The deficiency occurs in older people because their skin, when exposed to sunlight, produces less vitamin D. Also, older or sick people who tend to be house-bound need to make sure they are receiving sufficient vitamin D in their diet. Signs of deficiency include bone pain and muscle weakness. The diagnosis of rickets or osteomalacia caused by lack of vitamin D is based on symptoms and the appearance of bones on x-rays, and a low level of vitamin D by-products in the blood.
Take a walk in the sun
The cooler winter months are a great time to take a walk and get some sunshine and a natural source of vitamin D. You don’t need to stay in the sun for long to build up vitamin D. For most of us, 10 minutes exposure, wearing normal clothes — exposing just a bit of hands, arms and face — should supply you with all the vitamin D you need.
Food sources
If you feel you may be not be getting sufficient sunlight then look at your diet. The few foods that contain vitamin D include egg yolks, butter, vitamin D-fortified milk, fish liver oil, breast milk, and infant formula. In addition to breast milk and formula, calcium is found in dairy products, sardines, canned salmon, green leafy vegetables, and tofu. Pure vegetarians may use supplements instead of eggs and dairy as sources for both calcium and vitamin D. If you feel you may need a vitamin D supplement you should consult your Doctor or dietitian. My healthy eating guide is a good source of information on diet: Send an e-mail to guidean@ardenhealth.com for a copy.
Vitamin D facts
* Regulates calcium levels in the bones
* 90% comes from sunlight
* 10% comes from food
* Food sources — oily fish, eggs, fortified cereals
* Breast fed children may need supplements
You don’t need to stay in the sun for long to build up vitamin D stores in the body and you can benefit from the sunrays even on a cloudy day. For most of us, 10 minutes exposure, wearing normal clothes — exposing just a bit of hands, arms and face — should supply you with all the vitamin D you need. But those at risk or with a history of skin cancer or with sun sensitive skin conditions should check with their dermatologist first.
Low Vitamin D in Newborns Linked to Wheezing
Study shows link between low levels of Vitamin D in cord blood and respiratory infection risk. Infants at age 3 months who had newborn blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D -- a measurement of vitamin D -- below 25 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) were twice as likely to develop respiratory infections as infants who had levels at 75 nmol/L or higher, according to an international study.
That finding is based on umbilical cord blood samples taken from more than 900 infants to measure blood vitamin D levels. Earlier research has suggested that mothers who have higher levels of vitamin D in their blood during pregnancy are more likely to give birth to infants who are at a lower risk for wheezing.
Investigators led by Carlos Camargo, MD, DrPH, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School, examined whether vitamin D levels in the infants’ umbilical cord blood were associated with risk for respiratory infections, wheezing, or asthma.
Camargo and researchers from New Zealand analyzed data from the New Zealand Asthma and Allergy Cohort Study, which followed more than 1,000 children in the cities of Wellington and Christchurch.
Umbilical cord samples were available from 922 infants. Most infants were born to term at 40 weeks, and the average was about 3.6 kilograms or about 7 pounds and 9 ounces.
Mothers were also frequently interviewed about their children’s history of asthma, wheezing, and respiratory infection from age 3 months until the children turned 5 years old. Very few children in the study took vitamin supplements; their vitamin D status came mostly from sunlight exposure.
Researchers found that:
* About 20% of infants had 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels below 25 nmol/L, which is considered below normal vitamin D levels.
* The average level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 44 nmol/L, which was still considered low.
* Lower vitamin D levels were more common among children born in the winter, children of lower socioeconomic status, children who had family histories of asthma and smoking and who had been exposed to secondhand smoke at an early age.
* Low vitamin D levels were associated with wheezing and respiratory infection, but not associated with being diagnosed with asthma. The findings do not establish cause and effect.
The study is published in the January issue of Pediatrics, a journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Benefits of Vitamin D - Vitamin D, found abundantly in fortified dairy products such as milk and cheese, is known for helping children build strong bones, but it can also help bolster the immune system, researchers note. Vitamin D is also produced by the body when exposed to sunlight.
Acute respiratory infections are a major health problem in children, the researchers say. Bronchiolitis, in particular, is a leading cause of hospitalization among infants in the U.S. Researchers want to evaluate whether vitamin D supplements could provide some benefit.
"Our data suggest that the association between vitamin D and wheezing, which can be a symptom of many respiratory diseases and not just asthma, is largely due to respiratory infections," Camargo says in a news release. "There's a likely difference here between what causes asthma and what causes existing asthma to get worse. Since respiratory infections are the most common cause of asthma exacerbations, vitamin D supplements may help to prevent those events, particularly during the fall and winter, when vitamin D levels decline and exacerbations are more common. That idea needs to be tested in a randomized clinical trial, which we hope to do next year."
Swine flu pandemic outbreak sweeping Britain - 70 percent were vaccinated last year
(NaturalNews) A swine flu pandemic is sweeping through Britain despite the fact that 70 percent of Britain's over-65 population was vaccinated against swine flu last year. This year, that number is nearly the same -- 68.5% -- but flu vaccine proponents insist that until everyone is vaccinated, the flu will continue to infect people.
What these vaccine advocates absolutely will not admit, however, is how many of those who are sick with the flu this year also got vaccinated last year. This little detail is left out of every mainstream media report on vaccines and the flu. They simply refuse to mention this all-important number, leaving readers to leap to the incorrect conclusion that only those who were not vaccinated get sick with the flu.
Most infected patients were previously vaccinated
That assumption is false. In fact, of the 450 critical care beds in England that are now occupied by flu patients, I have no doubt that most of those infected patients are people who received flu vaccines in the past.
Such statistics are never made available to the public or the press, of course. To release such statistics would expose the Great Lie of the vaccine industry: That flu vaccines simply don't work on 99 percent of people!
In fact, the people who are most susceptible to catching the flu are precisely the very same people who get vaccinated. Why is that? Because vaccines weaken the immune system in the long run, leaving you more vulnerable to future infections. They deny your immune system the opportunity to practice its own adaptive response to invading microorganisms or viruses, thereby causing your immune system to atrophy in the same way that a wheelchair-bound person will experience leg muscle atrophy.
The immune system is a lot like a muscle: Use it or lose it!
But flu vaccines provide weakened viruses to the immune system (along with other preservative chemicals that can be extremely dangerous to neurological health). It's sort of like working out your muscles at the gym but having your trainer do all the heavy lifting for you. Obviously you're not going to have very strong muscles in the end because your body won't need to invoke a very strong adaptive response.
The same is true with vaccines and the flu: If your body is exposed to weakened flu viruses year after year, it gets lazy and weak, and when it one day comes into contact with a full-strength virus circulating in the wild, it's not in good enough shape to handle the challenge.
Vitamin D deficiency is widespread in Britain
At the same time this is going on, a person who is vitamin D deficient will also have an alarmingly weak immune system response because vitamin D activates the immune system to do its job. In people with extremely low vitamin D levels, even vaccines containing weakened viruses won't solicit an antibody response. But instead of testing patients for vitamin D deficiency and prescribing that with the vaccine, conventional medical doctors and contagious disease authorities robotically urge everyone to just "get multiple vaccine shots" as if following one failed vaccine with yet another failed vaccine will somehow make them both work.
That's idiotic, of course. And the other idiotic thing about all this is that if people had sufficient levels of vitamin D circulating in their blood, they wouldn't need seasonal flu vaccines in the first place! That's because a strong, healthy immune system with lots of circulating vitamin D is universally effective at halting ALL seasonal flu strains, with near 100% success in those with vitamin D levels between 50 - 70 (ng/dL).
The three main reasons behind Britain's flu pandemic
So the real reason Britain is suffering a swine flu pandemic right now is actually three-fold:
#1) It's winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and Britain is so far north (of the equator) that the people living there aren't currently generating any vitamin D whatsoever. This makes virtually the entire British population ridiculously vitamin D deficient throughout the winter.
#2) The majority of the British population has been subjected to flu vaccines in previous years, weakening their immune systems and making them more vulnerable to this year's flu strains.
#3) The flu strain itself is so successful in the wild precisely because so many Britons walk around in chronic states of immune suppression (from vitamin D deficiency, chronic stress, poor dietary habits and so on). This creates a "viral breeding ground" which encourages more rapid virus mutations that make vaccines obsolete anyway.
The question you are not allowed to ask vaccine quacks
The vaccine-pushing quack medical community believes that if they could magically convince 100 percent of the people to get vaccinated, they would have this problem licked. In their own minds, they have unscientifically convinced themselves that a vaccine equals automatic and full protection against a flu virus.
