Vitamine D is Key in Preventing Bladder Cancer

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 30, 2012

Having high levels of vitamin D protects against cancer of the bladder. This is the conclusion reached by molecular biologists and epidemiologists from the National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) in Spain after taking blood samples from more than 2,000 people from 18 Spanish hospitals — where half of the samples belonged to healthy people and half were from patients with cancer. The researchers then compared their biological material. The results of the study are published today in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI).

“We have seen that subjects with higher levels of 25 (OH) D3, a stable form of vitamin D in the blood, are those with a lower risk for bladder cancer, and, conversely, that low levels are linked to an increased risk of developing it,” says Nuria Malats, group head of genetics and molecular epidemiology at CNIO.

The relationship between the presence of certain amounts of vitamin D and cancer processes is not casual, said the researchers. “We have shown by molecular analyzes that vitamin D acts by enhancing the expression of a protein [called FGFR3] that slows the aggressiveness of this neoplasm as it inhibits the differentiation of malignant cells and tumor proliferation,” adds the researcher. The protective effect of vitamin lies in this property, which also manifests more intensely against more aggressive tumors, “which is very important and has never been described,” said Malats.

The protective power of vitamin D against other tumors, such as colon or breast has been known for a while, but not in detail. Studies conducted on vitamin D’s power to fight other kinds of cancer have been done in small groups, and the results of that research pointed in the same direction that the bladder studies go. But none had proven so conclusive nor had described in such detail how this molecule prevents cancer, highlight researchers. “We found that high levels of vitamin D decreased mainly, the risk of developing invasive bladder tumors, which are more likely to metastasize” says André Amaral, first author of the study.

Malats says that levels above 30 nanograms per millilitre of blood is considered adequate vitamin D rates to take preventive effect against bladder cancer. The results of the study population by CNIO researchers suggest that the Spanish people are, on average, well below this amount. “Of the 1,000 people chosen as a control population, only 74, less than 10%, were above levels considered preventive,” says the researcher.

You would think that the results should be higher. The most important aid in producing vitamin D is sun light, although this compound is also present in foods such as nuts or fish. Therefore, it would be normal in a country with so many hours of sunshine as people enjoy in Spain, that the population had high levels of vitamin D. And yet, in the United States or in the countries of northern Europe, the levels are higher.

Several reasons explain this apparent paradox, says Malats. On one hand, people with light skin tones are more efficient synthesizing vitamin D, enough so that they spend less time in the sun to generate the molecule. This explains the highest rates in the Nordic countries. On the other hand, in countries like the U.S., is often added to foods (such as milk) vitamin supplements, raising the levels of these substances in the population.

The researchers suggest that increased vitamin D intake, either through diet or supplements, or through an increase controlled sun exposure, can be beneficial in terms of prevention of bladder cancer. A new study by the same team of the CNIO is considering whether, besides preventive effects, vitamin D can also be useful as a treatment in patients who have already developed tumors.

Bladder cancer is the fourth most common among men, after prostate, lung and colorectal. Each year there are 11,200 new cases, of which 30% are highly aggressive and can endanger the patient’s life.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

The Cholesterol Myth that is Harming Your Health

By DR. MERCOLA | MERCOLA.COM | MAY 3, 2012

Cholesterol could easily be described as the smoking gun of the last two decades.

It’s been responsible for demonizing entire categories of foods (like eggs and saturated fats) and blamed for just about every case of heart disease in the last 20 years.

Yet when I first opened my medical practice in the mid 80s, cholesterol, and the fear that yours was too high was rarely talked about.

Somewhere along the way however, cholesterol became a household word — something that you must keep as low as possible, or suffer the consequences.

You are probably aware that there are many myths that portray fat and cholesterol as one of the worst foods you can consume. Please understand that these myths are actually harming your health.

Not only is cholesterol most likely not going to destroy your health (as you have been led to believe), but it is also not the cause of heart disease.

And for those of you taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, the information that follows could not have been given to you fast enough. But before I delve into this life-changing information, let’s get some basics down first.

What is Cholesterol, and Why Do You Need It?

That’s right, you do need cholesterol.

This soft, waxy substance is found not only in your bloodstream, but also in every cell in your body, where it helps to produce cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps in the formation of your memories and is vital for neurological function.

Your liver makes about 75 percent of your body’s cholesterol,[i] and according to conventional medicine, there are two types:
1.High-density lipoprotein, or HDL: This is the “good” cholesterol that helps to keep cholesterol away from your arteries and remove any excess from arterial plaque, which may help to prevent heart disease.
2.Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL: This “bad” cholesterol circulates in your blood and, according to conventional thinking, may build up in your arteries, forming plaque that makes your arteries narrow and less flexible (a condition called atherosclerosis). If a clot forms in one of these narrowed arteries leading to your heart or brain, a heart attack or stroke may result.

