You seem to be so sure from your responses, did you find proof or just believing. If you are just believing then calm down. No one cares what you think. You have the strong opinion from your previous response, I am asking a question. I did not make a statement
Flu Shot vs. Vitamin D
- Thread starter Fiver
- Start date
You seem to be so sure from your responses, did you find proof or just believing. If you are just believing then calm down. No one cares what you think. You have the strong opinion from your previous response, I am asking a question. I did not make a statement
ZuzanaDesigns
All Your Design Needs
Never had one and have never caught the flu. My parents get it every year and they seem to get sick every year.
My sister took the flu shot every year for 7 years and got the flu every year. She decided to stop taking the shot 6 years ago, and said she did not get the flu since.
Proof of what? What do you think I am trying to prove? I simply stated an experience from my sister. Take it as you will.
I did a quick search on double blind studies on vitamin d and influenza. Here's one:
Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
Absolute % difference of almost 8%.
Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
Absolute % difference of almost 8%.
Number 2: I'll be blunt. Your web page has stumbled upon our secret plan.
Homer: That's impossible. All my stories are bullplop. Bullplop!
Number 2: Don't be cute. I'm referring to the flu shot expose. You see we're the ones loading them with mind-controlling additives.
Homer: But why?
Number 2: To drive people into a frenzy of shopping. That's why flu shots are given just before Christmas.
Homer: Of course. It's so simple. Wait, no it's not. It's needlessly complicated.
I seem to be in a similar situation. I can't remember the last time I got a flu shot, and cant remember the last time I had the flu. I do however over the last few years of working at home, have a much lower overall exposure.
One other thing about the study I quoted.
If you look at studies of pharmaceutical drugs, they love to use relative % risk and relative % risk reduction. This is so that for the layman, they think the drugs work really well as using relative risk and risk reduction/increase, it exaggerates the %.
I prefer looking at absolute values and absolute %'s. And when they only provide in studies with relative values, I do not take it seriously unless they provide at least the absolute values for me to look over.
Lets just try doing a relative % risk reduction on this study.
10.78% risk of influenza of vitamin D treated group
18.57% risk of influenza of untreated group
Absolute risk reduction = 18.57-10.78 = 7.79%
Relative risk = 10.78/18.57 = 0.5805 i.e 58% <- ain't that huge
Relative risk reduction = 1 - 0.5805 i.e 41.95% risk reduction for influenza when taking that amount of vitamin D. If vitamin d is a pharmaceutical drug, I'll market it to all the doctors and hospitals saying that at a profound 41.95% risk reduction (I'll quote relative % risk on there too for good measure), this drug should be given to all children. Then I'll do more studies by increasing the dosage of the vitamin D to see if it would further increase the % risk reduction.
I don't get a flu shot... My wife and daughter get one every year... None of us have had the flu in 5 years...
Nothing can be explained!
Nothing can be explained!
I can't remember I ever having a flu either. Except when I was a kid, I came down with fevers but not sure if that was the flu. The last flu shot I had was when I was 14-15, like 20 years ago.
Herd immunity
It's the same reason I don't get any inoculations. I say let the sheeple experiment with shooting dead virus into their system, I'll just ride the wave and let my immune system do it's fucking job.
I wonder if washing your hands too often like a fucking pussy who is scared shitless of germs results in your immune system being less effective?
PDF source: http://thechifarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/am-j-clin-nutr-2010-urashima-1255-60.pdf
Some obvious problems are the children being hospital outpatients (therefore more likely to be vitamin D deficient), a fair amount of difference between drop out rates when comparing vitamin D participants to placebo participants, and the numbers not being 99% significant (except for asthma, where they were 99.999% significant - however, that does concern me a little, maybe I'm missing something, but they state 56% of children over the age of 3 (why did they state that when making it greater or equal to in the table?) had asthma, whereas I make it 110 out of 282, so 39% - I'd like to see a more complete breakdown of ages etc to see where that discrepancy's coming from) - however, 97.8% significance is respectable.
Obviously, as they stated, it was on children, so may or may not be applicable to adults. I'm also not sure why they didn't test initially for vitamin D levels, that's a pretty important thing to know, and not hard to do. Overall though, seems fairly good as an initial study, I may be wrong though, I'm no scientist. I'm sure someone else who is will be able to chip in.
Have not read the pdf yet. But definitely, its worth doing a vitamin d study on adults of an age range if not done already and different vitamin d dosage levels as well as measuring their body levels of vitamin d. What I wouldn't like to see is a study that uses a low dosage vitamin d of say 400IU and the study being used to dismiss the effectiveness of the vitamin when the results shows no significant difference between the control and treatment group.
Don't know why you lumped my two quotes together though. My sister does not take vitamin d, well not that I know of anyway, but I can ask her.
Ugh, I keep doing that. Sorry, it was a multiquote I was initially gonna reply to, but then decided against.