Dr. Donald Miller at UW is recommending that everyone replaces the annual flu vaccination with vitamin D. A large part of this is that Dr. Miller perceives the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has a financial interest in the success of the flu vaccine. This financial interest has manifested itself in the ACIP’s new recommendation to give the vaccine to children between the ages of 5-18, as well as the traditional recommendation of the elderly (50+yo) and small children (>6mo-5yo).
I know the ACIP is not driven by the greed of possible flu vaccine revenues. I think they probably believe so highly in the efficacy of the flu vaccine that they are interested in not only promoting and increasing its use, but also about investing in it. If I believed clean drinking water in urban slums was a priority, wouldn’t I both invest in urban drinking water facilities and try to get on the relevant panels?
Another concern of Dr. Miller’s is the potential ties of increased autism to increased vaccination, and Dr. Miller points out that the flu vaccine contains aluminum (linked to Alzheimer’s), formaldehyde (linked to cancer), and an unwieldy supply of mercury. He also points to a NYTimes article on the reduced efficacy of the vaccine in the elderly, incorporating doubt that it would reduce the high percentage of flu deaths in elderly communities.
Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a child between the ages of 5-18 getting the flu. If I was in this age group right now, I would try to avoid the flu vaccine. Without the occasional sick day, what is there to look forward to?
Conflict of Interest? Whenever I had a choice, I have avoided the flu vaccine. I don’t know why, I just never thought it was important. Dr. Miller’s article put some valid reasons to my prior incoherent argument.
UPDATE: A possible rebuttal from the NYTimes for Dr. Miller (admittedly doesn’t mention vitamin D and colds, but…)