And yet even they won't dare ask this simple question: Of all the people sick from the flu who are right now lying in Britain's hospital beds, what percentage were vaccinated against the flu last year or this year?
The answer to that question will expose the outright fraud of the vaccine industry because the answer is a very large number. No one in the medical industry dares ask that question, of course, because they realize that delving into the actual re-infection rate of flu vaccine recipients would expose their quackery and fraud, causing yet more people to lose faith in vaccines which are, after all, sold based entirely on misplaced faith and clever propaganda.
The flu vaccine propaganda, of course, demands that people never be allowed to collide with the scientific facts about how many people who are vaccinated against the flu still catch the flu anyway. (The flu re-infection rate.) That's why you will NEVER see an honest answer to this question released by hospitals, vaccine companies or vaccine-pushing doctors.
Keep taking your flu jabs, everybody. But don't ask whether they actually work, because that question isn't allowed to be asked in the cult of medicine that dominates the sick-care landscape around the world today.
We wouldn't want actual science to interfere with a really profitable con job now, would we?
Fraudulent herbal immune supplement fails to reduce
flu symptoms for 99 percent of people
NaturalNews - Mike Adams, the Health Ranger -12/20/2010
(NaturalNews) In an independent review published in a peer-reviewed medical journal (see below), a popular herbal immune supplement called "ImmunoFlu Remedy" was found to fraudulently marketed as a "flu prevention supplement." Its makers claim that if you take the supplement, you won't get the flu and won't miss a day of work during the flu season (a silly claim, eh?). But clinical testing recently revealed that ImmunoFlu Remedy only works to reduce flu symptoms on 1 out of every 100 people who take the supplement, meaning it is 99 percent ineffective.
An FTC spokesperson, commenting on the study results, characterized the marketing of ImmunoFlu Remedy as "obviously fraudulent" and a top FDA official has publicly promised to launch a criminal investigation into the makers of ImmunoFlu Remedy in order to "protect the public from misleading health claims." Evidence has also surfaced that ImmunoFlu Remedy may contain trace levels of heavy metals linked to neurological disorders. Over a dozen children admitted to emergency rooms at hospitals across the country have been identified as consumers of ImmunoFlu Remedy, and two of those children died. The makers of ImmunoFlu Remedy are being ordered to remove the product from their website and recall the product from distributors and retailers.
As shocking as all this sounds, there's something you need to know as you continue reading this story here on NaturalNews. There is no such thing as ImmunoFlu Remedy. This story is actually about seasonal flu vaccines.
Most of the details mentioned above, you see, are actually the true story about seasonal flu vaccines.
Flu vaccines don't work on 99 out of 100 people
Seasonal flu vaccines have been scientifically shown to reduce flu symptoms in only 1 out of every 100 people (they are ineffective on 99% of those receiving the shots) (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...). Flu vaccines also contain chemical ingredients linked to neurological disorders, which is why so many children in Australia and around the world have been admitted to hospital emergency rooms suffering from seizures and convulsions following flu shot injections (http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_A...).
Seasonal flu vaccines are also fraudulently marketed with blatantly false claims that they prevent the flu in everyone who receives a shot. "Get the shot and you won't miss work" is one of the common claims made in flu shot promotions. Or, as Walgreens implies, "Get the shot and you won't infect your family members." That claim is blatantly misleading and scientifically false.
And yet, despite this fraudulent marketing of a product that doesn't work on 99% of those who take it, neither the FTC nor the FDA has taken any action against it. Marketers of flu vaccines, it turns out, can make any claims they wish, even if such claims are laughable in the face of scientific scrutiny.
Forget the science... we've got vaccines to sell!
Flu vaccines, you see, are immune from any real scientific scrutiny -- even by the scientific community. The mythology of season flu vaccines has been so pervasive and so widely described as "scientific" that the truth of whether it's really scientific no longer matters. Flu vaccines are simply assumed to work even without testing; without scientific evidence and without any legitimate application of skeptical thinking.
There's a word for that, of course. It's the word used to describe a system of belief that requires no evidence... a system in which truths are materialized out of lies through the mere act of enough authoritative people uttering falsehoods until they all begin to believe each other. That word, of course, is a four-letter word: Cult.
A cult need not answer to statistical scrutiny. It need not subject its own internal beliefs to outside review because everyone inside the cult already agrees on the answer -- and why ask questions when we already know the truth, right?
Such is the nature of the cult of flu vaccines. It's a large cult, of course, but the sheer size of the cult in no way detracts from the fact that it is a cult nonetheless. In other words, just because millions of doctors believe the propaganda of a cult does not make it any less of a cult. Even if all the doctors, pharmacists and drug pushers in the world fall for a fictitious belief and put their faith and professional reputations on the line in order to back that belief, it's still fiction. And it's still a cult.
Doctors once prescribed mercury and other poisons
There was a time in western medicine when doctors routinely prescribed mercury as a remedy to treat various afflictions. For example, mercury was frequently prescribed to treat syphilis.
In fact, one study describing the treatment of syphilis with "mercury inhalations" was presented at the Forty-Fourth Annual Session of the American Dermatological Association in Swampscott, Mass., June 2-4 in the year 1921. That study was entitled:
THE TREATMENT OF SYPHILIS BY MERCURY INHALATIONS
by H. N. COLE, M.D.; A. J. GERICKE, M.D.; TORALD SOLLMANN, M.D.
Arch Derm Syphilol. 1922;5(1):18-33.
Notice that the three authors were all MDs? That's because doctors have historically been some of the most persistent promoters of poisonous concoctions that today we would call "quackery." They even sought to destroy the careers and reputations of their own colleagues who pointed out that perhaps mercury should not be used as a medicine -- or even the idea that surgeons should wash their hands!
It is an historical fact that western doctors promoted the heavy metal mercury, highly addictive heroin, and other extremely toxic substances as "miracle cures" for all sorts of diseases and conditions. They also advocated cigarettes as being good for your health and even improving your teeth! (http://www.naturalnews.com/021949.html)
In fact, the term "quack" comes from the use of mercury by western doctors. Mercury, of course, was once called "quicksilver," and the term was bastardized into the derogatory "quack" to refer to physicians who continued to use dangerous substances that harmed patients. Under that definition, today's quacks are not homeopaths or herbalists but rather oncologists who poison their patients with chemotherapy in almost exactly the same way the quack doctors once poisoned their patients with mercury.
Flu vaccines are modern medicine's form of quackery
Based nothing more than wishful thinking and physicians quoting each other as reliable sources of expert opinion, the whole of evidence supporting flu vaccines today amounts to little more than an intellectual circle jerk of truly bad science.
Today's flu vaccine-pushing physicians, you see, are no smarter than their colleagues from the 1800's who prescribed mercury inhalations for patients. And they are arguably less wise, too. The only real difference is that today there are more of them and so their voices seem to take on the illusion of authority and consensus.
Consensus is not always fact. More often than not, it is merely the mass infection of many minds with official foolishness. At one time, after all, it was an established, consensus "fact" that the Earth was flat. More recently, even in 1847, a Hungarian obstetrician named Ignaz Semmelweis was viciously attacked by his colleagues for insisting that doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_...).
What Semmelweis discovered then is what every person who speaks out against the insanities of western medicine knows today: Western medicine is an arrogant, misinformed and dangerously ignorant system of control in which truth-tellers are routinely exterminated in order to maintain the mythologies upon which the medical industrial complex is based.
The truth about flu vaccines would destroy much of western medicine
Semmelweis was much like the Wikileaks of the 1840's in the sense that he revealed "uncomfortable truths" that challenged the status quo and made a whole lot of really important-sounding people look like fools. Since really important-sounding people don't enjoy looking like fools, they simply attack the messenger and increase their resolve to defend their ridiculous falsehoods and mythologies... even in the face of clear evidence that shows them to be wrong. Such is precisely the situation happening today with flu vaccines.
To challenge the sanctity of seasonal flu vaccines and the regimen of annual shots (which just happen to coincide with steady profits for the drug companies) is to question the very foundation of western medicine. Without the mythology of vaccines firmly imprinted in the minds of the people, western medicine would no longer appear to have authority over the flu. If flu vaccines were halted for just one year -- forcing people to turn to vitamin D instead -- the illusion of flu vaccines would be forever shattered and the people would realize that taking seasonal flu vaccine shots is just as ludicrous as inhaling mercury vapor.
