Vitamin D vs. Influenza vaccine

[Phil Thien]

People here know I'm a big proponent of taking vitamin D supplements.

A brief background: A physician visiting my shop one day noticed I was having problems with my back. He spoke to me about it for a while, how long I had experienced problems, etc., and asked "do you take Vitamin D supplements?" I did not.

He was very generous with his time, sat down at my computer with me, and started showing me the research. He told me I could go get tested to find my vitamin D levels, but he assured me they were low and I should just start taking supplements.

Since doing so, my back and knees, which have been problems for years (my back has had issues for 17 years, one knee clicked when going up steps for 20 years, both knees were experiencing more serious problems for 2-3 years) have improved dramatically. Extremely dramatically. Way beyond any possible placebo effect.

I'm not going to tell you how much I take, or that you should take it, too. I'm not a physician. Go do your own research.

But I came across an article about vitamin D a week or so ago. The author mentioned the effectiveness of vitamin D vs. the influenza vaccine in combatting the flu bug.

I've read reports that this year's influenza vaccine is approx. 62% effective. I did a little digging and found this:

"Vitamin D from sunlight or supplements reduces the risk of influenza.

"Two randomized controlled trials found reduced incidence of influenza for those taking higher doses of vitamin D. A study involving African-American postmenopausal women in New York found a 60% reduced risk of colds and influenza for those taking 800 IU/d vitamin D3 and 90% reduced risk for those taking 2000 IU/d.

"Another study in Japan, involving school children taking 1200 IU/d vitamin D3 vs. 200 IU/d, found a 67% reduction in Type A influenza, but no effect for Type B influenza. Type A influenza includes H1N1 varieties, which was the type involved in the 1918-19 pandemic influenza and the 2009 “swine flu” infections.

"According to an observational study, vitamin D provides protection against influenza. This occurs when vitamin D levels in the blood are more than 38 ng/mL (95 nmol/L)."

Source: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/infections-and-autoimmunity/influenza/


So if you were to get the influenza vaccine _and_ take supplements, it would seem like you'd be very well covered.

Again, I'm not a physician, you should do your own research and seek the advice of your own physician. But they're busy, they may not automatically bring it up. Just ask "what do you think of this vitamin D hysteria" and see what your doc has to say.

Just some food for thought.

If you want to do some research, you can look at news.google.com. Just type "vitamin d" and whatever bothers you (let's say "chronic pain") and start reading.

Vitamin D isn't the fountain of youth. There are some things for which vitamin D will help you not one bit.

Just not many.

Edit: Attributed the comments about vitamin D to Crichton when they were the article author's opinions (although as an Orthpaedic surgeon she is just as expert). Here is the article:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/feds-keeping-people-sick-the-vitamin-d-story/

[Jim O'Dell]

When I was in the hospital for surgery l4 months ago, someone came to the room and talked to me about Vit D. I wasn't taking it either. I started. Then talking about it during my next normal checkup, my family Dr. upped the amount I had been taking. It wasn't recommended for joint or muscle pain, but my knees are a little better. Back, eh, maybe not as much. Jim.

[David Weaver]

Wikipedia has a nice write-up on it. In the EU, you are allowed to claim that it promotes normal muscle and immune system operation, and reduces the risk of falls over age 60.

In the US, you aren't allowed to say anything, of course, even if it's true.

The fact that MDs have taken it up as a cause is more convincing than anything else. FIL's MD said the same thing to him a couple of years ago, and george has mentioned it several times on here.

[Dan Hintz]

In the US, you aren't allowed to say anything, of course, even if it's true.
Because "true" is a moving target. What some consider "true" has not necessarily been proven out from a scientific standpoint. If it hasn't been proven, you can't claim it. It may actually be true, but you need proof, not just hearsay.

The fact that MDs have taken it up as a cause is more convincing than anything else. FIL's MD said the same thing to him a couple of years ago, and george has mentioned it several times on here.
A large number of MDs taking up anything says to me they're reading the appropriate journals and making a decision based upon studies being done (see my comment above). When enough of those studies have been performed, the FDA says "okay". The MDs are simply stepping ahead of the FDA's final approval. Nothing wrong with that... unless the studies turn out to be wrong, in which case the doctors pushing it are also wrong. It happens. How many times have the MDs flipped on things like salt intake amounts, cholesterol, etc.?

[David Weaver]

There is a monetary issue in getting FDA approval to do anything. You can have true and linked in study data, but someone has to pay, lobby and do the legwork, and you have to work against lobbying dollars from people who stand to lose if you can make a beneficial claim (if you provide a prescription with some similar benefits, you absolutely will lobby against something that is cheap and easy to get being able to make similar claims).

