Episode

Episode Brief·YouTube

Colostrum More Effective Than Vaccine for Flu? | What the Fitness | Biolayne

Layne Norton

Watch on YouTube Add to chat My bookmarks ← All sources

TL;DR

The four things you'd lose by not watching

4 items

TL;DR

The four things you'd lose by not watching

4 items

Paul Saladino (who sells a colostrum supplement) claimed a 2007 epidemiological study shows colostrum is three times more effective than the flu vaccine at preventing flu.

Layne Norton dismantles the claim: the study used self-reported flu-like symptoms, not confirmed flu, and did not randomize, leading to selection bias (healthy user bias) that Saladino himself often criticizes.

Randomized controlled trials show the flu vaccine reduces actual flu risk by 50–70%, while colostrum may reduce upper respiratory tract infection risk by about 30%, but not flu specifically.

Norton argues Saladino is hypocritical: he bashes epidemiology when it contradicts his views but cites it to sell his product.

What's new

Personal practice updates, fresh positions, predictions

2 items

Colostrum 3x better than flu vaccine claim debunked

Paul Saladino cited a 2007 epidemiological study to claim colostrum is three times more effective than the flu vaccine, but Layne Norton exposes severe methodological flaws (self-reported symptoms, no randomization, healthy user bias) and highlights that Saladino himself has repeatedly called epidemiology 'garbage'.

Why this matters: It illustrates how an influencer with a product can selectively embrace or dismiss evidence based on financial interest, and the dissonance between his past statements and present promotion.

Background

Colostrum was a popular supplement in the 1990s bodybuilding scene, touted for anabolic and immune benefits, but its efficacy never held up. The supplement cycle sees it resurrected periodically by marketers.

Layne Norton reviews the study 'Prevention of influenza episodes with colostrum compared with vaccination in healthy and high-risk cardiovascular subjects' from 2007. He points out that the authors, and Saladino, claim colostrum is 'at least three times more effective than a flu vaccine' at preventing the flu. However, the study was epidemiological, not a randomized controlled trial; flu was not objectively tested—participants only reported flu-like symptoms, which could be a cold. Additionally, people who get vaccinated tend to be from higher-risk populations with pre-existing conditions, while those who choose colostrum may be healthier and more health-conscious (healthy user bias). This confounds the comparison. Norton also confirms that randomized controlled trials of influenza vaccines show a 50–70% risk reduction in actual flu, while the best data on colostrum suggests a 30% reduction in self-reported upper respiratory tract infections, not flu. Therefore, the 'three times more effective' claim is unsupported and irresponsible.

Personal experience

Norton recalls that colostrum was promoted when he got into bodybuilding in the late '90s, but it never lived up to the hype: 'It just doesn't really do much. So, that's why it goes away, and people like you exhume this zombie supplement to try and trot it back out as some new thing.'

He literally has entire videos saying epidemiology is garbage. What the hell do you think this is, you dense... Literally, epidemiology in the title. How can you fight this with a straight face?

Also said

“They didn't actually assess the flu. People self-reported flu-like symptoms. You could have a cold and have flu-like symptoms.”— Highlights the critical defect in the primary outcome measure.

“This was, again, an epidemiology study, which cannot be used to establish causations, and they did not account for differences in baseline health.”— Reinforces the methodological critique and Saladino's own past stance on epidemiology.

“Colostrum does seem to have like a 30% risk reduction in upper respiratory tract infection. So, it may actually help with that.”— Adds nuance: Norton acknowledges a possible modest benefit, distinguishing it from the exaggerated claim.

Saladino's hypocrisy: bashing epidemiology except when it sells products

Paul Saladino has created multiple videos dismissing epidemiological studies as garbage, yet he cites an observational study to support his colostrum product.

Why this matters: This exposes a pattern where influencers only respect evidence when it aligns with their commercial interests, eroding trust in their health advice.

Background

Saladino frequently uses the term 'healthy user bias' to dismiss cohort studies that conflict with his diet and supplement recommendations.

Norton brings up the contradiction: Saladino is on record saying 'just throw the cohort studies out.' The very study he champions to claim colostrum's superiority against the flu is epidemiological. He conveniently forgets the healthy user bias argument when it benefits his product sales. This double standard is emblematic of how evidence can be weaponized; the same person who mocks epidemiology as unscientific pivots to using it as definitive proof when it serves a narrative.

What he really means is all epidemiology is garbage except the epidemiology that he uses to sell you guys.

Also said

“He cares about selling you that. Paul's favorite phrase, 'healthy user bias,' which he throws around all the time when epidemiology disagrees with what he has to say, but seems to have forget that this term exists when he can sell you.”— Demonstrates Saladino's selective memory of the bias.

“But, Dr. Norton, why would he say that colostrum is three times more effective than the flu vaccine when they didn't even measure the flu? Elementary, my dear Watson. He sells that.”— Boils down the motivation to financial incentive.

Recommendations

Products, supplements, and tools mentioned in the episode

1 item

Critical appraisal of health study claims

Practice

Layne Norton implores viewers to scrutinize studies, especially when a product is being sold. He demonstrates how to identify selection bias, use of self-reported outcomes, and conflicts of interest.

Throughout the segment, Norton models how a critical consumer should evaluate a health claim: check if the study actually measured the disease objectively versus self-reported symptoms; look for randomization and control for confounders; note whether the population that chooses an intervention differs from the control group (healthy user bias); weigh the evidence against higher-quality data (RCTs on vaccines). He points out that the epidemiology study Saladino cited measured 'flu-like symptoms,' not actual flu, and that vaccine groups tend to be sicker at baseline, making the colostrum group appear superior by selection bias. This practice is not just for this case but a generalizable skill to avoid being misled by supplement marketing.

They didn't actually assess the flu. People self-reported flu-like symptoms. You could have a cold and have flu-like symptoms.

Also said

“This was, again, an epidemiology study, which cannot be used to establish causations, and they did not account for differences in baseline health.”— Emphasizes the hierarchy of evidence and the need for causation over correlation.

Find Critical

Notable quotes

Lines worth pulling out — contrarian, specific, or perfectly phrased

4 items

Colostrum is more effective than a flu vaccine in preventing the flu. Holy Lee.

The dramatic hook that sets up the entire critique; it's a direct quote from Paul Saladino that Norton uses to highlight the absurdity.

He literally has entire videos saying epidemiology is garbage. What the hell do you think this is, you dense... Literally, epidemiology in the title. How can you fight this with a straight face?

Captures Norton's exasperation and the core hypocrisy argument.

What he really means is all epidemiology is garbage except the epidemiology that he uses to sell you guys.

A pithy distillation of the cynical incentive structure.

But, Dr. Norton, why would he say that colostrum is three times more effective than the flu vaccine when they didn't even measure the flu? Elementary, my dear Watson. He sells that.

The rhetorical payoff that ties the motive directly to selling a product.

Sign in to share feedback

Tell us if this brief hit the mark or missed it — feedback feeds back into the next iteration of the prompt.

Topics covered

colostrumflu-vaccineepidemiologyhealthy-user-biasself-report-biasconfoundingrandomized-controlled-trialsevidence-hierarchyhypocrisysupplement-marketinginfluenza-prevention

Free account

Make this library yours

Reading is free for everyone. A free account adds the personal layer: save protocols, follow experts, and see how the other experts weigh in on this same topic.

Create a free account Sign in

Educational summary of the cited expert source — not medical advice. Open the source recording linked above and consult a qualified physician before acting on any protocol.