That's why flu vaccines have to be incessantly pushed, each and every year, without any gaps in the "treatment."
The real quackery of vaccines
The evil genius in all this is that people have been tricked into believing in vaccines whether they work or not. When someone receives a vaccine shot, they consider themselves "protected" from the flu. So what happens if they get the flu anyway? They simply reason in their own heads that if they hadn't been vaccinated, they might have experienced far worse flu symptoms.
And if they don't get the flu at all? Then they reason that the vaccine prevented the flu! Thus, with the right programming, flu vaccines can be thought of as useful and effective regardless of the actual health outcome.
This is a classic red flag for a system of quackery. It's one of the most common complaints leveled against energy medicine by conventional scientists, in fact. They rightly point out that determining whether energy medicine really works for you is a guessing game: If you still get sick, you might think the energy medicine worked a little bit but not enough. If you don't get sick, then you might think the energy medicine worked like a miracle.
Such a logic matrix is prone to misinterpretation by patients and doctors alike. In both cases -- energy medicine as well as flu vaccines -- patients are likely to convince themselves that it's working, even if there is no real evidence that their belief is accurate. Belief itself, of course, is perhaps the best medicine of all, and it is a distinct possibility that the small number of patients who seem to be helped by flu vaccines (one percent) may be experiencing the benefit of the placebo effect.
Nevertheless, the way out of this puzzle is to subject flu vaccines (or energy medicine, similarly) to rigorous clinical trials in which a serious attempt is made to tease out some statistically significant answers such as "what percentage of people are actually helped by this treatment?"
What's really amazing about all this is that such clinical trials have already been done on flu vaccines, and the results are in: Seasonal flu vaccines prevent flu symptoms in about one percent of the people who receive vaccine jabs. And that's if you believe the more optimistic conclusions of the vaccine manufacturers themselves, by the way (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...).
How would this quackery be viewed if it were an herbal remedy?
From a scientific perspective, then, seasonal flu vaccines have roughly a one percent effectiveness rate, which means they have no apparent effect on 99 out of 100 people.
What's interesting about this is that if homeopathy, or energy medicine, or an herbal formula produced such poor results, it would be widely ridiculed as a quack remedy promoted via fraudulent marketing. A one percent effectiveness rate proves any "natural" remedy to be quackery, you see, and yet the same one percent effectiveness rate is more than sufficient to support the mythology of vaccines to those who believe the vaccine cult.
What it all comes down to is really this: Seasonal flu vaccines are really 1% science and 99% wishful thinking. And yet, apparently, that's more than enough reason for virtually the entire medical and scientific establishments to back seasonal flu vaccines as if they were scientifically proven while touting highly exaggerated marketing claims that imply one hundred percent effectiveness.
In any other industry, marketing a product that didn't work 99 percent of the time would be considered fraud. But in the vaccine industry? It's just business as usual.
How to make money selling a product that almost never works as advertised
The seasonal flu vaccine is a great money-making con, too. Imagine how much money you could make if you could convince hundreds of millions of people to buy a product that didn't work on 99 percent of your customers, and yet 100 percent of them were convinced that they were receiving benefits from it!
It's a pretty clever con, and it all depends on promoting the mythology -- or "catapulting the propaganda" as President George Bush famously said -- in order to make sure that 99 percent of the wishful thinking that powers the flu vaccine industry remains in place.
Because, let's face it: If flu vaccines actually worked, the industry really wouldn't need to advertise them so heavily, would they? If these vaccines really stopped flu infections with 100 percent effectiveness, word of mouth about flu vaccines would spread even faster than the flu itself, and virtually everyone would line up to get their "flu protection" shots out of sheer necessity.
The only reason the industry needs to engage in such aggressive flu vaccine promotion is because flu vaccines are only based on 1% science, and the other 99% of the marketing formula depends on keeping people brainwashed into believing the false mythology of flu vaccines.
Flu shots as placebo
Flu vaccines, in effect, are largely just placebo shots. If you think they're going to work for you, then you'll remain convinced of that regardless of whether you get sick or not. There wouldn't really be any harm in that except for the inconvenient fact that vaccine shots contain harmful chemical ingredients that pose a health risk to those who take them.
Thus, even while a flu vaccine may be providing as much as a 1% protection against the flu, it may simultaneously subject a person to a significantly smaller risk of a far more serious detrimental outcome: Neurological damage, convulsions, learning disabilities or even the accelerated development of Alzheimer's disease.
Are these risks really worth a 1-in-100 chance of preventing the flu? A rational answer seems to be no, they aren't. Especially when the available evidence says that vitamin D supplements work far better at preventing flu infections. And vitamin D can be taken with virtually no health risks whatsoever. Even better, vitamin D supplements are not formulated with mercury preservatives, chemical adjuvants or other questionable chemicals that are typically added to vaccines.
But don't expect this sort of rational, clear-thinking discussion of flu vaccines and vitamin D to be undertaken by your physician. Doctors have already drank the flu vaccine Kool-Aid, and as a result the science no longer matters to them. Even if Wikileaks released definitive documents showing the entire flu vaccine industry to be a complete scam based on fraudulent science, most doctors would no doubt continue to push flu vaccines anyway because that's what they've always done.
Doctors don't change course very often... especially not if they've participated as active members of the vaccine cult for several years (or decades). The likelihood of a doctor actually changing his mind on this issue of flu vaccines is even less than the likelihood of a flu vaccine preventing you from getting the flu this winter. And that likelihood is ridiculously low to begin with. So don't hold your breath. And don't hold out any faith for the idea that doctors will suddenly embrace scientific thinking, either. Because there's no room for truly scientific thought in the membership ranks of the vaccine cult.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com
How Much Vitamin D? What's Missing From the New Recommendations
One day, vitamin D seems like the cure for everything, and the next, we are inundated with warnings about dangers and lack of science. Confusion is rampant about the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI's) for Calcium and Vitamin D recently released from the Institute of Medicine.
I have reviewed the report carefully and gathered input from international experts on vitamin D and the clinical team at my medical center -- which includes four master's degrees in nutrition, authors of textbooks on nutrition, and international leaders in nutrition education for physicians and dietitians. Collectively we have 100 years of reviewing nutrition research and applying it with thousands of patients. Here is what I think about the new vitamin D recommendations based on a synthesis of all this information.
New Vitamin D Recommendations: Are They Enough?
Although I agree with an increase in the DRI's for vitamin D, I feel the new DRIs are overly cautious, and I am disappointed that the panel failed to address a large volume of compelling research showing the benefits of optimal vitamin D intake in so many conditions. These go well beyond bone health and include cancer, depression, imbalances in the immune system, heart disease and many others. Vitamin D is a very complex and fascinating nutrient that has multiple roles and effects in the body beyond bone health.
An important distinction to keep in mind is that the DRI's are intended as general population based guidelines. They do not differentiate or take into account a person's unique medical history, genetics, dietary intake, clinical symptomatology, environmental conditions including sunlight exposure or biochemical and nutritional assessment.
My own practice-based clinical evidence from testing thousands of individuals with the goal of optimizing vitamin D status, correlated with other biomarkers, show very positive effects on both skeletal and extra skeletal conditions. At the UltraWellness Center we routinely check vitamin D levels, monitor clinical symptoms, evaluate our patient's health status and tailor medical nutritional therapy accordingly.
Here are some of the highlights from the report and my own conclusions and responses based on my clinical experience with vitamin D:
1. The report recommended a 300 percent increase in vitamin D for most Americans and doubled the acceptable upper safe limit to 4,000 IU a day which means they consider it completely safe to take 4,000 IU a day.
2. They appropriately conclude that most Americans are overdosing on calcium, which has been added to many foods. Countries with low calcium intake, a plant-based, low-acid diet and plenty of sun exposure have very low rates of osteoporosis. I support the intake of adequate calcium from food, especially dark green leafy vegetables, tahini and nuts.
3. The Institute of Medicine's (IOM) conclusions and DRI's focus on the minimum amounts of nutrients needed to prevent deficiency diseases, not create optimal health.
4. The report's conclusions are based on proving the absence of something (like heart disease or cancer over decades), which is harder to prove than the presence of something. Spending decades of research looking for something not to happen is a tough game. Pharmaceutical agents are meant to alter pathology. Nutrients restore normal function, and they do so by optimizing normal biological functions, mostly by their action as coenzymes in thousands of biochemical reactions.
