Because there is so much misinformation regarding this topic I felt it irresponsible to write a single-paged newsletter which would not allow for the citation of enough evidence to allow an evidence-based appraisal of the effectiveness of the flu vaccine. Thus, this month’s newsletter is multiple pages and contains citations from multiple rather than a single peer-reviewed article. I sincerely hope the information herein is helpful in allowing you to make an evidence-informed decision and, regardless of what decision you make, next month’s newsletter will provide some crucial information on how to optimize your immune system regardless of whether you choose to get the flu vaccine.

One of the most common claims you will hear about the flu vaccine is that, though it may not prevent influenza, it may prevent serious complications or mortality from influenza. As Thomas Jefferson writes in the British Medical Journal: 

“A meta-analysis of inactivated vaccines in elderly people showed a gradient from no effect against influenza or influenza-like illness to a large effect (up to 60%) in preventing all-cause mortality. These findings are both counterintuitive and implausible, as other causes of death are far more prevalent in elderly people even in the winter months. It is impossible for a vaccine that does not prevent influenza to prevent its complications, including admission to hospital.” (Jefferson, T. Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence British Medical Journal 333:912-15).

Further, it is well established that any reductions in mortality from flu vaccine are due not to the vaccine’s ability to prevent all-cause mortality, (meaning death from all causes including car accidents, cancer, heart disease etc – ABSURD) but due to the fact that the most frail elderly, the ones most likely to die during any flu season and any other time of year, are not given the flu vaccine because they have no ability to mount a proper immune response. So, the unvaccinated are the sickest and thus most likely to die regardless of vaccine status. This is why the “unvaccinated elderly” also have higher mortality rates in the summer when there is no flu – they are just more likely to die because they are frail and at end of life – usually in care homes where the life expectancy is less than 2 years.

Jackson et al. (2006) Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors. Int J of Epidemiology 35:337-344 

“Numerous observational studies have reported that seniors who receive influenza vaccine are at substantially lower risk of death and hospitalization during influenza season than unvaccinated seniors.^1–24 The main issue in interpreting those findings is whether preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors could account for some or all of the observed reduction in the risk of health outcomes.”

“The reductions in risk before influenza season indicate preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors. Adjustment for diagnosis code variables did not control for this bias. In this study, the magnitude of the bias demonstrated by the associations before the influenza season was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed during influenza season.”

Fireman et al. (2009) Influenza Vaccination and Mortality: Differentiating Vaccine Effects from Bias. Am J Epidemiol 170:650-656

“Vaccine coverage peaked in people whose predicted probability of death during the upcoming flu year was 3.0%–7.4% and fell below 50% in patients whose probability of death within a year was over 30%.” THE SICKEST, MOST LIKELY TO DIE ARE NOT VACCINATED AND THIS IS WHY THE VACCINE APPEARS TO PREVENT DEATH – THE HEALTHIER VACCINATED (HEALTHY USERS) ARE LESS LIKELY TO DIE WITH OR WITHOUT THE VACCINE - IT’S STATISTICAL FRAUD!!!

“As expected, death was associated with older age, male sex, and a history of diabetes, heart disease, heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The insurance risk score was a strong predictor of death: 43% percent of decedents scored in the highest (riskiest) 10 percentiles.”

“In a meta-analysis of results from 20 cohort and case-control studies, Voordouw et al.⁽⁶⁾ found that flu shots reduce winter deaths by 50%, on average; and in a more recent study, Nichol et al.⁽¹⁹⁾ reported a 48% reduction in all-cause mortality among the elderly during flu season. However, Simonsen et al.^{(11, 12, 20)} found that excess mortality attributable to influenza has only been 5%–10% on average during flu seasons in the past several decades. They argued that flu shots could not possibly have prevented more deaths than the 5%–10% of deaths that were flu-related^(11–13). Our estimate of excess mortality during flu season was 7.8%, which is consistent with Simonsen et al.’s nationwide estimate but lower than estimates made by others^(21–23).”

Eurich et al. (2008) Mortality Reduction with Influenza Vaccine in Patients with Pneumonia Outside “Flu” Season. Pleiotropic Benefits or Residual Confounding? Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 178: 527-533

“Observational studies suggest a 50% mortality reduction for older patients receiving influenza vaccination; some deem this magnitude of benefit implausible and invoke confounding by the ‘‘healthy user effect’’ as an alternate explanation. A very large all-cause mortality benefit associated with influenza vaccination has important clinical, health/economic, and policy implications for recommendations in guidelines and resource allocation.”

