[p2p-research] How effective is the flu shot? (vitamin D)

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Ryan-

I  don't understand why the CDC does not promote Vitamin D more then?

I read somewhere the RDA was last revised something like fifteen years ago 
and is ten times too low for almost everyone (well, assuming you get little 
from sunlight, which is true for most US Americans)?

I'd be curious what you thought about the explanation at that site in 
relation to the flu and vitamin D:
   http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/h1n1-flu-and-vitamin-d.shtml
"""
Antimicrobial peptides protect mucosal epithelial surfaces by creating a 
hostile antimicrobial barricade. The epithelia secrete them constitutively 
into the thin layer of fluid that lies above the apical surface of the 
epithelium but below the viscous mucous layer. To effectively access the 
epithelium, a microbe must first infiltrate the mucous barrier and then 
survive assault by the AMPs present in this fluid. Should microbes breach 
this constitutive cordon, their binding to the epithelium rapidly mobilizes 
the expression of high concentrations of specific inducible AMPs, which 
provide a backup antimicrobial shield.
   The crucial role of vitamin D in the innate immune system was discovered 
only very recently. Both epithelial cells and macrophages increase 
expression of the antimicrobial cathelicidin upon exposure to microbes, an 
expression that is dependent upon the presence of vitamin D. Pathogenic 
microbes stimulate the production of an enzyme that converts 25(OH)D to 
1,25(OH)2D, a seco-steroid hormone. This in turn rapidly activates a suite 
of genes involved in pulmonary defense.
"""

=== On cost effectiveness of promoting Vitamin D vs. flu vaccination

I've seen figures for the amount the USA is spending to vaccinate against 
swine flu (producing 260 million doses) of from US$1.5 billion to US$6 billion.

"US officials combat public's wariness of swine flu vaccine"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1009/p02s19-usgn.html
"""
One message in the $3 billion campaign to get nearly half of all Americans 
inoculated: "A decision not to get vaccinated isn't a decision that is 
risk-free, but a decision to take on a different set of risks," Glen Nowak, 
a CDC spokesman, told the Monitor.
"""

"Swine Flu Cases Rise; CDC Urges Vaccination"
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20091009/swine-flu-cases-rise-cdc-urges-vaccination

"US school swine flu event shows vaccine challenge"
http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN098251120091009
"Only about 20 percent of U.S. children get vaccinated against seasonal flu 
in a typical year. Some parents, including many at Dodge Park Elementary, 
are holding back on H1N1 vaccination because of worries about the newness of 
the vaccine -- concerns that health officials say are unfounded.""

It seems that if no one gets vaccinated, and the flu is not bad, the CDC 
will have another public relations problem justifying that, especially if it 
is left with a majority of unused doses.

I'm not saying the investment was not justified, even though, as a priority 
I might have spent it elsewhere like Lyme disease research, but really, the 
USA has plenty of money to do all these things. I understand the CDC is in a 
difficult position, where if it guesses wrong, it gets blamed either way.

But clearly, if it knows that 20% of US children get vaccinated for regular 
flu (which is still far more deadly historically than swine flu at this 
point, even though that could change), then the CDC must know it would be 
facing a big problem. But, still it committed billions to this.

Now, using you US$0.25 for Vitamin D pills, that's about US$100 a year per 
person in the USA for Vitamin D. Granted it is not always needed:
  http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

But to giving a year of these Vitamin D pills to everyone in the USA, 
assuming wholesale is half the price, plus maybe half again for a quantity 
discount if production increased, would be about US$25 per person, or about 
US$7.5 billion for a year of pills for everyone in the USA. But because so 
much of the USA is sunny, it might make sense to give only the pills for 
winter, or give them only to northerners, so you probably could get good 
coverage on only US$3 billion of free pills.

How would the free pills get distributed? Coupons? At clinics? I don't know 
but it seems solvable. :-)

Now, given most people (80%?) would take the pills if they were presented 
well and free, and much fewer people (20%? 30%?) is usually willing to get a 
flu shot routinely, is this not a much better use of the CDC's money on 
this? Plus you improve health in other ways too (stronger bones, healthier 
teeth, less cancer, etc.).

Now, why does the CDC not do this if they have to make a choice? The USA is 
a wealthy country, so maybe it could do both, but as an investment, it would 
seem the flu vaccine was the foolish choice if you could only have one? And 
apparently, they only did the one and not the other.

Or, why doesn't the CDC at least tell everyone what you just said so they 
can buy it themselves?

Or why don't they increase the RDA for Vitamin D by several times?

Or, why do they not even push vastly more research on Vitamin D if they are 
unsure?

Anyway, why is the CDC so out of touch with promoting good nutrition, when 
it will readily turn over billions to companies to make vaccines?

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> No one yet has a theory as to why Vit D works on flu.  Of course it most
> likely is something to do with calcium channels in cells, but we don't know
> how or why yet.  It is widely understood it has major influence on heart
> disease, breast cancer, bowel cancer, bone density, and several other
> cancers.  It has emerged as sort of the "real" vitamin C...which was hyped
> for a decade based on Linus Pauling's early understanding of anti-oxidants
> and their implications.  C is good too, but has nowhere near the health
> benefits of Vitamin D3 which if regularly supplemented would probably cut
> national health costs by 20% (and that number is widely circulated and
> discussed--some say as high as 25%).  D3 is not an anti-oxidant, but rather
> is really best described as a hormone.
> 
> Indeed I would go so far as to say that if an adult did no other thing to
> aid their health, the science suggests that taking 4000-8000 IU of gelcap
> (not solid) Vitamin D3 ...not D2, is about the best thing you can do for
> yourself and it will cost less than 1/4 of a US dollar a day.
> 
> The blogs I read on this include Animal Pharma, hyperlipid and few others if
> you have any interest.  Anyone interested in diabetes, Omega 3s, low carb,
> high saturated fat diets (especially plant based)...I'm the guy.  Email me
> on the side.  I am very current with what multiple sides are saying on these
> topics and there are some wonderful wonderful blogs.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Paul D. Fernhout <
> pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> 
>> Glad we've found something we can agree on in this area. :-)
>>
>> You've probably seen this site that I stumbled across yesterday?
>> http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/
>> http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/vitamin-d-and-h1n1-swine-flu.shtml
>> http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/h1n1-flu-and-vitamin-d.shtml
>