5. The conclusions are deliberately very conservative based on requirements for absolute proof, not implications from all the collective research. The IOM places the burden of proof on those who would suggest that higher levels are effective or safe. However, given the evolutionary human experience of sun exposure and the high doses of vitamin D we used to get from fatty fish -- equivalent to up to 10,000 IU a day -- perhaps, the burden of proof should be on scientists to prove that lower intakes of vitamin D are, in fact, safe over long-term. Nutrients are not drugs and cannot be studied or evaluated as drugs. They are multifunctional substances each responsible for hundreds of chemical reactions in the body necessary for life.
6. The conclusions are based on meeting the gold standard of research for evidence-based medicine -- namely the randomized controlled trial. While useful for evaluating drug therapy, randomized control trials are extraordinarily expensive and difficult to perform for compounds such as nutrients that have their benefits over decades, not weeks.
7. Instead, conclusions should be based on the collective knowledge from paleobiology, basic science, gene expression data, and large population studies. In other words, synthesizing all the data, not simply judging the evidence based on a gold standard. This is simply not the appropriate lens for assessing complex nutritional data. Vitamin D, for example, regulates over 150 genes. Facts like these are not taken into account in the new DRIs.
8. The conclusion that the normal ranges for vitamin D blood levels have been inappropriately increased from 20 to 30 ng/dl is based on flawed reasoning. If everyone has a low level, that doesn't make normal -- much less optimal. The report seems to suggest that since 80 percent of Americans are considered deficient in vitamin D we should adjust the "normal" range down so that all those people walking around who don't appear to have health problems won't be considered deficient. One could ask: Should we adjust the "normal weight" of Americans to include a BMI of over 25, since nearly three-fourths of our population is in that range? However, a better question may be: What are the evolutionary or ideal conditions for health?
9. Why are the 14 expert opinions of scientists who reviewed the report including Dr. Robert Heaney (one of the world experts on vitamin D who showed that 20 weeks of 10,000 IU a day of vitamin D3 had no adverse effects on healthy young men with normal vitamin D levels) and Dr. Walter Willett of Harvard the most respected nutritionist in the world, (who recommends 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day), kept secret? When is open scientific discourse a national security issue? Or does the IOM think we will be confused?
10. Why did the IOM leave Dr. Michael Holick, the discoverer of vitamin D3 (the active thyroid hormone) whose data show that blood levels up to 100 ng/dl are perfectly safe, off the panel despite the fact that his research and reviews have appeared in every major medical journal?
11. Here are some other compelling facts to consider:
* 70-80 percent of Americans are vitamin D deficient (this means 25 ng/dl or less for Caucasians and 16 ng/dl or less for African Americans.)
* Attaining optimal blood levels level of 45 ng/dl typically requires about 3,000-4,000 IU a day of vitamin D3 (6 times current recommendations).
* Achieving blood levels of 45 ng/dl (toxic is considered 250 ng/dl) would result in 400,000 fewer premature deaths per year including a reduction of cancer by 35 percent, type 2 diabetes by 33 percent, and all cause mortality by 7 percent.
* Studies show that vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of influenza 11-fold (1,100 percent)(v) and taking vitamin D reduces the risk by 42 percent.
* The economic burden due to vitamin D insufficiency in the United States is40-53 billion per year from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, influenza, autoimmune disease, depression, fibromyalgia and other disorders.
There is no question that in some cases, care is needed when taking vitamin D. For example, patients with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases must have their vitamin D status monitored carefully. But the bottom line is that taking supplemental vitamin D is safe and may be beneficial for a great majority of the population. Here is what I recommend in the face of the absence of evidence of harm and the plethora of evidence of potential benefit for taking supplemental vitamin D:
1. The average child can conservatively and safely take 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day, and the average adults should take 2,000 IU a day. Some may need significantly more to raise and maintain vitamin D at adequate levels.
2. For all of my adult patients, who are taking > 4,000 IU per day I monitor blood levels carefully over the long-term. I recommend you do the same if you are taking large doses.
3. Blood levels should be at least 30 ng/dl, and, for most, optimal levels are between 45 ng/dl to 60 ng/dl.
4. I recommend you get most of your calcium from your diet. Don't take more than 800 mg of calcium from supplements per day.
To learn more about vitamin D, see the article "The Sunshine Vitamin: A Closer Look at Vitamin D" on drhyman.com.
In the meantime, I'd like to ask you a few questions:
What do you think of the new DRIs for vitamin D?
Do you think supplements can be used not only to cure deficiency diseases, but to optimize health?
What has your experience been with taking supplemental vitamin D? Have you experienced any health benefits? If so, what are they?
To your good health,
Mark Hyman, MD
References
(i) Heaney, R. 2003. Long-latency deficiency disease: insights from calcium and vitamin D. Am J Clin Nutr. 78:912-9
(ii) Holick, M.F. 2007. Vitamin D deficiency. N Engl J Med. 357(3): 266-81. Review.
(iii) Grant, W. 2009. In defense of the sun. Dermato-endocrinology. 1(4): 207-214.
(iv) Grant, W.B., Holick, M.F. 2005. Benefits and requirements of vitamin D for optimal health: A review. Altern Med Rev. 10(2): 94-111. Review.
(v) Wayse, V., Yousafzai, A., Mogale, K., Filteau, S. 2004. Association of subclinical vitamin D deficiency with severe acute lower respiratory infection in Indian children under 5 y. Eur J Clin Nutr. 58(4): 563-7.
(vi) Cannell, J.J., Zasloff, M., Garland, C.F. et al. 2008. On the epidemiology of influenza. Virol J. 5: 29.
Mark Hyman, M.D. is a practicing physician, founder of The UltraWellness Center, a four-time New York Times bestselling author, and an international leader in the field of Functional Medicine. You can follow him on Twitter, connect with him on LinkedIn, watch his videos on YouTube, become a fan on Facebook, and subscribe to his newsletter.
Vitamin D recommendation rises
It’s official: cold season is upon us. There’s a lot of sneezing and wheezing going on in the ConsumerSearch.com offices and it makes this editor wonder if her colleagues should be getting more of the superstar vitamin — D. For the last four years, the sunshine vitamin has been hogging the nutritional research limelight and as we embark on Cold and Flu Watch 2010/2011, it’s continuing to be the scene-stealer. On Tuesday of this week, the U.S. government panel responsible for setting the recommended daily intake levels for vitamins announced that the daily recommended intakes (DRIs) for vitamin D were increased.
Specifically, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) increased the DRIs from 400 IU to 600 IU for persons between the ages of 1 and 70, and to 800 IU for those over 70 years of age. This action is causing quite a stir, as the recommendation is not nearly as far as the vitamin D research community wanted.
Defining D
First of all, it's important to understand the unique nature of vitamin D: You don’t consume the working form of D, your body makes it. Your cells convert the two forms of D — D2 (found in plant sources) and D3 (produced by the body through sun exposure or consumed from animal products or supplementation) — into its active form, the steroid hormone 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D. Sounds like we’re vitamin D factories, doesn’t it? The truth is we’re not.
It has been reported that three-quarters of all Americans are vitamin D deficient. Specifically, a study in the September 2009 issue of the journal, Pediatrics, found that 70 percent of children had insufficient levels of vitamin D. And this is a big deal because being D deficient has been linked to cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and heart disease; cancer; fibromyalgia; chronic muscle pain; diabetes; and depression.
Another thing to consider during this germ-festive season: not getting enough D may inhibit your immune system and set you up for more colds. A study published in the May 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that daily supplementation with 1200 IU of vitamin D3 reduced the incidence of seasonal flu (influenza A) by over 40 percent in school-age children. The Japanese scientists from Jikei University School of Medicine concluded that there is “a cause and effect relationship…between the dietary intake of vitamin D and contribution to the normal function of the immune system and healthy inflammatory response, ...”
Making D
So why aren’t we producing as much D as we need? For one, we’re protecting ourselves from skin cancer. By wearing sunscreen of an SPF 8 or higher, we inhibit the photosynthesis of ultraviolent B rays that our bodies use to produce 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D. Also, if you live in northern climates, sunshine is weak for about half the year. Finally, there are relatively few foods that provide us with vitamin D — fatty wild fish like mackerel, herring and cod liver oil and porcini mushrooms. Therefore, supplementation can make up the difference. And this is where the confusion begins.