Also making up your total cholesterol count are:

•Triglycerides: Elevated levels of this dangerous fat have been linked to heart disease and diabetes. Triglyceride levels are known to rise from eating too many grains and sugars, being physically inactive, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol excessively and being overweight or obese.
•Lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a): Lp(a) is a substance that is made up of an LDL “bad cholesterol” part plus a protein (apoprotein a). Elevated Lp(a) levels are a very strong risk factor for heart disease. This has been well established, yet very few physicians check for it in their patients.

Understand this:

Your Total Cholesterol Level is NOT a Great Indicator of Your Heart Disease Risk

Health officials in the United States urge everyone over the age of 20 to have their cholesterol tested once every five years. Part of this test is your total cholesterol, or the sum of your blood’s cholesterol content, including HDL, LDLs, and VLDLs..

The American Heart Association recommends that your total cholesterol is less than 200 mg/dL, but what they do not tell you is that total cholesterol level is just about worthless in determining your risk for heart disease, unless it is above 330.

In addition, the AHA updated their guidelines in 2004, lowering the recommended level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to LDL to less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

In order to achieve these outrageous and dangerously low targets, you typically need to take multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs. So the guidelines instantly increased the market for these dangerous drugs. Now, with testing children’s cholesterol levels, they’re increasing their market even more.

I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who actually were at low heart disease risk due to their HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen even more who had cholesterol levels under 200 that were at a very high risk of heart disease based on the following additional tests:

•HDL/Cholesterol ratio
•Triglyceride/HDL ratios

HDL percentage is a very potent heart disease risk factor. Just divide your HDL level by your cholesterol. That percentage should ideally be above 24 percent.

You can also do the same thing with your triglycerides and HDL ratio. That percentage should be below 2.

Keep in mind, however, that these are still simply guidelines, and there’s a lot more that goes into your risk of heart disease than any one of these numbers. In fact, it was only after word got out that total cholesterol is a poor predictor of heart disease that HDL and LDL cholesterol were brought into the picture.

They give you a closer idea of what’s going on, but they still do not show you everything.

Cholesterol is Neither “Good” Nor “Bad”

Now that we’ve defined good and bad cholesterol, it has to be said that there is actually only one type of cholesterol. Ron Rosedale, MD, who is widely considered to be one of the leading anti-aging doctor in the United States, does an excellent job of explaining this concept:[ii]

“Notice please that LDL and HDL are lipoproteins — fats combined with proteins. There is only one cholesterol. There is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ cholesterol.

Cholesterol is just cholesterol.

It combines with other fats and proteins to be carried through the bloodstream, since fat and our watery blood do not mix very well.

Fatty substances therefore must be shuttled to and from our tissues and cells using proteins. LDL and HDL are forms of proteins and are far from being just cholesterol.

In fact we now know there are many types of these fat and protein particles. LDL particles come in many sizes and large LDL particles are not a problem. Only the so-called small dense LDL particles can potentially be a problem, because they can squeeze through the lining of the arteries and if they oxidize, otherwise known as turning rancid, they can cause damage and inflammation.

Thus, you might say that there is ‘good LDL’ and ‘bad LDL.’

Also, some HDL particles are better than others. Knowing just your total cholesterol tells you very little. Even knowing your LDL and HDL levels will not tell you very much.”

Cholesterol is Your Friend, Not Your Enemy

Before we continue, I really would like you to get your mind around this concept.

In the United States, the idea that cholesterol is evil is very much engrained in most people’s minds. But this is a very harmful myth that needs to be put to rest right now.

“First and foremost,” Dr. Rosedale points out, “cholesterol is a vital component of every cell membrane on Earth. In other words, there is no life on Earth that can live without cholesterol.

That will automatically tell you that, in and of itself, it cannot be evil. In fact, it is one of our best friends.

We would not be here without it. No wonder lowering cholesterol too much increases one’s risk of dying. Cholesterol is also a precursor to all of the steroid hormones. You cannot make estrogen, testosterone, cortisone, and a host of other vital hormones without cholesterol.”

Vitamin D and Your Cholesterol

You probably are aware of the incredible influence of vitamin D on your health. If you aren’t, or need a refresher, you can visit my vitamin D page.

What most people do not realize is that the best way to obtain your vitamin D is from safe exposure to sun on your skin. The UVB rays in sunlight interact with the cholesterol on your skin and convert it to vitamin D.

