Censored: Even Low Dose Vitamin D More Effective than Vaccine Against Flu

The low-dose D study matched the 10-season average vaccine efficacy for 2004-2015 but given recent trends it looks to be substantially better than vaccine.   And if people were getting a normal dose of D (see linked article at bottom) there really would be no market for flu vaccine at all.

In general it seems the primary marketing strategy for vaccines is to  censor the link between viral infection and vitamin and mineral deficiency.    Measles, for instance, depletes vitamin A, so low A results in more severe measles infections.   But D in particular appears to be a broad spectrum antiviral.

On Feb. 26, 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated the effectiveness of the vaccine against the predominant influenza A H3N2 viruses for the 2014-2015 season at 18 percent1 2—a level reportedly described by CDC researchers as having “little to no efficacy.” Later in 2015, the CDC adjusted its estimate for the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine that season to 19 percent.3

The 19 percent effectiveness estimate for the influenza vaccine in 2014-2015 was unusually low, even by the consistently low effectiveness standard of the annual influenza vaccines. During the previous 10 seasons, the average effectiveness estimate for influenza vaccines had been 42.5 percent.4 5In only four of those 10 seasons had the effectiveness estimate surpassed 50 percent, and never more than 60 percent.4

In the first of those 10 seasons, 2004-2005, the effectiveness estimate was even lower than 19 percent. It was 10 percent. In other words, the influenza vaccine for that season was 90 percent ineffective.

Apart from the 19 percent estimate a few years ago, the effectiveness estimate for the influenza vaccine has not dropped anywhere close to 10 percent since 2004-2005… until this season, which was the preliminary estimate for the vaccine’s effectiveness in Australia during that country’s 2017 flu season. According to a recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the effectiveness estimate for the vaccine against the influenza A H3N2 viruses during 2017-2018 might be 10 percent.”6 7 Paul E. Sax, MD of NEJM Journal Watch refers to it as a “dismal 10 percent.”8

Despite the predicted gross ineffectiveness of this season’s influenza vaccine, the CDC and many doctors continue to recommend getting it based on the rationale that it’s “better than nothing.”…


Rice Study Predicts 19 Percent Efficacy for 2018-2019 Influenza Vaccine

A computer-based tool developed as part of a study by researchers at Rice University in Texas is gauging the anticipated efficacy of this season’s influenza vaccine at 19 percent. The tool, known as pEpitope, is a computational model measuring critical differences in the genetic sequences of circulating strains of influenza virus….

Historically, the influenza vaccine recommended by public health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the 2016-2017 “flu season” only had an efficacy of 20 percent, and the pEpitope assessment predicted 19 percent efficacy for this vaccine.2 Full influenza vaccine efficacy data for the 2017-2018 flu season are still being compiled.

The majority of 2018-2019 influenza vaccines in the U.S. remain egg-based with two critical mutations in amino acids in one key region of the hemagglutinin protein, but the vaccine has an updated formulation to protect against H3N2.

“Our study found that these same mutations halved the efficacy of influenza vaccines in the past two seasons, and we expect they will lower the efficacy of the next vaccine in a similar manner,” Deem stated. He added that these adaptations are inevitable as long as most influenza vaccines are cultivated in eggs.

The Rice researchers believe the egg adaptations are the reason for the reduced efficacy. There are two new types of influenza vaccines available in the U.S. that do not use eggs for production, one uses MDCK dog kidney cells and the other uses army worm cells.3 When testing the efficacy of an experimental vaccine produced from insect cells, the Rice researchers predicted a higher 47 percent efficacy rate.1

However, according to a Kaiser Permanente study published Oct. 6, 2018, “Both cell-culture and egg-based inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) vaccines showed relatively low vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the 2017-2018 influenza season in which the A(H3N2) virus strain dominated.”4



Background: To our knowledge, no rigorously designed clinical trials have evaluated the relation between vitamin D and physician-diagnosed seasonal influenza.Objective: We investigated the effect of vitamin D supplements on the incidence of seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren.Design: From December 2008 through March 2009, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing vitamin D3 supplements (1200 IU/d) with placebo in schoolchildren. The primary outcome was the incidence of influenza A, diagnosed with influenza antigen testing with a nasopharyngeal swab specimen.Results: Influenza A occurred in 18 of 167 (10.8%) children in the vitamin D3 group compared with 31 of 167 (18.6%) children in the placebo group [relative risk (RR), 0.58; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.99; P = 0.04]. The reduction in influenza A was more prominent in children who had not been taking other vitamin D supplements (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.79; P = 0.006) and who started nursery school after age 3 y (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.78; P = 0.005). In children with a previous diagnosis of asthma, asthma attacks as a secondary outcome occurred in 2 children receiving vitamin D3 compared with 12 children receiving placebo (RR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.73; P = 0.006).Conclusion: This study suggests that vitamin D3 supplementation during the winter may reduce the incidence of influenza A, especially in specific subgroups of schoolchildren….


Research Coverup of Vitamin D Scandal Continues

More shots fired in war on vitamin D

Vitamin D Is More Effective Than Flu Vaccine, Study Says

Hillary, Obama, Bernie Avoid Saying “Christian” Or “Churches” In Sri Lanka Statements

You don’t have to be a Christian to recognize social engineering when you see it. It seems to be verboten to point out the ongoing pattern of attacks on churches around the world.

National establishments normally promote whatever social institutions and/or national mythology are embedded in the society, in order to promote their own longevity and ongoing harvest.  When a genocidal establishment ignores or tolerates attacks against foundational institutions of its own culture instead of exploiting them for its own benefit (especially in the name of “liberalism”), you can be sure that its agenda is something other than social stability.   See http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2018/07/mind-control-on-the-left-2/

While President Trump and several other notable leaders offer their condolences and help to Sri Lanka, democrat politicians in America go out of their way to avoid saying the words “Christian” and “churches” in their statements.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both refer to Christians as “Easter worshippers.”…


Biosludge corporations are BRIBING environmental organizations to declare sewage sludge as “safe,” warns activist

via https://governmentslaves.news/2019/04/22/synagro-and-other-biosolids-corporations-are-bribing-environmental-organizations-to-declare-sewage-sludge-as-safe-warns-activist/

(Natural News) If you’ve been following our ongoing news reports covering the dirty truth about “biosludge,” you’ve likely asked yourself at least once: How in the world did the biosludge industry convince environmental groups to actually support the stuff? As usual, it all comes down to money.

As revealed by biosludge expert Craig Monk during a recent interview he gave as part of the Biosludged film project – you can watch the official trailer for Biosludged at Brighteon.com – the biosludge industry has been actively bribing environmental organizations to basically look the other way and pretend as though biosludge is “safe.”

Being a resident of Texas, a huge biosludge dumping ground, Monk talked a lot about the Texas Campaign for the Environment, which is one such environmental group that seems to continually ignore the many problems associated with biosludge – one of the biggest being the many chemicals contained in biosludge that nobody seems concerned about addressing.

“To environmentalists, and especially the Texas Campaign for the Environment, who supports composting biosolids, I would say: How do you get rid of all the chemicals in it?” Monk stated.

“What happens to those chemicals? Are you exposing the public’s backyard to contaminants that they normally would not be exposed to? How many cases of cancer have you researched and found as a result of that?”

As it turns out, the Texas Campaign for the Environment probably knows the answers to these questions, and the answers aren’t what the public would like to hear. But because the group is a likely recipient of bribe money from the biosludge industry, it’s keeping quiet about the very real dangers associated with the spread of biosludge on American land.

“In the case of the Texas Campaign for the Environment, what I think, and what has happened around the country, is companies like Synagro, these sewage companies, they will contribute money to these organizations and they let them know, and then the organization feels like they owe them a favor,” Monk warns.

“They (Synagro) have a whole department, I’ve been told, that does nothing but market biosolids. And they do it through their own company, and through NEBRA (North East Biosolids & Residuals Association) … and I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but in 2002 or 2003, Synagro even bribed a mayor and a councilwoman to get their contract and were caught.”…


Ten Tips For Arguing Against Assange Smears

Before we get into refuting the specific points of disinformation, I’d like to share a few tips which I’ve found useful in my own experience with engaging people online who are circulating smears against Julian Assange.

1 – Be clear that your goal is to fight against a disinformation campaign, not to “win” or to change the mind of the person you’re arguing with.

If our interest is in advancing the cause of truth, we’re not trying to get into arguments with people for egoic gratification, nor are we trying to change the mind of the smearer. Our first and foremost goal is to spread the truth to the people who are witnessing the interaction, who are always the target audience for the smear. Doesn’t matter if it’s an argument at the Thanksgiving dinner table or a Twitter thread witnessed by thousands: your goal is to disinfect the smear with truth and solid argumentation so everyone witnessing is inoculated from infection.

So perform for that audience like a lawyer for the jury. When the smearer refuses to respond to your challenges, when they share false information, when they use a logical fallacy, when they are intellectually dishonest, call it out and draw attention to what they’re doing. When it comes to other subjects there are a wide range of opinions that may be considered right or wrong depending on how you look at them, but when it comes to the Assange case you can feel confident that you’ll always have truth on your side. So use facts and good argumentation to make the smearer look worse than they’re trying to make Assange look, thereby letting everyone know that this person isn’t an honest and trustworthy source of information.

2 – Remember that whoever you’re debating probably doesn’t really know much about the claim they’re making.

Last night I had a guy confidently assuring me that Assange and Chelsea Manning had teamed up to get Donald Trump elected in 2016. Most people just bleat whatever they’ve heard people they trust and people around them saying; when they make a claim about Assange, it’s not usually because they’ve done a ton of research on the subject and examined possible counter-arguments, it’s because it’s an established doctrine within their echo chamber and it may never have even occurred to them that someone might question it.

For a perfect example of this, check out the New York Times‘ Bari Weiss experiencing an existential meltdown on The Joe Rogan Experience when the host simply asked her to substantiate her claim that Tulsi Gabbard is an “Assad toadie”. Weiss only ever operates within a tight establishment echo chamber, so when challenged on a claim she’d clearly only picked up secondhand from other people, she turned into a sputtering mess.

Most people you’ll encounter who smear Assange online are pulling a Bari Weiss to some extent, so point out the obvious gaps in their knowledge for the audience when they make nonsensical claims, and make it clear to everyone that they have no idea what they’re talking about….


It’s not their fault.   The social control apparatus arrayed against us by the permanent government is full spectrum and state of the art, and if the person is ensnared in it they really are pretty emotionally and mentally handicapped.   Be patient and gentle and they might come around.   Above all, avoid activating their perimeter defenses.