I'm sure we can all relate to the feeling of wanting a plan to work badly enough that we move forward with it despite a lack of evidence that it's a good idea — or even in the face of evidence to the contrary. This isn't such a big deal if you're an individual determined to go to the ball game even though it looks like rain. But if you're an organization charged with making major health decisions that affect the general population, the consequences of a poor decision can be a lot more serious.
Unfortunately, this is what happened a few years ago, when the World Health Organization (WHO) added Tamiflu to its essential medicines list. Particularly with the outbreaks of avian influenza and H1N1 the WHO was facing at the time, it's understandable that the WHO wanted an easy, effective way to fight the flu. When Tamiflu promised to be that solution, the WHO quickly accepted it. Here's why that was a mistake.
The FDA and the European Medicines Agency and ultimately the WHO based their approval of Tamiflu on just two randomized trials with limited data. This led to over $18 billion in sales of the drug, with half of that being funded by governments stockpiling it in case of an emergency. But the two trials didn't tell the whole story.
Eventually, they released more research that indicated Tamiflu only reduced symptoms by an average of 20 hours and didn't reduce the likelihood of pneumonia, hospital admission, or complications requiring an antibiotic at all. So these governments essentially spent billions of dollars solely to reduce symptoms by about a day — money that could have been far better spent elsewhere. These unpublished studies also provided evidence of Tamiflu's negative side effects, including nausea, vomiting, and even psychiatric events.
Why Native Chinese Have Half the Rate of High Blood Pressure as their American Cousins
They use a 5,000-year-old formula that works even when conventional remedies fail. Modern studies show it works!
Click Here To Learn More
I understand wanting to protect your citizens from the flu. But these governments and the WHO should have done their homework a lot better. If they had, they might have realized that they don't need a drug to fight the flu at all. There are plenty of natural ways to do so — and they don't require spending billions on pharmaceuticals.
I recommend starting with vitamin D. You want your levels to be at least 60-70 ng/ml. If they're any lower, you should be taking about 5,000 units of vitamin D3 per day, especially during flu season. During flu season, I also recommend Super Immune QuickStart to further supplement your immune system. This combination will help you fend off the flu virus in the first place.
However, if you are exposed to the flu or expect that you will be, I recommend you take EpiCor as well. EpiCor is an all-natural yeast-based product manufactured through a patented multi-stage fermentation and drying process. Only one company in the world makes it: Embria Health Sciences, in Ankeny, IA. The basic idea for this product came from the cattle industry where it has been used for over 50 years as an immune system stimulant. Recently, the same production principles have been applied to make a product suitable for human immune systems. And when you use it to fight the flu, it really works! It's the best cold and flu preventer that I've ever used.
The bottom line is that you don't need to wait until you get the flu to take a drug that will just make you slightly less miserable. You can start today to avoid the flu altogether.
Yours for better health,
Frank Shallenberger, MD