“First, although few randomized trials have been completed, no trial data support a mortality benefit with influenza vaccination^(3–5). Second, over the last two decades in the United States, even while vaccination rates among the elderly have increased from 15 to 65%, there has been no commensurate decrease in hospital admissions or all-cause mortality^(1–3). In fact, both admission rates and mortality in those 65 years and older have increased with increasing vaccine coverage over time^(1–3).”

“Third, some studies have observed mortality reduction with influenza vaccination in the ‘‘off-season’’ (i.e., the time of year when there is little if any circulating virus)^{(5, 9, 10)}. Last, studies that are able to better adjust for health and functional status or other measures of frailty demonstrate attenuation or abolition of mortality benefit, suggesting substantial residual confounding in most reported observational studies of vaccine effectiveness^{(4, 5, 11)}. This phenomenon has been variously referred to as frailty bias or the healthy-vaccinee effect or, more generally, as the ‘‘healthy-user effect.”

“We observed a large mortality benefit in patients who had received influenza vaccination before their hospitalization for pneumonia, even though it is extremely unlikely they had an influenza-related illness. Specifically, in unadjusted analyses, we found a statistically significant 51% relative reduction in all-cause mortality during hospitalization, from 15 to 8%, for those who were previously vaccinated. However, with progressively more careful adjustment for disease severity and measures of the healthy-user effect, the estimated benefit of influenza vaccination was markedly attenuated (19% reduction in mortality) and no longer statistically significant. Our results are most consistent with residual and difficult-to-correct confounding.”

“Many initiatives are underway to increase rates of annual influenza vaccination in the elderly because of the putative mortality benefits, despite increasing concerns about the evidence underpinning these well-intended recommendations. It would seem prudent to us that before the implementation of such overarching recommendations, that higher quality evidence of benefit be generated first.”

“Furthermore, because we were also unable to control completely for the healthy-user effect, we hope our findings might help tilt the balance toward clinical equipoise and permit much needed and adequately powered randomized trials of influenza vaccine in the elderly to take place.” THEY REFUSE TO DO THESE VALID RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS!!

What this all means is that all the estimates of benefit from the flu vaccine (this is NOT unique to the flu vaccine by the way) are not based on valid scientific evidence but on manipulation of statistics in order to make an existing public health policy seem justified. Then, they claim that doing a real placebo-controlled trial of vaccinated vs unvaccinated would be unethical because the vaccine saves so many lives (which is proven to be untrue)! It’s not just unscientific and unethical, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars which could be better spent elsewhere on interventions that could actually save lives.

Below are some more citations so you can see that there is an enormous amount of information that has been published that the media, public health organizations, and healthcare workers virtually never discuss. They used to! 

Here is a link to a story by CBS news on the lack of effectiveness of the flu shot from 2006 – before BIG PHARMA bought the media by becoming the largest advertisers on every network.

https://x.com/i/status/1889815859956240503

Shrestha et al. (2025) Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season. medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421

“In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing job, and employment location, the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated state yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of -26.9% (95% C.I., -55.0 to -6.6%).”

The vaccinated had a 26.9% INCREASED RISK OF INFLUENZA compared to the unvaccinated!

“Conclusions. This study found that influenza vaccination of working-aged adults was associated with a higher risk [compared to not getting the vaccine] of influenza during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season, suggesting that the vaccine has not been effective in preventing influenza this season.”

Groll & Henry (2002) Can a universal influenza immunization program reduce emergency department volume? Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine 4(4):245-51

“During the influenza season after the universal immunization campaign, Emergency Department visits increased at all sites. Conclusion: Based on this study, a universal influenza immunization campaign is unlikely to affect Emergency Department volume.”

Free flu vaccine fails to reduce cases. Tom Blackwell. National Post. Tuesday May 6, 2006

“Canada's first experiment in universal, free flu vaccine has cost Ontario taxpayers more than $200-million, but appears to have done nothing to cut the spread of influenza, a new study suggests. Per-capita flu rates in the province have not fallen at all since the program was introduced in 2000, concluded the University of Ottawa research, published in the journal Vaccine. In fact, the average monthly incidence of the virus jumped over the first five years of the program, though researchers say it is too early to say that numbers are really on the rise.”