New Daily Recommended Intakes of D
On November 30, the IOM released its report stating the new DRIs for vitamin D and calcium after reviewing 1,000 scientific studies. The end result is that the 400 IU DRI of years past was increased to 600 IU. However, there's a lot of confusion with this number. First, it is difficult to compare it with suggestions of yore — those were adequate intake recommendations versus the daily recommended intakes that were released this week. The new report states that 400 international units (IU) of vitamin D daily is sufficient for most people (this is the old adequate intake amount), but the recommended intake (known as the DRI) is 600 IU for people from ages 9 to 70 and 800 IU for people over 70.
Either way that you slice it, this isn’t in line with the recommends made by researchers who specialize in studying vitamin D. (None of whom sat on the IOM’s “Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D and Calcium”.) In a paper published in the September 2010 issue of Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine (now known as Experimental Biology and Medicine), well-known vitamin D researchers Anthony W. Norman, PhD, of the University of California, Riverside, and Roger Bouillon, PhD, at the Universite Leuven in Belgium, call for an increase in the amount of vitamin D recommended to 2,000 IU daily. The authors state this amount would reduce disease frequency as well as cut medical costs. The IOM Committee didn’t agree.
So now what?
The one thing that both the IOM committee and Norman and Bouillon agree on is that vitamin D dosing is individual. For instance, someone in sunny California who isn’t diligent about sunscreen will most likely need to supplement their diet with less vitamin D than a Portland, Maine, resident — especially during the winter months.
The best thing to do is have your blood serum vitamin D levels checked at your next physical. (The test is called 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D. Levels should be above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L) year-round, in both children and adults.) More physicians are aware of the importance of D on health so this shouldn’t be an odd request. Armed with the results from that blood test, your doctor and you can determine the best course of action for getting enough D to keep you healthy.
Today, the Food and Nutrition Board has Failed Millions
After 13 years of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), yesterday recommended that a three - pound premature infant can take virtually the same amount of vitamin D as a 300 pound pregnant woman. While that 400 IU/day dose is close to adequate for infants, 600 IU/day in pregnant women will do nothing to help the three childhood epidemics most closely associated with gestational and early childhood vitamin D deficiencies: asthma, auto-immune disorders, and, as recently reported in the largest pediatric journal in the world, autism (1). Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina has shown pregnant and lactating women need at least 5,000 IU/day, not 600.
The FNB also reported that vitamin D toxicity might occur at an intake of 10,000 IU/day (250 micrograms), although they could produce no reproducible evidence that 10,000 IU/day has ever caused toxicity in humans and only one poorly conducted study indicating 20,000 IU/day may cause mild elevations in serum calcium but not clinical toxicity.
Viewed with different measure, this FNB report recommends that an infant should take 10 micrograms/day (400 IU) and the pregnant women 15 micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single 30 minutes dose of summer sunshine gives adults more than 10,000 IU (250 micrograms), the FNB is apparently also warning that natural vitamin D input – as occurred from the sun before the widespread use of sunscreen – is dangerous. That is, the FNB is implying that God does not know what she is doing.
Disturbingly, this FNB committee focused on bone health, just like they did 14 years ago. They ignored the thousands of studies from the last ten years that showed higher doses of vitamin D helps: heart health, brain health, breast health, prostate health, pancreatic health, muscle health, nerve health, eye health, immune health, colon health, liver health, mood health, skin health, and especially fetal health. Tens of millions of pregnant women and their breast-feeding infants are severely vitamin D deficient, resulting in a great increase in the medieval disease, rickets. The FNB report seems to reason that if so many pregnant women have low vitamin D blood levels then it must be OK because such low levels are so common. However, such circular logic simply represents the cave man existence of most modern day pregnant women.
Hence, if you want to optimize your vitamin D levels – not just optimize the bone effect – supplementing is crucial. But it is almost impossible to significantly raise your vitamin D levels when supplementing at only 600 IU/day (15 micrograms). Pregnant women taking 400 IU/day have the same blood levels as pregnant women not taking vitamin D; that is, 400 IU is a meaninglessly small dose for pregnant women. Even taking 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D will only increase the vitamin D levels of most pregnant women by about 10 points, depending mainly on their weight. Professor Bruce Hollis has shown that 2,000 IU/day does not raise vitamin D to healthy or natural levels in either pregnant or lactating women. Therefore supplementing with higher amounts -- like 5000 IU/day -- is crucial for those women who want their fetus to enjoy optimal vitamin D levels, and the future health benefits that go along with it.
For example, taking only two of the hundreds of recently published studies, Professor Urashima and colleagues in Japan gave 1,200 IU/day of vitamin D3 for six months to Japanese 10 year-olds in a randomized controlled trial. They found vitamin D dramatically reduced the incidence of influenza A as well as the episodes of asthma attacks in the treated kids while the placebo group was not so fortunate. If Dr. Urashima had followed the newest FNB recommendations, it is unlikely that 400 IU/day treatment arm would have done much of anything and some of the treated young teenagers may have come to serious harm without the vitamin D. Likewise, a randomized controlled prevention trial of adults by Professor Joan Lappe and colleagues at Creighton University, which showed dramatic improvements in the health of internal organs, used more than twice the FNB's new adult recommendations.
Finally, the FNB committee consulted with 14 vitamin D experts and – after reading these 14 different reports – the FNB decided to suppress their reports. Many of these 14 consultants are either famous vitamin D researchers, like Professor Robert Heaney at Creighton, or in the case of Professor Walter Willett at Harvard, the single best-known nutritionist in the world. So, the FNB will not tell us what Professors Heaney and Willett thought of their new report? Why not? Yesterday, the Vitamin D Council directed our attorney to file a federal Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the IOM's FNB for the release of these 14 reports.
I, my family, most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter, have been taking 5,000 IU/day for up to eight years. Not only have they reported no significant side-effects, indeed, they have reported greatly improved health in multiple organ systems. My advice: especially for pregnant women, continue taking 5,000 IU/day until your (OH)D] is between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml (the vitamin D blood levels obtained by humans who live and work in the sun and the mid-point of the current reference ranges at all American laboratories). Gestational vitamin D deficiency is not only associated with rickets, but a significantly increased risk of neonatal pneumonia (2), a doubled risk for preeclampsia (3), a tripled risk for gestational diabetes (4), and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section (5).
Yesterday, the FNB failed millions of pregnant women whose as yet unborn babies will pay the price. Let us hope the FNB will comply with the spirit of "transparency" by quickly responding to our freedom of Information requests.
John Cannell, MD
Canadians turn to natural supplements instead of flu shots
It’s that time of year again, when anyone coughing in the subway sparks a round of dirty looks.
As Canadians get ready to fight the cold and flu season, more people are turning to vitamins and minerals, instead of flu shots, to banish a runny nose.
In fact, two thirds of us are taking natural supplements, while only 12 per cent opt for the jab, according to an Ipsos Reid poll.
Natural supplements are a $3.5 billion industry in Canada, with some natural health retailers reporting spikes of 25 per cent in supplement sales when the cold weather hits.
Catherine Deslippe of Nutrition House says she has noticed more customers requesting products that boost overall immunity this flu season instead of cures for those already spluttering on their morning commute.
The most popular selling products include vitamin C, Boiron Oscillococcinum (a.k.a Oscillo), oil of oregano, Echinacea, and Golden seal, according to the Canadian Health Food Association.
So, why are more Canadians turning towards purported natural cures?
“Some of my clients say that even when they got the flu shot they still got the flu,” says naturopathic doctor Natasha Turner of the Clear Medicine clinic and author of The Hormone Diet. “Other people are worried about adverse reactions or preservatives,” she adds.
Over the last two years Dr. Turner has noticed a growing number of emails in her inbox asking about alternatives to the flu shot. She attributes them to a heightened awareness surrounding flu prevention after last year’s H1N1 outbreak and the growing amount of research on the immune boosting powers of vitamin D.
To ward off colds Dr. Turner recommends taking daily doses of 2,000-5,000 iu of vitamin D and probiotics in the morning. As soon as you feel flu symptoms coming on she suggests boosting your vitamin intake to 10,000 iu for three days and adding the Indian herb andrographis to your routine.
Ipsos Reid poll attributes the one third of Canadians who avoid natural supplements to their high cost. Despite this they expect a 17 per cent increase in the number of Canadians using vitamins, minerals and supplements over the next year.
As the numbers of Canadians taking natural products climbs, the Health Canada website warns that “natural health products, like drugs, may have potentially serious side effects. Any substance, whether natural or synthetic, that has an effect on the body, has the potential to be a risk to health.”
