Aug 2, 2017
Pharma-controlled Journal of the American Medical Association waging full-scale attack on Vitamin D in effort to push flu shots for toddlers
Posted by John Gallagher in categories: biotech/medical, health
(Natural News) A recent headline in the U.K.’s Daily Mail boldly declares, “Vitamin D will NOT protect your child from a cold: Myth-busting study says ‘more isn’t always better’ to help toddlers stay healthy.” This disingenuous headline infers that vitamin D has no protective effect against colds and flu. In fact, the study it goes on to cite, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), only compared the effects of two different dosages of vitamin D administered to children. It did not compare the health of children who were not given vitamin D supplements at all, to those who were.
For some time now, researchers have understood that there is a link between a lack of sunshine, as experienced in most northern hemisphere countries in winter time, and the increased prevalence of viral infections, particularly upper respiratory tract infections, or the common cold. The production of the hormone vitamin D is directly linked to exposure to direct sunlight.
Researchers at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada, decided to investigate whether giving children doses higher than the daily recommended amount of vitamin D would reduce their risk of getting sick. Their study included 700 healthy children between the ages of 1 and 5. Half the children were given the standard recommended dose of 400IU of vitamin D daily during winter, while the other half were given a higher dose of 2000IU each day. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of colds and flus reported by the children’s parents for the duration of the study – all the kids in both groups had an average of about 1.9 colds each.
I think that it is likely, though certainly not assured. If not, it will still be my fault. After all, I had fair warning from the company that I trust as custodian of my assets.