Osterholm et al. (2012) Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 12:36-44

“No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza.”

“Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking.”

Jefferson, T. et al. (2006) Influenza vaccination: policy vs evidence. BMJ 2006; 333:912-915

“A meta-analysis of inactivated vaccines in elderly people showed a gradient from no effect against influenza or influenza-like illness to a large effect (up to 60%) in preventing all-cause mortality.”

“These findings are both counterintuitive and implausible, as other causes of death are far more prevalent in elderly people even in the winter months. It is impossible for a vaccine that does not prevent influenza to prevent its complications, including admission to hospital.”

“This problem (in the opposite direction—with frailer people more likely to be vaccinated) has been identified before but not heeded.” 

“In children under 2 years inactivated vaccines had the same field efficacy as placebo, and in healthy people under 65 vaccination did not affect hospital stay, time off work, or death from influenza and its complications.”

“A further consequence is reliance on non-randomised studies once the campaign is under way.”

“Ultimately non-randomised designs cannot answer questions on the effects of influenza vaccines.”

“The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and of the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking.”

“Summary points:

• Public policy worldwide recommends the use of inactivated influenza vaccines to prevent seasonal outbreaks
• Because viral circulation and antigenic match vary each year and non-randomised studies predominate, systematic reviews of large datasets from several decades provide the best information on vaccine performance
  
• Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines have little or no effect on the effects measured
  
• Most studies are of poor methodological quality and the impact of confounders is high
  
• Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines
  
• Reasons for the current gap between policy and evidence are unclear, but given the huge resources involved, a re-evaluation should be urgently undertaken”

Jefferson, T. et al. (2010) Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 8: Article #CDOO4879

“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.”

“In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%).”

What he is saying is that the strain of influenza in the vaccine RARELY matches the circulating strains of influenza in any given flu season. But, even when they do get the strains correct and they do match, the absolute benefit in terms of preventing influenza symptoms is only 3% (4% vs 1%). Diabolically however, this gets reported as a relative difference of 400% increased chance of unvaccinated developing influenza symptoms vs vaccinated (4%:1%). They always report relative difference not absolute difference to artificially inflate the perception of benefit. They do this for all drugs and virtually all medical interventions. It’s lies, damn lies, and statistics as Twain so aptly put it.

“The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1%, 95% CI 0% to 3%).”

Jefferson, T. et al. (2012) Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.8: Article #CDOO4879

“Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo.”

“The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.”

Demicheli et al. (2018) Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly (Review) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004876.

Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI [influenza-like illness].

“The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72).” In other words ZERO protection from mortality from the vaccine – ZERO!

 “No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)).”

“The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older.” 

“Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.”

NOTE HOW OFTEN SCIENTISTS BEG FOR PROPER STUDIES TO BE DONE – OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES!!! WHY DO THEY REFUSE TO DO THESE STUDIES??? IT’S NOT FUNDING, THEY FUND A MULTITUDE OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES TO TRY TO JUSTIFY THE VACCINES! SADLY THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THEY HAVE EITHER DONE THESE STUDIES AND REFUSED TO PUBLISH THE RESULTS OR THEY REFUSE TO DO THE STUDIES BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF THE RESULTS – THERE IS NO OTHER RATIONAL EXPLANATION.

I will end with citations from an article written by Peter Doshi when he was a postdoctoral fellow at John Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is now an associate professor at the Maryland School of Pharmacy and the Senior Editor of the British Medical Journal.

Doshi, Peter (2013) Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease. British Medical Journal 346:f3037

“Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.”

“Risk of serious illness is a problem—but, according to the official narrative, a tractable problem, thanks to vaccines. As another CDC poster, this time aimed at seniors, explains: “Shots aren’t just for kids. Vaccines for adults can prevent serious diseases and even death.”¹¹ And in its more technical guidance document, CDC musters the evidence to support its case. The agency points to two retrospective, observational studies. One, a 1995 peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded: “many studies confirm that influenza vaccine reduces the risks for pneumonia, hospitalization, and death in elderly persons during an influenza epidemic if the vaccine strain is identical or similar to the epidemic strain.”¹² They calculated a reduction of “27% to 30% for preventing deaths from all causes”—that is, a 30% lower risk of dying from any cause, not just from influenza. CDC also cites a more recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, funded by the National Vaccine Program Office and the CDC, which found an even larger relative reduction in risk of death: 48%.¹³”

“If true, these statistics indicate that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.^{14 15”}

“Healthy user bias threatens to render the observational studies, on which officials’ scientific case rests, not credible. Yet for most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it. But for those that bother to read the CDC’s national guidelines¹⁹—a 68 page document of 33 360 words and 552 references—one finds that the evidence cited is these observational studies that the agency itself acknowledges may be undermined by bias.”