The website suggests keeping your doctor informed of any natural supplements you might be taking, using products that are Health Canada approved (you can tell by the DIN, NPN or DIN-HM on the label), being skeptical of any health-related claims for potentially serious conditions and staying aware of any reaction or interactions with other drugs you are taking.
This year 106 natural health products have been recalled from the Canadian market by Health Canada.
Strengthen your immune system the natural way
(NaturalNews) Using natural remedies, foods and exercise to strengthen one's immune system is far better than reaching for a chemical based product from the local pharmacy. These products merely suppress the symptoms of colds and flu, instead of allowing the body to heal naturally.
Diet plays a huge role in building up one's immune system because we derive essential nutrients from what we eat, as well as from supplements that we may use. If we give our bodies less than the best by pumping them full of chemical medications and processed foods, they will respond by malfunctioning and eventually shutting down. They were not designed to deal with non-natural items.
Keeping your immune system in good condition also helps prevent fatigue. Daily exercise is also a proven immune system booster. Even taking a walk with Fido around a few blocks will benefit you as well as your furry friend, as it promotes oxygen flow and blood circulation throughout the body.
Sugar is one of our biggest enemies, as it suppresses the immune system drastically. All processed foods and drinks should be avoided, as nearly all of them contain sugar, as well as a host of other artificial ingredients which do no good whatsoever. Incorporate fresh, whole foods such as organic fruit and vegetables, free range meats, organic fish and raw unsalted nuts into your diet and avoid processed dairy products and factory farmed meats at all costs.
A daily dose of Echinacea has been shown to strengthen the immune system drastically. A few other herbs and supplements which may help in this regard are chamomile, Siberian ginseng, wild indigo, goldenseal, stinging nettle, rosehip, rosemary, peppermint and thuja. A lot of these herbs and supplements are used to help the body to cope with stress, which is also known to greatly suppress the immune system. Vitamin D3, vitamin C and zinc are also extremely powerful immune system boosters. Onions, horseradish and garlic are also excellent in this regard.
If you are a smoker, you will by now know that this suppresses your immune system severely, so the best remedy for this is to stop this habit, as it offers no health benefits whatsoever.
A yummy way to boost your immune system is to take 3 carrots, an apple, an orange and half a beet (beetroot) and put them through a juicer, and enjoy this drink with your breakfast each day. Adding some mint to your hot bath will also help stimulate antibodies and kill any bacteria that may have accumulated in the mucous membranes.
Chiropractor explains "How to be free from fear of the flu"
John Duff, chiropractor with Renovare - Wellness by Design, came prepared with footnotes and statistics last Friday when he made a presentation about flu vaccination procedures practiced in the United States. One of his first statements concerned his point of view.
"My point of view in this country, we have freedom of choice," Duff said. "Maybe it (the flu) is not as scary as we've been led to believe."
Going back in time, Duff referred to flu cases and treatment studies performed in 1918 in Ohio. Of those patients treated with the flu vaccine who later contracted the flu, one in 15 died. Duff said of those who did not receive the vaccine, but instead were treated by a chiropractor and later contracted the flu, only one of 918 died. He said it was the Ohio study that led to certification and licensure of chiropractors.
Duff is not an advocate of flu vaccinations. He cited information about the causes of flu and colds:
- Vitamin D deficiency (D is not a vitamin, he said, but an antimicrobial agent)
- Eating too much sugar and too many grains
- Not getting enough sleep
- Not getting enough exercise
- Inadequately managing emotional stressors
He said the main things that weaken our systems are:
- Poor diet
- Overuse of antibiotics
- Excessive toxic/allergic load
- Chronic stress or chronic infection
- Lack of deep, restful sleep
- Leaky gut, or dysbiosis
- Constipation or low stomach acid
Duff suggested an immune boosting protocol that calls for the following:
- Avoid all refined sweeteners and sugar for 48 hours.
- Take 10 tablets of D-3 5000 each day for three to five days.
- Get enough sleep and rest.
Duff has a lending library at his office, 8466 W. Peoria Ave., where individuals can read all about vaccines. To learn more about Vitamin D deficiency, visit www.vitamindcouncil.org.
Vitamin D Recommendations May Increase for Children
SAN FRANCISCO – The Institute of Medicine will change its recommended level of vitamin D intake for children on Nov. 30, 2010, predicted Dr. Russell Chesney, professor and chairman of pediatrics at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.
The change, presumably an increase, comes not a moment too soon, said Dr. Chesney, who cited a long list of potential health benefits for the substance. "Vitamin D truly is the center of the universe," he joked.
Among the conditions that vitamin D may ameliorate include infectious diseases, ovarian cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel syndrome, wheezing, diabetes types 1 and 2, hypertension, atherosclerosis, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer. "Wow, where has this stuff been all these years?" he said, drawing laughter from the plenary session audience at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Actually, vitamin D supplementation dates back to the days when mothers spooned cod-liver oil into their children’s mouths. This form of the supplement proved effective in preventing and treating rickets.
Since then, evidence has mounted for other benefits. Most claims are based on epidemiological studies. For example, people who live at higher altitudes and get more sunshine exposure – which causes vitamin D synthesis – may suffer less from tuberculosis. "Our ancestors were right when they said we should go to sanatoriums in the mountains," said Dr. Chesney.
He added that prospective trials are still needed. "This is suspected. This is not proven."
But a few small studies have already reinforced such findings. In one recent study that Dr. Chesney described, a group of 167 Japanese children took supplements of 1,200 IU of vitamin D, while another group of 167 took a placebo. Those who took the vitamin D had half the influenza incidence of the placebo group, as well as fewer attacks of asthma.
How can one vitamin produce such benefits? Actually, D is not a vitamin but a hormone – strictly speaking, a secosteroid, Dr. Chesney said. It influences the promoter regions of several genes and is involved in the transcription of some 300 proteins and peptides.
Among the peptides it helps produce is LL-37 cathelicidin, which kills Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Escherichia coli.
Other research suggests that vitamin D inhibits proinflammatory and autoimmune cytokines and promotes those that are anti-inflammatory, said Dr. Chesney.
So many claims of benefits for one vitamin may sound exaggerated, he acknowledged, harkening back to the excitement over vitamin E a couple of decades ago. But it’s also true that vitamin D levels are declining in the United States as Americans spend more time indoors and take precautions to avoid skin cancer. "Kids these days are on house arrest," he said, echoing Richard Louv’s keynote address on "nature deficit disorder" earlier in the meeting.
"This is not an advertisement for all of us to go out to the beach," said Dr. Chesney. "But it is a point that we are not getting as much sunshine as a society as we used to, and in that case we may need to get supplementation."
How much supplementation? That’s still being debated. That teaspoon of cod-liver oil contained about 400 IU, and that’s the same daily dose that the American Academy of Pediatrics has been recommending since 2008. The AAP advises supplementing with 400 IU of vitamin D for breast-fed infants and older children who are not getting at least that much through their diet.
"What led to this recommendation?" he asked. "There was growing concern that the Institute of Medicine’s recommended intake of 200 IU/day [for everyone younger than 51 years of age] was not adequate. Vitamin D may be one of the only substances whose dose is lower than the RDA [recommended daily allowance]. Numerous groups have called on the institute to update their recommendation, and they are going to do so."
While there is also debate about serum levels of vitamin D (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D), Dr. Chesney said anything below 11 ng/mL is "clearly deficient." He called 11-20 ng/mL "insufficient," and said that less than 30 ng/mL is "probably on the lower end of sufficient." (In nmol/L, those cutoffs would be 27.5, 50, and 75.)
Supplements are quite safe, he added. "The lowest observed side effects [occur at] more than 4,000 IU/day and probably more like 10,000 IU/day," he said. "The tolerable upper limit in a child is set at 1,000 IU, but you could probably go higher."
Reflecting on the country’s long history of vitamin D supplementation, Dr. Chesney finished by quoting Ecclesiastes 1:9, "There is nothing new under the sun."
Dr. Chesney disclosed that he serves on the board of advisors of Cytochroma Inc.
The New Wonder Vitamin?
Most of us learned in school that Vitamin D is important for our bone health and that we get it from being in the sun. This is true. The sun on our exposed skin, along with our liver and kidneys, acts to convert the inactive molecule to the active vitamin. We can also get the active vitamin in our diet. Many foods, including milk, are supplemented with vitamin D. Vitamin D is critical in regulating our calcium metabolism. We have known for decades that vitamin D is critical for bone development. However, there is now increasingly significant research into the other biologic actions of this vitamin. These include the immune system (both the innate and adaptive), pancreas (i.e. diabetes) and metabolic homeostasis, heart-cardiovascular (heart disease and hypertension), muscle and brain systems (i.e. dementia), as well as the control of the cell cycle, and thus of the disease process of cancer.
