To be honest I don't want to read the whole study but the first thing that jumps out is the terminology used.
This in particular:
Flu vaccines, according to the latest scientific evidence, achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms
vs:
This means vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children.
Did they mean to say that VitD is 800% more effective in prevention influenza symptom? I would hope that an Immunosuppressive steroid is more effective in preventing symptoms...even more effective than a bunch of Metals and chemicals in vaccines...
So these headlines are really misleading, it should say symptoms not infections. Unless they did a viral study on each child after the test.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_influenza.html
Should I point out, yet again, in response to your multiple posts of this study that, in addition to it being almost 25 years old, it was conducted on mice, who are nocturnal non-human creatures who have different mechanisms than humans for producing vitamin D, different pathways and different receptors than do humans?
I am tempted to report you to the SPCA.
It appears that there is indeed no end of studies you already have posted, many of which are 15 or more years old and many of which were conducted on mice, which points to immuno-suppression by vitamin D. Once again, the above study talks about the benefits of viamin D in preventing dangerous autoimmune response:
"When given in vivo, the hormone prevents the development of spontaneous and induced models of autoimmunity."
The studies you post, by and large, do not support the Marshall hypothesis of vitamin D being harmful. Often just the opposite when you look at the context of the studies and the conclusions.
Now, when it comes to posting studies - I promise you that for every study you post which might indicate actual harm from vitamin D when taken in sensible levels, I could post scores and scores of studies showing benefits for vitamin D. Is it not the case, in fact, that one of your and the other vitamin D fringe groups contentionsof harm from vitamin D the overwhelming preponderence of studies and support that are in favor of vitamin D?
Are we to believe that anything that mainstream medicine or science largely supports is automatically a conspiracy to harm us? You know, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and support of medical science also tells us of the benefits of water and oxygen. Should we therefore try to limit or avoid those items too?
I agree that knowing the mechanisms is important and I likewise agree that there is reason for caution when supplementing with very large amounts of vitamin D3. However, MY POINT is that when one does not get vitamin D from natural sunshine or perhaps fish oil, in the vast majority of people they would be far better off to use supplemental vitamin D3 than to allow themselves to become vitamin D deficient. To say otherwise is advice that is not only wrong, but potentially harmful for most people.
I will also point out that, vitamin D3 is indeed produced via a chemical process, the process alters lanolin from sheep's wool into vitamin D3. To me, while not preferable in any way to natural vitamin D3, that hardly sounds as Franensteinish as other lab created compounds.
In essence the study merely says that "we don't know" and that further study is needed. Not exactly a condemnation of Vitamin D3.
Is your advice to people who are unable or unwilling to get adequate vitamin D from sunlight or sources such as fish oil to not taken supplemental vitamin D3 in any amounts? If such is the case, it is my very strong opinion that your advice will be harmful in far more instances than those where it might be beneficial.
OK, let's cut to the chase.
My advice is to get your vitamin D as much as possible from the sun, and secondarily when needed from natural sources such as fish oil, and then in lieu of getting adequate vitamin D from those sources for whatever reason, that it is best to supplement with reasonable amounts of vitamin D3 rather than becoming deficient in vitamin D.
Perhaps an overlooked point here is that when we limit our debate to only the pros and cons of Vitamin D3 supplementation, it may appear that I on the vitamin D3 bandwagon that would have us believe that most of our health issues can be remedied or avoided simply by taking supplemental vitamin D3. Let me make it absolutely clear that I'm decidedly not on that bandwagon, and in that sense you and I may very likely agree that giving people the perception that all they have to do is load up with D3 and all will be fine is not a healthy message.
Trying to fix yourself or fortify yourself with a single supplement while neglecting to address your overall health needs is not what I recommend in any instance - that is just chasing a cure in a bottle the same as people try to find cures in mainstream drugs.
Rather, it is my recommendation that people make sure that they live and eat healthily and get optimum amounts of essential nutritional items on a regular basis (and as much as possible from nutrient dense foods and then food derived sources). People who do that are not likely to have a problem with any immune suppression issues from reasonable amounts of vitamin D3 regardless of how it works.
Anyway, 'nuff debate. I have articles to write, website pages to update, books to finish and much, much more. Maybe even a nap . . . .