Bottom line?

If your cholesterol level is too low you will not be able to use the sun to generate sufficient levels of vitamin D.

Additionally, it provides some intuitive feedback that if cholesterol were so dangerous, why would your body use it as precursor for vitamin D and virtually all of the steroid hormones in your body?

Other “evidence” that cholesterol is good for you?

Consider the role of “good” HDL cholesterol. Essentially, HDL takes cholesterol from your body’s tissues and arteries, and brings it back to your liver, where most of your cholesterol is produced. If the purpose of this was to eliminate cholesterol from your body, it would make sense that the cholesterol would be shuttled back to your kidneys or intestines so your body could remove it.

Instead, it goes back to your liver. Why?

Because your liver is going to reuse it.

“It is taking it back to your liver so that your liver can recycle it; put it back into other particles to be taken to tissues and cells that need it,” Dr. Rosedale explains. “Your body is trying to make and conserve the cholesterol for the precise reason that it is so important, indeed vital, for health.”

Read Full Article →

Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Human Infertility

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 3, 2012

Vitamin D is one of the most important building blocks of our immune system. Nothing new here. There is tons of research that shows the different ways in which people could take vitamin D to strengthen their immune systems, but most if not all of it concludes that daily exposure to UV-B rays for periods of time ranging between 10-20 minutes provides the body with enough vitamin D to fight disease. Perhaps this is new for you. Optimum levels of Vitamin D also support absorption of calcium, which in turn increases bone health, which prevents osteoporosis and diabetes.

Now, new research conducted by Austrian physicians demonstrates that vitamin D is also responsible for a healthy reproductive system and for increased fertility. The absence of optimum levels of vitamin D, however, cause infertility in both men and women. A lack of vitamin D in the body promotes hormonal imbalances in both groups and these alterations cause men to produce less testosterone and women to produce more. The consequences are lower quality semen in men. In women low levels of vitamin D often lead to too much testosterone, which therefore could increase the risk of infertility.

Doctors Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch and Elisabeth Lerchbaum researched existing literature regarding the influence Vitamin D has on human fertility. Analyzed studies included material published up to October 2011. They found that vitamin D receptors, also known as VDR’s as well as vitamin D metabolizing enzymes are found in the reproductive tissue of women and men. Some of the research shows that lower levels of Vitamin D in females (low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) were associated with obesity and disturbances of the metabolism and the endocrine system.

The abundance of Vitamin D, they found, results in improvements in menstrual frequency in those women. Also, high 25(OH)D levels are associated with better semen quality  might increase testosterone levels. ” Mounting evidence suggests that hypovitaminosis D is linked to an increased risk for cancer 2, autoimmune diseases, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases 1-3 indicating the importance of sufficient vitamin D levels,” says the report. They also found that vitamin D also modulates reproductive processes in women and men.

Today, most female infertility is caused by what doctors call polycystic ovary syndrome or PCOS. Meanwhile, male infertility is attributed to environmental factors which is responsible for an all time low quality of semen, with concentrations well below healthy levels. At least 20% of young men have sperm concentration below what is expected  and 40% have sperm concentrations inferior to what is considered optimal for fertility. The consulted literature suggests that many adverse aspects of male aging are a consequence of decreased levels of  testosterone, most likely due to the lack of vitamin D.

Doctors  Obermayer and Lerchbaum had their research published in the European Journal of Endocrinology, where it can be accessed and consulted. Terms used during the research process included “vitamin D”, “fertility”, “reproduction”, “PCOS”, “25-hydroxyvitamin D”, “1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D” and  “calcitriol”.

Vitamin D is what researches call a steroid hormone. The way this substance acts in the body occurs through  a precursor known as 7-dehydrocholesterol. Here comes the role of UV-B solar rays. These rays cause the precursor to convert into vitamin D3 which is then transported around the body by the vitamin D binding protein. According to the study, 80-90% of the vitamin D used by the body comes from sunlight induced production in the skin. That is why it is monumentally important to expose our bodies to sunlight on a daily basis. The more we are able to take in sun rays for safe periods of 10-20 minutes a day, the more vitamin D the body will produce naturally and the stronger our immune systems will be. Te absence of naturally produced vitamin D can be substituted with vitamin D supplements. Humans must intake between 4000 and 5000 UI of vitamin D daily through supplementation in order to keep healthy levels in their bodies.

