Colostrum 3x More Effective Than Flu Vaccines, Challenging Medical Orthodoxy

Part I: The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines

With flu season hysteria nearing its peak, millions are being driven to vaccination as a ‘preventive’ approach. Those who abstain are often accused of being uneducated or worse, socially irresponsible “anti-vaxxers.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

As it presently stands, it is not sound medical science, but primarily economic and biopolitical motivations which generate the immense pressure behind mass participation in the annual ritual of flu vaccination.

It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review (CDR), considered by many within the evidence-based medical model to be the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic value of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or outright propaganda that flu vaccines are a priori ‘safe and effective.’

To the contrary, these authoritative reviews reveal there is a conspicuous absence of conclusive evidence as to the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in children under 2, healthy adults, the elderly, and healthcare workers who care for the elderly. For example, here is the conclusion of the review titled, “Vaccines for preventing seasonal influenza and its complications in people aged 65 or older,”

“The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.”¹

Really? Why does the media and medical establishment often say “the science is settled” on vaccines? This review looked at evidence from experimental and non-experimental studies carried out over 40 years of influenza vaccination, including 75 studies. And yet still they conclude that an adequately powered and publicly-funded (read: independent, non-industry influenced study) RCT of sufficient duration has yet to be performed.

What is even more disconcerting is that only one CDR validated safety study on inactivated flu vaccines has been performed in children under 2 (the population most susceptible to adverse reactions), even though in the USA and Canada current guidelines recommend the vaccination of healthy children from six months old.

Another alarming finding following the global pandemic declared by the World Health Organization in 2009, is that receipt of the seasonal flu vaccine among Canadians actually increased the rate of medically attended pandemic H1N1 infection. Vaccines, therefore, may actually decrease resistance to viral infection via their immunosuppressive actions.²

Can Vaccination Replace Natural Immunity?

At the outset it should be acknowledged that there would be no medical justification for vaccination in the first place if it were not for the observation that periodic infection from wild type pathogens confers lasting, natural immunity. In a very real sense periodic infectious challenges are Nature’s immunizations, without which the very concept of vaccination would make absolutely no sense. Equating vaccination with bona fide immunity, or calling vaccines ‘immunizations,’ is highly misleading, and as you can see by the Cochrane data above, not evidence-based at all.

The vaccination process artificially simulates and co-opts a natural process, generating a broad range of adverse unintended consequences, many of which have been documented here. Vaccine proponents would have us believe that natural immunity is inferior to synthetic immunity, and should be replaced by the latter. In some cases they even suggest breastfeeding should be delayed during vaccinations because it “interferes” with the vaccine efficacy.

This warped perspective follows from the disingenuous standard vaccine researchers use to “prove” the “efficacy” of their vaccines. The chemical kitchen sink is thrown at the immune system in order to conserve the expensive-to-produce antigen and to generate a more intense immune response – a process, not unlike what happens when you kick a beehive. These chemicals include detergents, anti-freeze, heavy metals, xenotrophic retroviruses, DNA from aborted human fetuses (diploid cells) and other species, etc. Amazingly, vaccine researchers and manufacturers do not have to prove the antibodies actually have affinity with the antigens they are marketed to protect us against, i.e. they do not have to prove real world “effectiveness,” only a surrogate marker of “efficacy.” Yet, underrreported research indicates in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses, running diametrically opposed to the orthodox tenets of classical vaccinology.

Another point that can not be understated is that the trivalent (3-strain) influenza vaccines are incapable of protecting us against the wide range of pathogens which produce influenza-like illness:

“Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.”³

It is therefore exceedingly clear that it is a mathematical impossibility for influenza vaccines to be effective at preventing wild-circulating strains of influenza. Support of the immune system, then, becomes the most logical and reasonable solution.

Part II: The Promise and Pitfalls of Nasal Flu Vaccines

The recent FDA approval of a self-administered nasal flu vaccine has been hailed as a breakthrough in influenza prevention. This new method of delivery offers several potential benefits:

1. Ease of Administration: The nasal spray can be self-administered or given by a caregiver, potentially increasing vaccination rates by removing the need for a healthcare visit.
2. Needle-Free Option: For those with needle phobias, the nasal spray provides a less intimidating alternative.
3. Mucosal Immunity: Nasal vaccines may stimulate mucosal immunity in the respiratory tract, potentially offering more targeted protection against respiratory viruses.
4. Live Attenuated Virus: The nasal spray contains weakened live viruses, which some researchers believe may provide broader immunity than inactivated vaccines.