I have been telling my patients for years that if they have a problem with colon polyps, that taking Caltrate (calcium) and aspirin my help to reduce the number of polyps. New evidence shows that these same patients would probably also benefit from Vitamin D supplementation.
Several conditions such as tuberculosis, psoriasis, eczema, Crohn's disease, chest infections, wound infections, influenza, urinary tract infections, eye infections and wound healing may benefit from adequate circulating vitamin D levels.
Scientists and nutritionists from many countries agree that at present about half of elderly North Americans and Western Europeans and probably also of the rest of the world are not receiving enough vitamin D to maintain healthy bone. This despite very well publicized national guidelines and supplementing our milk and orange juice. It is unclear exactly why our vitamin D levels are low. It could be from reduced dietary intake or less sun exposure or, more likely, a combination. We all live in a northern climate and this means we have less sun exposure than people living near the equator. Also, we tend to use sun screen which blocks the sun's ability to help our skin make vitamin D.
So, should you take a vitamin D supplement? You should evaluate how often you are outside when it is sunny. Is it at least 10 minutes a day without sunscreen? How much vitamin D are you getting in your diet? Dietary sources that are high in vitamin D are milk, orange juice (if the carton says it has added vitamin D), and fatty fish (such as mackerel and salmon). If you think you may not be getting enough, then a supplement of 1000 IU a day during the summer and 200 IU during the winter may be beneficial. If you are someone who seems to get every virus that goes through your office of school, then some experts believe this may be a sign of being relatively vitamin D deficient and that you'd benefit from taking extra vitamin D. If you are on medications or have liver or kidney disease, then you should discuss this issue with your physician before starting vitamin D supplementation.
More people skipping flu shot this year
(NaturalNews) Americans seem to be wising up about the flu shot scam, according to a new study in Consumer Reports indicating that fewer people than last year are planning to, or have already gotten, the flu shot this year. Thirty-one percent of respondents indicated they are unsure if they will get this year's three-in-one combo vaccine because of concerns about its safety and effectiveness, while 30 percent said they definitely will not be getting the shot.
Statistics Canada recently released a report indicating that 60 percent of Canadians and 80 percent of Americans refused the H1N1 vaccine last year, even though media and government campaigns pushed people for months to get it (http://www.naturalnews.com/029919_H...). And this year, despite endless prodding, most people are still opposed to getting any sort of flu shot.
According to the results of the survey, 44 percent of those opposed to the flu shot cited concerns about negative side effects. And these concerns are valid, considering that flu vaccines are known to cause severe neurological problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/026866_s...). Forty-one percent expressed concerns about the overall safety of flu shots, while 45 percent said that last year's swine flu pandemic was overblown and that the flu shot is likely unnecessary.
In another survey conducted by drug retailer CVS, two-thirds of respondents said that even though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now recommends that everyone over six months old get a flu shot, this advise plays no role in their decision-making process. Most people are simply ignoring authorities' recommendations, in other words.
There really is no good reason to get a flu shot. No legitimate evidence exists proving that they even work at all. But they do contain a variety of toxic additives that can cause severe health problems. So instead, it is better to maintain healthy vitamin D levels and take immune-boosting supplements and superfoods., which will do far more to improve health and prevent influenza.
Could vitamin D work better than influenza vaccine?
News on viruses and viral diseases
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its flu message on its website on Oct 19 to promote use of influenza vaccine and get ready for the 2010-2011 flu season.
In the meantime, some medical researchers suggest people should take high doses of vitamin D in winter to have additional protection because flu vaccine is not as effective as thought.
The CDC said right now flu activity is low, but everyone 6 months and older should get vaccinated even if they received a seasonal or 2009 H1N1 vaccine last year.
According to the agency, the influenza vaccine for 2010 to 2011 season has been updated to include three flu viruses including H1N1, which media reports have said will not be a pandemic in the near future to say the least.
Children, pregnant women, elderly people and those whose immunity such as HIV, cancer patients has been compromised are considered at high risk for flu complications.
At flu.gov, the first message that shows up on the website is for pregnant women. It says "Protect Yourself and Your Baby Get A flu shot." Flu.gov also reminds consumers that other measures like washing hands need to be taken to prevent influenza.
One important preventative measure, taking vitamin D3 to boost innate immunity against influenza, was not mentioned on both cdc.gov and flu.gov. Recent evidence is convincing that taking high doses of vitamin D can highly effectively prevent flu including H1N1 the swine flu.
Lapinsky S.E. in April, 2010 published a study in Critical Care Medicine saying that pregnant women and immunosupressed patients are at increased risk of severe A (H1N1) influenza.
To respond to Lapinsky's findings, Dr. William B. Grant, PhD, Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center (SUNARC) in San Francisco, CA and John J. Cannell, MD, The Vitamin D Council in San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 commented in the journal that the risk of influenza is linked to low serum vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D helps make antimicrobial peptides, which can prevent influenza viruses including H1N1. The role of vitamin D in innate immunity has been known for some time now, even though many people may not have heard of it.
Dr. Cannell said in his newsletter issued last year that two physicians, one in Wisconsin and the other in Georgia reported their observations that taking high doses of vitamin D in winter protected against H1N1 virus effectively.
According to Drs. Grant and Cannell, a Japanese trial has already demonstrated in a trial that children who took 1,200 IU per day of vitamin D3 and no additional vitamin D3 had their risk of influenza reduced by 64 percent.
One needs to know the efficacy of influenza vaccine to appreciate the protective effect of vitamin D reported in the Japanese study. Often, the effectiveness of influenza vaccine is likely no better than what vitamin D3 can provide as shown in the Japanese study.
High levels of serum vitamin D can help prevent other bacterial and viral infections, cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes in addition to influenza and pneumonia, Dr. Grant and dr. Cannell said in their comment.
Drs. Grant and Cannell said in their comment "pregnant women should be encouraged to increase their serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels to 40 to 80 ng/mL through supplementation with several thousand international units per day of vitamin D3 or solar ultraviolet-B when the sun is high enough that one’s shadow is shorter than one’s height."
It is generally advisable that no matter a person gets influenza vaccine or not, he should make sure to maintain sufficient levels of vitamin D to protect seasonal flu and H1N1 in any flu season. This is necessary because in most cases influenza vaccine does not work as effectively as thought.
Vitamin D proven far better than vaccines at preventing influenza infections
(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.
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 supplementation.
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.
Vaccine 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 medicine.
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 recommend it.
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 dogmatic resistance.
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." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...)
Did you notice his concluding remark? He wasn't even considering the idea that vitamin D might replace vaccines. 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 sensible." - Bertrand Russell
Medical 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 slowly.
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 influenza.
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 scientific merit. 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.
Swine Flu, Seasonal Flu, And Vitamin D Studies
Flu bugs, whether from Asia or swine, will doubtless hit millions of people in the U.S. this year, but recent research about last year's pandemic and seasonal flu, gives us more hope about what's likely to happen this year, and how you can possibly prevent them altogether or, at least, reduce your suffering!
One study, conducted by the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation in Wisconsin, had tracked hospital admission and severity of symptoms, including death from seasonal flu among children and adults during the 2007 - 2008 and 2008 - 2009 flu seasons and from May to November 2009, when the swine flu, or H1N1 hit.
Comparing the severity of symptoms of the swine H1N1 2009 to those of the seasonal H1N1 and H3N2 flus 2009, the researchers found that "the clinical manifestations and risk of hospital admission are similar for 2009 H1N1 and other seasonal influenza A strains among those presenting for medical care and documented to have influenza infection," even though children were more targeted by the swine H1N1 flu.
Another interesting finding, this by researchers at Jikei University School of Medicine in Tokyo, is of pertinence, especially to those of us who regularly skip flu vaccinations. The Jikei research was based on prior research that showed that children who are deficient in vitamin D are significantly more likely to get the flu than children who were sufficient in blood levels of vitamin D.
In fact, in the Jikei study, D-deficient children who were given vitamin D supplements, 10.8 succumbed to the flu, while 18.6 of the children who received placebos got the flu - a difference of 42 percent between the two groups. Additionally the 10.8 percent of D-supplemented children who did get the flu represented half of the children affected in the past.