As for the role of vitamin D in reproductive tissues, the research shows that vitamin D receptors or VDR’s are all over those tissues, which doctors believe means that vitamin D plays an important role in the human reproductive system. In women, “1,25(OH)2D3 stimulated progesterone production by 13%, estradiol production by 9%, and estrone production by 21%”. This substance is found to promote the transportation of calcium to the placenta as well as improves the development of the uterus and placental tissues, which betters the reception and implantation of sperm should a woman get pregnant.

If there is one conclusion taken from this as well as older research, is that the more exposure to sun light results in higher rates of human reproduction, and less sun light causes the opposite effect. “In northern countries, where a strong seasonal contrast in luminosity exists, the conception rate is decreased during the dark winter months, whereas a peak in conception rate during summer leading to a maximum in birth rate in spring has been observed.” These conclusions can be explained by many environmental factors, including vitamin D deficiency. “The seasonal variation of vitamin D levels, might influence several pathways including altered endometrial development and altered oocyte development,” reads the study. The findings emphasize how there is evidence that vitamin D does affect female reproduction including cases where in-vitro fertilization is used as well as cases of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

The researchers’ closing remarks encourage further research about women and men infertility levels and the role that vitamin D plays as a supportive element to improve the human immune system as well as the to promote more fertility in women and men. ” Given the high prevalence of infertility as well as vitamin D insufficiency in otherwise healthy young women 70 and men 136 and the possible role of vitamin D in human reproduction, research might lead to new therapeutic approaches such as vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of female and male reproductive disorders.”


In 27 Years 3 Million Die from Prescription Drug Use

by Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post
October 5, 2011

Over the past 27 years — the complete time frame that the data has been available —  there have been 0 deaths as a result of vitamins and over 3 million deaths related to prescription drug use. In fact, going back 54 years there have only been 11 claims of vitamin-related death, all of which provided no substantial evidence to link vitamins to the cause of death. The news comes after a recent statistically analysis found that pharmaceutical drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the US.

In 2009, drugs exceeded the amount of traffic-related deaths, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide.

The findings go against the claims of mainstream medical ‘experts’  and mainstream media outlets who often push the idea that multivitamins are detrimental to your health, and that prescription drugs are the only science-backed option to improving your health. While essential nutrients like vitamin D are continually being shown to slash your risk of disease such as diabetes and cancer, prescription pharmaceuticals are continually being linked to such conditions. In fact, the top-selling therapeutic class pharmaceutical drug has been tied to the development of diabetes and even suicide, and whistleblowers are just now starting to speak out despite studies as far back as the 80s highlighting the risks.

Mainstream medical health officials were recently forced to speak out over the danger of antipsychotic drugs, which millions of children have been prescribed since 2009. U.S. pediatric health advisers blew the whistle over the fact that these pharmaceuticals can lead to diabetes and even suicide, the very thing they aim to prevent. What is even more troubling is that half of all Americans will be diagnosed with a mental condition during their lifetime thanks to lack of diagnosis guidelines currently set by the medical establishment, of which many cases will lead to the prescription of antipsychotics and other similar medications.

Covering up the side effects

In order to protect sales, the link between suicide and antipsychotic drugs was completely covered up by Eli Lilly & Co, the makers of Prozac. Despite research stretching as far back as the 1980s finding that Prozac actually leads to suicide, the company managed to hide the evidence until a Harvard psychiatrist leaked the information into the press. The psychiatrist, Martin Teicher, stated that the American people were being treated like guinea pigs in a massive pharmaceutical experiment.

Greedy and oftentimes prescription-happy doctors are handing out antipsychotic medication like candy to adults and young children alike. In 2008, antipsychotics became the top-selling therapeutic class prescription drug in the United States and grossing over $14 billion in sales.

Antipsychotic drugs are not the only dangerous pharmaceuticals. The average drug label contains 70 side effects, though many popular pharmaceuticals have been found to contain 100 to 125. Some drugs, prescribed by doctors to supposedly improve your health, come with over 525 negative reactions.

Ritalin, for example, has been linked to conditions including:

  • Increased blood pressure
  • Increased heart rate
  • Increased body temperature
  • Increased alertness
  • Suppressed appetite
Perhaps the hundreds of negative side effects is part of the reason why the FDA announced last year that it is pulling more than 500 cold and allergy off the market due to health concerns. Prescription drugs kill more people than traffic accidents, and come with up to 525 negative side effects. Avoiding these drugs and utilizing high quality organic alternatives like whole food-based multivitamins and green superfoods will lead to a total health transformation without harsh side effects and an exponentially increased death risk.

Sources:

Most recent year: Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Giffin SL. 2009 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 27th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology (2010). 48, 979-1178. The full text article is available for free download at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2009%20AR.pdf

Vitamin D is 800% more effective than Vaccines

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.