It is a gross oversimplification to label the FDA issue as true/untrue proven/unproven because there are cost and political/lobbying barriers.

By no means do I carry water for the homeopathic or holistic industry stuff, though, nor for the "if you just eat and supplement perfectly, you'll never get sick" stuff. I want to see proof, but I sure would like to have access to it without it costing someone an arm and a leg to be able to say it.

I just have zero faith in there being the kind of objectivity that a simplified statement implies. At the state level, the same thing applies. There was a law in this state against labeling milk that does or doesn't come from rBST pumped cows because "consumers would be confused if they had a choice". After public outrage, it was limited to forcing producers to basically say that there is no difference between BST and non-BST if they choose to label milk that way. it wasn't objectivity that caused that whole war, it was lobbying dollars from the rBST marketer.

The FDA is better than leaving medicine to the people who peddle supplements on the radio on weekends, but I have little faith that they will allow much that doesn't cost an awful lot of money to document and lobby.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

There is also a placebo effect.

There is a profit margin in the vitamin market also. Unlike the pharmaceutical industry the vitamin market don't have to perform scientific studies which takes time and costs money. They wildly make unproven claims in their television advertisements with the "no scientific studies" disclaimer barely visibile for a split second.

Then there is the "all natural"....or "organic" claims.....folks.......hemlock, among other things is "all natural".....and organic....it's the presence of "organic fertilizer" that was thought to cause my bout with salmonella poisoning that I picked up eating in a restaurant near Ft. Worth a few years ago.....that's when I met Jim O'dell, among others.

My doctor was a proponent of using Vitamin C......then vitamin D.......then suddenly he changed because recent studies showed people were overdosing on vitamin supplements and it was doing long term harm.

Everything in moderation........I take a daily vitamin supplement for old guys and 2 calcium tablets w/Vitamin D /day ......I take one calcium tablet in the morning......one in late afternoon. According to my doctor....too much calcium taken at one time doesn't have the same effect as the same amount taken separately during the day. I would take the other one late at night but one of my prescription meds isn't supposed to be taken within 4 hours of calcium.

Just like engineers, woodworkers, etc., if you put 12 doctors in room and ask for opinions on a single subject or matter, you will probably get 16 opinions.

[Rick Potter]

Interesting thread, and good timing for me. I just took a bone density test, and got the results yesterday.

They tell me I have a moderate thinning of my bones (I'm 70). They recommended I take 1000 U of vitamin D, and 1200mg of calcium per day. Now, the calcium is well understood, but this is the first I have heard of taking the D vitamin for bones.

Rick Potter

PS: I live in SoCal, and drink a LOT of milk.

[David Weaver]

Ken, FIL almost stepped into the same issue (taking too much right away). Wife and I mentioned that there's an upper limit if you're going to consume and he looked it up and found that he was just about at it with what he was planning to take. I guess the doctor wasn't specific enough about also not going overboard with the fat solubles.

[Mac McQuinn]

Ken,
There is a vast difference in the words "Organic" & USDA Organic, I guess one can call a tree organic although there are very specific requirements in order to place a "Organic" label on food;http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO Rather than getting too far off the OP's thread, I'll just make the comment, If you're really interested in Organics, read everything you can, you'll be amazed.

Mac



There is also a placebo effect.
Then there is the "all natural"....or "organic" claims.....folks.......hemlock, among other things is "all natural".....and organic....it's the presence of "organic fertilizer" that was thought to cause my bout with salmonella poisoning that I picked up eating in a restaurant near Ft. Worth a few years ago.....that's when I met Jim O'dell, among others.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Rick,

My doctor stated the Vitamin D taken with calcium results in better absorbtion of the calcium. We just buy the calcium tablets at Costco and they have the vitamin D in each calcium tablet.

When I have a semi-annual physical (over 60 my doctor insists on 2 physicals per year) I am required to bring my medications bottles and vitamin bottles with me. The doctor asks me the quantity of each that I take as he examines the bottles.

[ray hampton]

I am surprise that milk never got mention, milk are a good source of vitamin D, but a better source of vitamin D are fresh air and sunshine
some vitamins are oil based ,other vitamins are water based which will not be stored in your body like the oil based vitamins

[Phil Thien]

Ken, FIL almost stepped into the same issue (taking too much right away). Wife and I mentioned that there's an upper limit if you're going to consume and he looked it up and found that he was just about at it with what he was planning to take. I guess the doctor wasn't specific enough about also not going overboard with the fat solubles.

If you read the article I linked (here it is again: http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/feds-keeping-people-sick-the-vitamin-d-story/), she states that the USRDA is low, way low.