These findings confirm the anecdotal medical evidence of D-supplementation either by exposure to sunshine or vitamin D supplements, that vitamin D offers significant protection for children and adults, against the flu - as much or more than flu vaccines, which may not prevent against the type of flu going around in a given year.
Vitamin D may help reduce deaths from the Spanish flu pandemic
Flu associated illness kills 23,000 Americans each year
The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report today in its weekly journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) saying that it overestimated annual flu deaths in the the country.
When the CDC promotes influenza vaccine, it would often times say flu causes about 33,000 deaths each year. The new report estimates that the real casualty is about two-thirds of the early estimate.
Some vaccines, but not flu vaccine are highly effective at preventing viruses and viral disease. Observers suggest that the timing of the releasing of the report could mean that the CDC has started its annual push for the flu vaccination this year for the next flu season.
The estimate of annual flu-associated deaths actually include both pneumonia and influenza causes. Critics have kept saying that the real annual death toll from influenza is about 300.
Vitamin D may help fight flu
There are some alternatives that can effectively protect against influenza or flu. One possible alternative preventative is vitamin D, previous studies have suggested.
In the July 2010 issue of Dermatoendocrinology, Grant W. B. and Giovannucci E. from Harvard Medical School said their new study suggests that solar ultraviolet-B radiation, which trigger the making of vitamin D after human skin is exposed to the UV ray, might have played a role in reducing case-fatality rates from the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in the U.S.
The authors found both summertime and wintertime solar ultraviolet-B doses were associated with reduced case fatality rates.
They noted that vitamin D upregulates production of human cathelicidin, LL-37, which possessses both antimicrobial and antoendotoxin activities. The effect of this vitamin on the innate immunity has been explained by UK scientists early in the journal Nature.
It is also possible, according to Grant and Giovannucci, that vitamin D can reduce the production of proinflammatory cytokines, which are boosted by H1N1 infection.
Food Consumer has reported that vitamin D can be at least as effective as flu vaccine in reducing the burden of influenza infection.
An observation reported last year by two physicians, one in Wisconsin and the other in Georgia, according to Dr. John Cannell, a vitamin D expert and director of Vitamin D Cuncil, suggests that intake of high doses of vitamin D in the form of supplements may effectively prevent swine flu or H1N1 virus.
The Easiest Way to Prevent Colds and Flu
America has a nasty cold.
Collectively, we cough, sniffle and sneeze our way through one billion colds a year, spending 1.5 billion dollars for doctor visits and 2 billion dollars on non-prescription cough and cold treatments. Fortunately, few people die of a cold. But you can't say that about the flu.
The influenza virus hospitalizes more than 200,000 Americans a year and kills 36,000, many of them over 65. (And flu shots are no guarantee. From 2007 to 2008, the shot was only 44 percent effective in stopping the flu.)
Is there any way to make yourself less vulnerable to these two infections?
Yes, says a study published on June 14 in the open access online medical journal Plos One. Make absolutely certain you have higher-than-normal blood levels of vitamin D.
Here's what you need to know about the study and its practical application.
The study was led by James R. Sabetta, MD, in the Department of Medicine at Yale University School of Medicine and the Section of Infectious Diseases at Greenwich Hospital in Greenwich, Connecticut. He and his colleagues observed the obvious: rates of "acute respiratory tract infections" (colds and flu) rise in the fall and winter. But why? Could the seasonal drop in blood levels of vitamin D -- a hormone-like nutrient produced most abundantly in the body when the skin is exposed to the strong, direct sunlight of summer -- explain the phenomena?
To find out, the researchers took monthly measurements of the blood levels of vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D) in 195 healthy adults. The measurements started the third week in September and continued for the next four to five months. At the same time, the study participants were asked to report any acute respiratory tract infections. The results were, well, decisive.
Those who had blood levels lower than 38 ng/ml (nanograms per milliliter) had twice as many upper respiratory tract infections.
Among the 18 people in the study who consistently maintained blood levels of vitamin D above 38 ng/ml, 15 were completely free of upper respiratory tract infections -- no colds, no flu! (Of those 18 folks, 13 were taking vitamin D supplements. More about that in a minute.)
And when the above-38 group did succumb to cold or flu, their illnesses were shorter. The percentage of days ill with acute respiratory tract infections in the above-38 group was 4.9 times lower than in the below-38 group.
Of the other 180 participants -- all of them with blood vitamin D levels consistently below 38 ng/ml -- 81 developed colds and flu.
The study's statistical summary: the 38 plus group had a two-fold decrease in the risk of developing a cold or flu.
The Yale researchers aren't the first to link vitamin D levels and the flu. In research reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in March, 2010, Japanese doctors studied 334 children, half of whom took 1200 IU of vitamin D daily. Eighteen of the children taking vitamin D developed the flu, compared to 31 children not taking the vitamin, a risk reduction of 58 percent. An earlier study in the Archives of Internal Medicine looked at 19,000 adults and adolescents and found that those with the lowest blood levels of vitamin D were 40 percent more likely to have had a recent cold or flu, compared to those with the highest levels. In another study, women taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D (to protect bones) had an average of nine episodes of colds and flu over three years of taking the supplement -- compared to an average of 30 episodes in a group of women taking 200 IU of vitamin D.
But the Yale study was the first to methodically track vitamin D levels and colds/flu incidence during the cold/flu season. What did the Yale researchers have to say about their startling results?
"Maintenance of a 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum concentration of 38 ng/ml or higher should significantly reduce the incidence of acute viral respiratory infections and the burden of illness caused thereby, at least during the fall and winter." Easier said than done.
A deficiency of vitamin D is incredibly common, says James Cannell, MD, president of the Vitamin D Council (www.vitaminDcouncil.com) and co-author of the paper "Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin D," published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Health. In fact, your risk of a deficiency of vitamin D is 50 percent -- one out of every two Americans is likely to have blood levels below 20 ng/ml, he says.
In fact, Dr. Cannell is convinced that a low blood level of vitamin D is the reason people are vulnerable to cold and flu viruses. "Vitamin D dramatically increases the production of the body's own antimicrobial peptides," he told me, for the "Cold and Flu" chapter of my most recent book, Speed Healing (Bottom Line Books). "If you have sufficiently high blood levels of vitamin D, you'll have enough of those peptides to kill cold and flu viruses before they have a chance to penetrate the mucosal barrier."
Here are Dr. Cannell's recommendations for making sure your blood levels of vitamin D stay high throughout the year.
There's only one way to know for sure if your levels are high enough -- get a blood test. But you don't have to go to a doctor to do it. The ZRT Laboratory (www.zrtlab.com) provides a reliable in-home vitamin D blood test, says Dr. Cannell. He recommends a test every six months.
Maintain blood levels of between fifty to eight ng/ml. While 38 ng/ml was generally protective in the Yale study, Dr. Cannell says research shows this higher level is necessary for vitamin D to be stored in muscles and fat and most effectively do its preventive work. And that's a lot of work. Studies over the past few years show vitamin D can prevent (and often treat) cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, depression, asthma, multiple sclerosis, ulcerative colitis, and many other conditions. In fact, high levels of Vitamin D have been linked to a reduction of death from any cause. (The nutrient has such a wide ranging effect, says Dr. Cannell, because it targets more than 2,000 genes -- 10 percent of the human genome.)
Take a vitamin D supplement. Dr. Cannell recommends 5,000 IU a day. (To get that amount from D-fortified milk, you'd need to drink 50 glasses a day, he points out.) "Anyone who takes this amount regularly shouldn't get a cold or flu," he told me. "If you do get one, it should be mild." He also recommends taking vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), not vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol), its synthetic analog. "Vitamin D3 is the compound your skin makes naturally when you go in the sun, and it's more potent and safer than vitamin D2." And don't worry about an overdose, says Dr. Cannell. "There is not a single case in the medical literature of vitamin D toxicity while taking regular doses of 25,000 IU or less," he says. (The ideal vitamin D supplement includes co-factors like magnesium and zinc, says Dr. Cannell, and he has formulated his own brand, from Purity Products (www.purity.com): Dr. Cannell's Vitamin D.)
Spend some no-sunblock time in the sun during the summer months. He recommends near-daily exposure of most of the whole body (not just the face and hands) for 5 to 10 minutes, when the sun is highest in the sky (when your shadow is longer than you are). "You're not making much vitamin D when your shadow is shorter," he says.
Influenza Navigation:
