Flu shot vs vitamin D: which is more scientific?

Vitamin D vs. Flu shot





For those of you who missed James Chestnuts webinar on this topic or simply want some “Coles notes”, I did this for you.

Many of us are encouraged by our MDs and Government to take the flu shot during the “flu season” whether it is because of their occupation or other reasons.

The flu shot claims “Vaccination is recognized as the single most effective way of reducing the impact of seasonal influenza and New Brunswickers should be assured of the quality of the Agriflu vaccine.”

But is it?  That is a hefty statement.  Wouldn’t you like to know the TRUTH behind the claim?  Show us the proof!

Many people have heard about the benefits of vitamin D.  There is more and more “buzz” about the role it has on the immune system and overall health, and has had positive publicity especially over the last few years.





The best thing of all is that vitamin D is a natural compound that your body REQUIRES to be healthy.  There are no side effects (at recommended dosage) or toxic ingredients (as long as your supplement comes from a truly natural source either the sun or supplement – which most do not so you have to do your homework).

The flu shot however, comes with a long list of foreign ingredients that are definitely not naturally occurring in our bodies.

The debate on the safety of placing heavy metals, carcinogens and other toxins directly into our bloodstream is a big one, but not one for the purposes of this summary.  I simply want to review what Dr. Chestnut reports on the quality of the flu vaccine research.

When did the flu vaccine come about?  Chestnut shed some light on this issue:

1964 there was a flu pandemic.  Lots of people died and the government had to do something.  This marks the first recommended flu vaccination and they had NO data.  No research was conducted for safety, effectiveness etc.  They needed to do something because people were dying.  Now this historical event is used as a reference and proof to show how vaccination helped to “prevent” the flu!  This simply cannot be extrapolated accurately.

One of the first thing Chestnut mentions is something called the Frailty selection bias.

Frailty selection bias – the people who are most frail who are least likely to get vaccinated in research then compared to healthy people getting vaccinated.

First of all, the frail unhealthy elderly are more likely to die for a variety of reasons.  They have also been shown to have the same death rate during the “flu season” as any other season.

To use this group as a “control” group will lead to an inaccurate representation of the actual population.  This selection bias is misleading and one could not accurately extrapolate the data or make any significant claims.
Observational data can only create the interest and need for further study.  We can never infer cause/effect, only correlation.

This is how the research is conducted to prove effectiveness for flu vaccines?!

Comparison studies do not mean Cause and Effect:  With drug research, the Gold Standard is something called Randomized Controlled Studies (RCT’s).  This means that there is a group of research participants who are randomly selected into study groups.  In this case you could have a group randomly selected to get the flu vaccine and another control group who would get placebo ( as saline solution), maybe you could also have a group who got nothing at all and another who got a certain amount of vitamin D (if you TRULY wanted to compare effectiveness of the vaccine vs. Vitamin D)  randomly selected groups would account for the selection bias.

Absolute vs Relative reporting:  This was the most alarming point Chestnut went over.
Let me explain with his example.  If you had 100 people and you implemented a fitness program over a certain amount of weeks for one group, and had another group who did not participate in the program (control) and in the end, 2% of your group in the fitness program lost weight and 1% in the control group lost weight. You probably wouldn’t think that the program was very effective right?  The difference between 1 and 2% would not be statistically significant.  This would be ABSOLUTE reporting.

RELATIVE reporting would say the group with the program had a 2% success rate, the control group had only a 1% success rate making the program group having a 50% improvement over those who did nothing.  (get it?  1%/2% = .5 or 50%).

YIKES!  This type of relative reporting is legal in the research world whether it be looking at vaccinations, vitamins and any other drug trial.

So it turns out that with the absolute reporting, the flu vaccine is actually around 2% (then factor in the selection bias) and vitamin D’s absolute effectiveness is around 17%!!! 
AND! The amount of recommended vitamin D was way below a real therapeutic dosage at around 1000 IUS/day, and I can’t comment on the quality of the vitamin D used in the trials because I do not know.

Amazing!  What would you take?  The 2% faulty research success rate with possible side effects?  Or the 17% “barely minimum” amount of vitamin D that is naturally occurring and REQUIRED in your body??  Hmmmm?

Just for fun, let’s play the game and compare the 2% vs 17% relatively…..17%/2% = 8.5 = 8500%!  Vitamin D is 8500% more effective than the flu shot!  HA!

Random fact:  Since 1980, the vaccinated population % has increased and the death rate from the flu directly has not changed.  ???

So WHY on Earth would the government mandate such a thing?  Some employees are FORCED to be vaccinated!  … Follow the money!







The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is a 15 member group that decides mandates:  conflict of interest

  • They own stock in drug companies that make the vaccines
  • Own patents for vaccines

The CDC is US based, there is a Canadian equivalent but access to information is limited. Please let me know if you have more information in Canada.

There is no money in Vitamin D, and unfortunately we live in a world where the dollar means more than human life.  Billions of dollars are made through the flu vaccination program.  We don’t need to get into this aspect of the debate, I simply wanted to review some MAJOR holes in the research that Dr. Chestnut brings to light.

Here is the last question I will leave you with.  I wonder how the quality of research is on the rest of the vaccines, drugs and other products that are so heavily marketed to us that claim to keep us “healthy”?

For more information and a more in depth analysis I HIGHLY encourage you to check out http://www.innatechoice.com/viewvideo.cfm?id=1F306184-A5E5-6F58-2B079288EEF7DAD9&return=webinars.cfm


By Dr. Kelly Fortier
Find her here:  Find Us On Facebook!



  1. Love this article. Must read for everyone

  2. Tip of The Day: When a friend posts information on illness it would probably be beneficial to read it…The Gift of Information…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>