Here, I'm cutting and pasting from the link:

It is the observation of many, many practicing clinicians that 1) most patients test in the low 20s, and 2) 400 iu of Vitamin D a day – the government recommended daily allowance doesn’t raise the levels at all. Studies of equatorial inhabitants demonstrate that some of the longest-lived people on the planet obtain 30,000-40,000 iu of Vitamin D (specifically D3) a day from the sunlight – nature’s source of the vitamin. Given that, it is not surprising that supplementing 10,000 iu a day of Vitamin D3 has been shown to have no adverse effects.

As an Orthopaedic Surgeon, I deal with bone disorders daily, and have long been interested in this topic. I quit testing for Vitamin D levels in untreated people after every one of my patients tested in the low 20s. I only tested my husband because he was convinced that golfing in Arizona 18 holes, six days a week would raise his level. It did not – his level was 22 ng/dl.

As a final fact, D3 supplementation is cheap. For less than $12 a month you can easily take 10,000 iu of Vitamin D3 a day.

Now, given all this, what would you do?

I, for one take 10,000 units of Vitamin D3 a day. I have done so for over 7 years, and my levels of 55 ng/dl are barely in the optimal range of 50-100ng/dl. I recommend the same to all my patients. But I must warn them that the government, via the Institute of Medicine and the FDA, disagree and believe people should take only 600-800 iu a day.

Now it doesn’t take a medical degree to figure out that a cheap treatment that has such potential upside with so little (if any) downside is worth doing as real preventive medicine. But the government consensus – developed by intellectuals who feel they are infinitely smarter than we are, and should be able to make our choices for us – is that there is no evidence for the beneficial claims.

Really? If they emerge from their collective basement, they will find pages and pages of references. Don’t believe it? Do a simple Google search. Or just read the newspaper. Besides frequent articles in medical and general science journals supporting Vitamin D3 supplementation, there are monthly news stories about this rapidly advancing science.

Sadly, the government doesn’t just want to discourage you from taking extra Vitamin D, they want to prohibit it. Senator Dick Durban, D-Ill., in 2011 introduced a bill (innocuously labeled the “Supplement Labeling Act”) which would so over-regulate the supplement industry that they could no longer supply products such as Vitamin D3 at a cost affordable to the average consumer.
*****

Vitamin D toxicity is real, but I don't know where it starts to be a problem. And according to my 16-YO daughter (don't laugh, she's smart) toxicity has been a problem with other fat-soluble vitamins when people suddenly lose large amounts of weight (either intentionally through diets, or unintentionally via illness). All that stored D3 would start to enter the bloodstream, apparently. So it (toxicity) is a bit more complicated than "I've been taking these for two years and I'm fine," according to my daughter at least.

[Dan Hintz]

And according to my 16-YO daughter (don't laugh, she's smart) toxicity has been a problem with other fat-soluble vitamins when people suddenly lose large amounts of weight (either intentionally through diets, or unintentionally via illness). All that stored D3 would start to enter the bloodstream, apparently.

Do you let her watch House, M.D.? ;)

[Chris Padilla]

I've been reading some articles lately on Vitamin D and sunlight and the impact of high SPFs (sun protection factor). There was some evidence claiming that we may not be getting ENOUGH sunlight now because of the SPF campaign. Vitamin D from sunlight is supposed to be much much better than Vitamin D in any other form. I wish I could find the articles and I will post them if I ever do.

[Larry Frank]

I find that the discussions on vitamins are a bit strange. Everyone claims all kind of things for taking them. I think that a good multivitamin for most people is likely enough instead of taking the megadoses.

The one website quoted which was the Vitamin Council also has the following disclaimer concerning the information on the site --


*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. The products and information presented on this website are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

[Brian Elfert]

The issue with absorbing vitamin D through sunlight is the relative lack of it in northern climates during the winter. Even those that do spend time outdoors generally have nearly every inch of skin covered to stay warm. The highs next week are supposed to be below zero.

For me personally, I can get sick easily from too much sun exposure when it is hot outside. Even when I drink lots of water I still get sick from heat. It probably stems from getting heat exhaustion in 2003.

[Chris Padilla]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/06/low-level-of-this-vitamin-found-to-be-linked-to-early-menstruation.aspx

I found the article. There are several interesting links within the article as well.

[Phil Thien]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/06/low-level-of-this-vitamin-found-to-be-linked-to-early-menstruation.aspx

I found the article. There are several interesting links within the article as well.

Interesting link, Chris.

It is AMAZING to me the dissention in the medical community over this. I know this is overly simplistic, but it seems many responsible for setting standards are saying "the recommendations are sufficient" while many practitioners and researchers are saying the recommendations are way low.

