Re: Article: Avoid Flu Shots, Take Vitamin D Instead

[Guest guest]

--- Tom Jeanne <tjeanne@...> wrote:

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller27.html

> Great article discussing recent evidence against flu vaccines and

> the case for vitamin D.

Tom, that is a great article. I've been showing it to people where I

work during the last week to try and open their eyes a bit. I think a

few of them are starting to come around. Some have already taken the

flu shot, which is being promoted by the state agency where I work.

> I'm not sure how conclusive the evidence is for or

> against flu vaccine efficacy,

I thought 's reference to a randomized control study with 1838

people over age 60 that showed only a one percent drop in absolute

risk for getting clinically proven flu is pretty compelling that the

benefits are not that great for the target groups.

> but the fact that most 2008-89 season flu shots STILL contain a

> large amount of thimerosal is reason enough to avoid them!

Yes, especially since there appears to be no mortality benefit at all

and there are substantial, though not adequately documented risks of

numerous side effects, some of which he mentions. One of the over-60

guys at work has been taking the flu shot religiously for years and

has been complaining more and more of bad nasal allergies that he

didn't have years ago - I suspect a connection.

> But I think the most important conclusion is that vitamin D is

> instrumental in preventing respiratory infections, and the vast

> majority of us have suboptimal levels between October and March.

I think just about everyone here on this list is on board with getting

enough vitamin D and against needless vaccines. The problem is in

convincing the masses to quit buying the inaccurate propaganda being

peddled by the drug companies through the conflict-of-interest riddled

CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

I recently made a blog post on vaccines in general if anyone is

interested in links to more info on the subject:

http://stay-healthy-enjoy-life-blogspot.com

[Guest guest]

> I recently made a blog post on vaccines in general if

> anyone is

> interested in links to more info on the subject:

> http://stay-healthy-enjoy-life-blogspot.com

, I am reading some of your blog entries. Very well done!

[Guest guest]

> --- <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> > I recently made a blog post on vaccines in general if

> > anyone is interested in links to more info on the subject:

> > http://stay-healthy-enjoy-life-blogspot.com

>

--- Seay <entheogens@...> wrote:

> , I am reading some of your blog entries. Very well done!

Thanks ! My goal is to help open some eyes that have been

blinded by so much bad health propaganda and to share links to good

health resources.

[Guest guest]

Tom,

I think there are some important points missing from many articles

recommending Vitamin D:

Few key points that article is missing.

- *Most of us make about 20,000 units of vitamin D after about 20 minutes

of summer sun. This is about 100 times more vitamin D than the government

says you need every day*.

- *The only way to be sure you have adequate levels of vitamin D in your

blood is to regularly go into the sun, use a sun bed (avoiding sunburn), or

have your physician administer a 25‑hydroxyvitamin D test. Optimal levels

are around 50 ng/mL (125 nM/L)*.

- If you don't get vitamin D the way Mother Nature intended, from

sunshine, you need to take supplemental vitamin D3 cholecalciferol. Since

most of us get a lot more vitamin D from sunshine than we realize, most of

us need about 2,000 units a day extra.

- For parents of Autistic children, there are many crucial benefits to

making sure your child receives adequate sun exposure WITHOUT sunscreen.

For a detailed listing, go to

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/

There's a lot more information at my blog with other references and

informations:

http://www.ericsons.net/563/vitamin-d-deficiency-linked-to-cancer

Sharon

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Tom Jeanne <tjeanne@...> wrote:

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller27.html

>

> Great article discussing recent evidence against flu vaccines and the

> case for vitamin D. I'm not sure how conclusive the evidence is for or

> against flu vaccine efficacy, but the fact that most 2008-89 season

> flu shots STILL contain a large amount of thimerosal is reason enough

> to avoid them!

>

> But I think the most important conclusion is that vitamin D is

> instrumental in preventing respiratory infections, and the vast

> majority of us have suboptimal levels between October and March.

>

> Tom

>

>

>

--

" You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been

mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the

philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and

supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters,

revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters,

is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently

it's considered impolite to say so. "

-- , in the (UK) Spectator.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

I believe the article addresses most of the key points you brought up.

He mentions how much D is made by the body during sun exposure, and

how low the US RDA is in comparison. He mentions that 25-OH-D is the

proper test, and that vitamin D3 is the best form for supplementation.

He suggests 4-5000 IU daily. The only thing he does not mention is

autism, but I don't believe his article was intended to cover every

condition that may be improved by vitamin D (and there are many!). He

also included links to the Vitamin D council, where there is a wealth

of information on the subject.

Hey I'm wondering if you agree that up to 10,000 IU of vitamin

D daily is safe, with or without a particular dose of vitamin A. I

know you're wary of supraphysiological doses of vitamins so I'm

curious if you have any comments.

Tom

[Guest guest]

,

the link to your blog did not work but this link does!

http://stay-healthy-enjoy-life.blogspot.com/

> > http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller27.html

> > Great article discussing recent evidence against flu vaccines and

> > the case for vitamin D.

>

> Tom, that is a great article. I've been showing it to people where I

> work during the last week to try and open their eyes a bit. I think a

> few of them are starting to come around. Some have already taken the

> flu shot, which is being promoted by the state agency where I work.

>

> > I'm not sure how conclusive the evidence is for or

> > against flu vaccine efficacy,

>

> I thought 's reference to a randomized control study with 1838

> people over age 60 that showed only a one percent drop in absolute

> risk for getting clinically proven flu is pretty compelling that the

> benefits are not that great for the target groups.

>

> > but the fact that most 2008-89 season flu shots STILL contain a

> > large amount of thimerosal is reason enough to avoid them!

>

> Yes, especially since there appears to be no mortality benefit at all

> and there are substantial, though not adequately documented risks of

> numerous side effects, some of which he mentions. One of the over-60

> guys at work has been taking the flu shot religiously for years and

> has been complaining more and more of bad nasal allergies that he

> didn't have years ago - I suspect a connection.

>

> > But I think the most important conclusion is that vitamin D is

> > instrumental in preventing respiratory infections, and the vast

> > majority of us have suboptimal levels between October and March.

>

> I think just about everyone here on this list is on board with getting

> enough vitamin D and against needless vaccines. The problem is in

> convincing the masses to quit buying the inaccurate propaganda being

> peddled by the drug companies through the conflict-of-interest riddled

> CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

>

> I recently made a blog post on vaccines in general if anyone is

> interested in links to more info on the subject:

> http://stay-healthy-enjoy-life-blogspot.com

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

*On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Tom Jeanne <tjeanne@...> wrote:

*

>

> *Sharon,

>

> I believe the article addresses most of the key points you brought up.

> He mentions how much D is made by the body during sun exposure, and

> how low the US RDA is in comparison. He mentions that 25-OH-D is the

> proper test, and that vitamin D3 is the best form for supplementation.*

>

*

*

Hi, Tom!

That's what I get for skimming and seeing loads of references to " Vitamin D "

and only one mention of Vitamin D3 WAY at the end. It's a critical

distinction which I think we should all emphasize, that if taking

supplementation, make sure it is D3.......Vitamin D is incredibly

important........no doubt.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Tom,

> Hey I'm wondering if you agree that up to 10,000 IU of vitamin

> D daily is safe, with or without a particular dose of vitamin A. I

> know you're wary of supraphysiological doses of vitamins so I'm

> curious if you have any comments.

No I definitely do not think that 10,000 IU of vitamin D/day without

vitamins A and K is safe, and I also think the quote Sharon offered

about making 20,000 IU in 20 minutes is completely disingenuous. What

should be looked at is the long-term average from rich sun exposure,

and this is more in the area of 4,000 IU.

Chris

[Guest guest]

The 20,000 IU figure is quoted in Cannell's 2006 review paper

( " Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin D " ) as follows:

" One minimal erythemal exposure of the full-body to artificial UVB

radiation triggers the release of about 20 000 IU of vitamin D into

the circulation of light-skinned persons within 48 h "

The reference for this statement is a 1982 paper for which no abstract

or text is available online at the moment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7038486

I agree with your point. That figure refers to " full-body " exposure,

and most people don't ever get full body exposure. The intensity of

the radiation (e.g. noon on the equator?) is not mentioned, although

it probably is discussed in the original paper.

More importantly, if a person is deficient in vitamin D, it's

plausible that his skin will produce more from a given intensity and

duration of sun exposure, versus someone with normal vitamin D levels

exposed to the same sunlight. Do you have a reference for the 4,000 IU

figure?

Tom

[Guest guest]

Tom,

> I agree with your point. That figure refers to " full-body " exposure,

> and most people don't ever get full body exposure. The intensity of

> the radiation (e.g. noon on the equator?) is not mentioned, although

> it probably is discussed in the original paper.

> More importantly, if a person is deficient in vitamin D, it's

> plausible that his skin will produce more from a given intensity and

> duration of sun exposure, versus someone with normal vitamin D levels

> exposed to the same sunlight. Do you have a reference for the 4,000 IU

> figure?

It's possible that vitamin D status plays a role in the regulation

somehow, but it is understood at present to be a function of melanin

increase. The more sun exposure, the more melanin, the less vitamin D

produced. It makes utterly no sense to look at one exposure, see

10,000 IU or 20,000 IU, and conclude that that amount is what is

normal or tolerable. Rather, the calcidiol level should be looked at

in people who get rich sun exposure day-in and day-out, and then the

vitamin D intake that produces the same calcidiol level in people who

do not have much sun exposure should be taken to be the normal or

tolerable level.

In my " Seafood to Sunshine " article I discuss this with references.

People taking 5,000 IU in Omaha, Nebraska, almost plateaued by the end

of the study (2 years supplementing in the coldest six months) at 60

ng/mL, which is on the higher end of sun-rich exposure (compiled in

another article by Vieth that I cited, about 45-60 ng/mL).

Chris

[Guest guest]

I remember reading about Vitamin D on the Weston Price website after doing a

site search for Vitamin D and cancer.  Something about having to expose 85% of

your body in order to get enough Vitamin D and so on...

I also learned that one must not bathe or shower for at least an hour after

sunbathing.  So many things our health pros don't tell you about, but I think

are important!!

Deb in NC

[Guest guest]

I've read various things about sun exposure and Vitamin D, things like your

body will only make VitD when the sun is strongest, something like 11am-2pm.

Is there a definitive word on this?

- how much of the body must be exposed?

- for how long?

- what time of day?

- other things, like not bathing afterwards?

I imagine the guidelines would vary based on day of year and latitude.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Debra <purple66moon@...> wrote:

> I remember reading about Vitamin D on the Weston Price website after doing

> a site search for Vitamin D and cancer. Something about having to expose

> 85% of your body in order to get enough Vitamin D and so on...

> I also learned that one must not bathe or shower for at least an hour after

> sunbathing. So many things our health pros don't tell you about, but I

> think are important!!

> Deb in NC

>

--

Alan (alanmjones@...)