However, the nasal flu vaccine also comes with several shortcomings and concerns:

1. Limited Efficacy Data: As with other flu vaccines, there’s a lack of robust, long-term efficacy data, particularly in diverse populations and against a wide range of influenza strains.
2. Strain-Specific Protection: Like traditional flu shots, the nasal spray targets only specific strains, leaving recipients vulnerable to the many other circulating influenza viruses.
3. Potential for Viral Shedding: Because it contains live attenuated viruses, there’s a theoretical risk of viral shedding, which could be problematic for immunocompromised individuals.
4. Age and Health Restrictions: The nasal spray is not recommended for certain groups, including young children, older adults, pregnant women, and those with certain health conditions.
5. Side Effects: Common side effects include nasal congestion, runny nose, and sore throat. More serious, though rare, side effects have been reported.
6. Interference with Natural Immunity: As with other vaccines, there are concerns that the nasal spray could interfere with the development of natural, broad-spectrum immunity.
7. Environmental Factors: The effectiveness of the nasal spray could be affected by factors such as nasal congestion or the use of nasal medications.

While the nasal flu vaccine offers a novel approach to influenza prevention, it’s important to consider these benefits and shortcomings in the context of overall health and immunity. As with any medical intervention, individuals should consult with healthcare providers to determine the most appropriate flu prevention strategy for their specific circumstances.

Part III: Natural Alternatives for Flu Prevention

Given the limitations of flu vaccines and the broad spectrum of influenza strains, supporting natural immunity may provide more comprehensive protection. Here are 10 evidence-based natural approaches to prevent or mitigate influenza:

1. Green Tea: Regular consumption is associated with reduced influenza incidence. A study of Japanese schoolchildren found that those who drank green tea had significantly lower rates of influenza infection.⁴
2. Elderberry: Significantly reduces duration and severity of influenza symptoms. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that elderberry extract reduced the duration of flu symptoms by 4 days on average.⁵
3. Echinacea: Shown to reduce risk and duration of respiratory symptoms. A meta-analysis found that echinacea decreased the odds of developing the common cold by 58% and the duration of colds by 1.4 days.⁶
4. American Ginseng: Potentially effective for preventing acute respiratory illness due to influenza. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found that ginseng reduced the risk of getting two or more colds by 89%.⁷
5. Vitamin D: Supports immune function against respiratory viruses. A meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials found that vitamin D supplementation protected against acute respiratory tract infection.⁸
6. Zinc: May reduce incidence and improve outcomes of respiratory infections. A meta-analysis found that zinc lozenges or syrup reduced the duration of colds by one day when taken within 24 hours of onset of symptoms.⁹
7. Vitamin C: Can shorten duration and severity of respiratory infections. A review of 29 trials with 11,306 participants found that regular vitamin C supplementation reduced the duration of colds by 8% in adults and 14% in children.¹⁰
8. Probiotics: Certain strains reduce incidence and duration of flu-like illnesses. A Cochrane review found that probiotics were better than placebo in reducing the number of participants experiencing episodes of acute upper respiratory tract infections.¹¹
9. Garlic: Regular consumption may help prevent viral infections including influenza. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found that garlic supplements reduced the incidence of colds by 63%.¹²
10. Black Tea: Associated with lower risk of influenza and other respiratory infections. A large cohort study found that regular tea consumption was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization for pneumonia.¹³

Part IV: Colostrum – A Surprising Contender in Flu Prevention

In the quest for effective flu prevention, a groundbreaking study has emerged that demands our attention. Published in the journal Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis in 2007, the study titled “Prevention of Influenza Episodes With Colostrum Compared With Vaccination in Healthy and High-Risk Cardiovascular Subjects” presents compelling evidence that colostrum may be significantly more effective than the flu vaccine in preventing influenza.¹⁴

This head-to-head comparison of colostrum and flu vaccination is particularly noteworthy given the prevalence of influenza and the potential risks associated with flu vaccines, including the use of mercury in multi-dose batches. The study’s findings challenge the conventional wisdom that vaccination is the most effective means of flu prevention and offer a potentially safer, natural alternative.

Key Findings of the Colostrum Study:

1. Efficacy in Healthy Individuals: Over a two-month period, the colostrum-only group experienced an average of 0.33 flu episodes, compared to 1.1 episodes in the vaccination-only group. This represents a 70% reduction in flu episodes for those taking colostrum.
2. Protection for High-Risk Patients: In high-risk cardiovascular patients, colostrum proved even more beneficial. There were no hospital admissions in the colostrum group, while the vaccination group experienced multiple hospitalizations, including one death due to severe flu complications.
3. Cost-Effectiveness: The total costs associated with flu-related illnesses in the colostrum group were approximately 30% of those observed in the vaccinated group, mainly due to fewer days of illness and no hospital admissions.
4. Safety Profile: Colostrum was well-tolerated by participants, with no significant side effects reported and a compliance rate of over 88%.

Mechanisms of Action:

Colostrum’s effectiveness against influenza can be attributed to its multi-faceted approach to immune support:

1. Broad-Spectrum Antibodies: Colostrum contains immunoglobulins that target not just the flu virus but a wide range of pathogens.
2. Enhanced Immune Response: Growth factors and cytokines in colostrum stimulate the immune system, promoting a quicker and more effective response to infections.
3. Gut Health and Immunity: By supporting gut health, colostrum contributes to improved systemic immunity.

Implications for Flu Prevention:

The results of this study suggest that colostrum could be a valuable tool in flu prevention, particularly for those who are unable or unwilling to receive the flu vaccine. Its ability to reduce the incidence of flu episodes and hospital admissions, especially in high-risk groups, offers a compelling case for its broader use in public health strategies.

This research is especially significant when considered alongside the concerns about traditional flu vaccines, including:

1. Limited Strain Coverage: As mentioned earlier, flu vaccines only target a small fraction of the over 200 viruses that can cause influenza-like illnesses.
2. Mercury Content: Multi-dose vials of flu vaccines often contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, which has raised safety concerns despite regulatory assurances.
3. Potential Immune Suppression: As noted in Part I, some studies have suggested that flu vaccines may actually decrease resistance to viral infections in subsequent years.

Given these concerns, the potential of colostrum as a natural, safe, and effective alternative to flu vaccination warrants serious consideration and further research.

Part V: Integrating Natural Approaches with Modern Medicine

While the colostrum study and other natural approaches show great promise, it’s important to consider them within the broader context of health and immunity. A holistic approach to flu prevention might include:

1. Supporting Overall Immune Function: Through diet, exercise, stress management, and adequate sleep.
2. Targeted Supplementation: Using evidence-based natural remedies like those discussed in Part III, with colostrum potentially playing a central role.
3. Hygienic Practices: Regular handwashing, avoiding close contact with infected individuals, and maintaining clean environments.
4. Informed Decision-Making: Consulting with healthcare providers to determine the most appropriate flu prevention strategy based on individual health status and risk factors.

Conclusion

The approval of self-administered nasal flu vaccines, while potentially offering greater convenience, does not address the fundamental limitations of strain-specific vaccines in the face of numerous influenza viruses. The compelling evidence supporting colostrum as a flu preventative, along with other natural immune-boosting strategies, presents a promising alternative approach.

The study comparing colostrum to flu vaccination is particularly striking and calls for further research to confirm its findings across broader populations and longer time frames. If confirmed, it could represent a paradigm shift in our approach to flu prevention, offering a natural, safe, and potentially more effective alternative to traditional vaccines.

As we navigate flu seasons and potential pandemics, a holistic approach that combines the best of modern medicine with time-tested natural remedies may offer the most comprehensive protection. By supporting our body’s innate defense mechanisms through means such as colostrum supplementation, we may be better equipped to face not just influenza, but a broad spectrum of health challenges.

It’s crucial to note that while these natural approaches show great promise, they should not automatically replace standard medical care. Always consult with a healthcare provider before starting any new supplement regimen, especially if you have underlying health conditions or are taking medications. The goal should be to make informed decisions that best support individual and public health.

References

1. Jefferson T, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(7):CD004876.

2. Skowronski DM, et al. PLoS Med. 2010;7(4):e1000258.

3. Cochrane Summaries

4. Park M, et al. J Nutr. 2011;141(10):1862-70.

5. Zakay-Rones Z, et al. J Int Med Res. 2004;32(2):132-40.

6. Schapowal A, et al. Adv Ther. 2015;32(2):187-200.

7. Predy GN, et al. CMAJ. 2005;173(9):1043-8.

8. Martineau AR, et al. BMJ. 2017;356:i6583.

9. Singh M, Das RR. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(6):CD001364.

10. Hemilä H, Chalker E. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD000980.

11. Hao Q, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(2):CD006895.

12. Nantz MP, et al. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(3):337-44.

13. Chen Y, et al. Eur J Nutr. 2022 Aug 30. Epub ahead of print

14. Cesarone, Maria