If I tended towards conspiracy theories, I'd swear the government doesn't want people living longer.

[Doug Swanson]

I'm a fan of vitamin D + good diet and exercise. These claims do go in cycles but I haven't been sick in a long time, I live in a northern climate and I work in an office all day. It seems to make sense to me that adding this vitamin (for those of us up north or in a cell (office)) is a cheap easy thing to do. Might be placebo but if it is I'm enjoying it :)

[Stephen Tashiro]

Physicians in my sunny clime have been surprised by the number of patients that test low on the sunshine vitamin. (There is an objective blood test for it. Generally insurance won't pay for the test unless it's already known that your are low. Pay for the first one and if you are low, the follow-up tests are covered.)

I tested low on vitamin D. I began taking vitamin D. I don't test low anymore. I don't notice any miraculous health benefits either.

[Brian Elfert]

People not living longer would help solve the Social Security/Medicare problem. :) Seriously, I have read that if the obesity epidemic is not reversed the average lifespan will start to decrease instead of increasing like it has been.

[Brian Deakin]

Dear Phil,
I am a practicing pharmacist living in the United Kingdom. I would suggest the following web site as a source of information

In my humble opinion this is as good as it gets and the information is evidence based


https://www.evidence.nhs.uk

There is on the web site a reference to a trial of vitamin D conducted in Japan

regards Brian

[David Weaver]

That study is not large enough to draw much of a conclusion. There is no comparison in it of Vitamin D vs. flu vaccine. Even if the sample were larger and the mean expectation held (frequency of flu in vit. D segment is 0.58 times that of the control segment), it's likely the flu vaccine would be much larger.

Small sample led to a huge 95% confidence interval, though, 0.34-0.99, when you get to the nuts and bolts, it's hard to rely even on a confidence interval like that when you don't know anything else about the data other than only influenza A was detected in 49 kids.

The fall data in another study is not great, either. It suggests an individual has an adjusted chance of falling if they're on vit. D, at approximately 80% of the rate of a non vit. D supplemented individual. That would have to be measured over a longer period, too. The upper end of that confidence interval also suggests it could be no effect.

I'd be looking for something a little more conclusive and in bigger tests, but who is going to even run a bigger test with nothing to gain?

[Brian Deakin]

Dear David ,
Have a look at https://www.evidence.nhs.uk (https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/) and tell me what you think Suggest type in word cold and see accredited information)

regards Brian

[David Weaver]

Brian, I've seen this database before. I do like that they tell you the sample size, the results and a confidence interval. It makes it a lot easier to discern which statements are definitely credible and which could've been just by chance.

The thing we don't see is what I would call the confidence of the confidence, though I'm sure that's technically wrong. That being, if 80 studies were done and 75 were inconclusive, 5 came up with something, etc. Then we see those five, the ones that are inconclusive get no press.

And ....not to mention the study of the data to begin with, which truly is a controlled study and which is after-the-fact correlation? It's nice to know.

I like to see stronger results than a study of 400 people over a month before I'm going to change my behavior - I know some about statistics, but not much about medicine other than that if you can claim something, it should prove itself strongly in a true randomized study with good data practices.

It's like the old thing a lot of folks say, that tests are biased against them and they don't do very well on tests, but they're much better than the tests show, or a lot smarter about the subject matter than someone who tested a lot better. Well, that would imply you'd test better than someone else. I've taken multi-hour exams nervous, on short sleep and even with an ear infection in one case. Strangely enough, they turned out fine as long as I knew the material.

Thanks for sharing the database.

[Chris Padilla]

Physicians in my sunny clime have been surprised by the number of patients that test low on the sunshine vitamin. (There is an objective blood test for it. Generally insurance won't pay for the test unless it's already known that your are low. Pay for the first one and if you are low, the follow-up tests are covered.)

I tested low on vitamin D. I began taking vitamin D. I don't test low anymore. I don't notice any miraculous health benefits either.

Stephen,

I'm one of those. I live in the SF Bay Area and I bike to work 5 days/week so I'm out in the sun all the time and I tested low for Vitamin D like a year or two ago. The doc put me on horse pill Vitamin D and then I tested fine. I should probably get retested but I didn't notice anything when it was low and I felt the same when it was high. I dunno...YMMV. However, I did suffer from lower back pain that culminated in an injury at the end of November last year. It is finally feeling better after doing new exercises and seeing a chiropractor.

[David Weaver]

Flu.gov, by the way, states that vaccination decreases your likelihood of needing medical attention due to the flu by 60%. I don't know how they figure that or how directly it can be applied to contraction rate of influenza A, but given nothing else, I'd assume similar.