“The CDC guidelines state: “. . . studies demonstrating large reductions in hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated elderly have been conducted using medical record databases and have not measured reductions in laboratory-confirmed influenza illness. These studies have been challenged because of concerns that they have not controlled adequately for differences in the propensity for healthier persons to be more likely than less healthy persons to receive vaccination.”¹⁹”

“If the observational studies cannot be trusted, what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none. Theoretically, a randomized trial might shine some light—or even settle the matter. But there has only been one randomized trial of influenza vaccines in older people—conducted two decades ago—and it showed no mortality benefit (the trial was not powered to detect decreases in mortality or any complications of influenza). This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes. Approval is instead tied to a demonstrated ability of the vaccine to induce antibody production, without any evidence that those antibodies translate into reductions in illness.”

“Perhaps most perplexing is officials’ lack of interest in the absence of good quality evidence. Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Atlantic that it “would be unethical” to do a placebo-controlled study of influenza vaccine in older people.²⁰ The reason? Placebo recipients would be deprived of influenza vaccines—that is, the standard of care, thanks to CDC guidelines.”

“Drug companies have long known that to sell some products, you would have to first sell people on the disease. Early 20th century advertising for the mouthwash Listerine, for example, warned readers of the problem of “halitosis”—thereby turning bad breath into a widespread social concern.²⁶ Similarly, in the 1950s and 1960s, Merck launched an extensive campaign to lower the diagnostic threshold for hypertension, and in doing so enlarging the market for its diuretic drug, Diuril (chlorothiazide).²⁷ [The exact same thing was done for cholesterol drugs and antidepressants and anti-anxiety and ADHD drugs!] Today drug companies suggest that we have underdiagnosed epidemics of erectile dysfunction, social anxiety disorder, and female sexual dysfunction, each with their own convenient acronym and an approved medication at the ready.”

“But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.”

“All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.” “Could influenza—a disease known for centuries, well defined in terms of its etiology, diagnosis, and prognosis—be yet one more case of disease mongering? I think it is. But unlike most stories of selling sickness, here the salesmen are public health officials, worried little about which brand of vaccine you get so long as they can convince you to take influenza seriously.”

“Marketing influenza vaccines thus involves marketing influenza as a threat of great proportions. The CDC’s website explains that “Flu seasons are unpredictable and can be severe,” citing a death toll of “3 000 to a high of about 49 000 people.” However, a far less volatile and more reassuring picture of influenza seems likely if one considers that recorded deaths from influenza declined sharply over the middle of the 20th century, at least in the United States, all before the great expansion of vaccination campaigns in the 2000s, and despite three so-called “pandemics” (1957, 1968, 2009).” 

THE EXACT SAME HOLDS TRUE FROM DEATHS FROM ALL THE CHILDHOOD ILLNESSES FOR WHICH THERE ARE VACCINES. LOOK AT THE ANNUAL MORTALITY RATES FROM THESE CHILDHOOD DISEASES FOR THE DECADE PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE VACCINE CAMPAIGNS AND YOU WILL SEE THAT DEATHS FROM THESE ILLNESSES HAD ALREADY DECLINED BY OVER 90% PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE VACCINES! YET, THEY CITE “LIVES SAVED” BY COMPARING DEATHS AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF THE VACCINES TO THE WORST MORTALITY RATE YEARS THAT OCCURRED LONG BEFORE BETTER HYGIENE AND BETTER EMERGENCY CARE DECREASED THE DEATH RATES BY 90%. THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN FED MORE OF A SALES CAMPAIGN THAN VALID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND THE PEOPLE PUTTING OUT THIS PROPAGANDA HAVE FINANCIAL TIES TO THE VACCINES. IT’S POLLUTED AND IT NEEDS TO BE PURIFIED AND PROPER VALID SCIENCE NEEDS TO BE CONDUCTED.

FACA: Conflict of Interest and vaccine development – preserving the integrity of the process.  Committee on Government Reform: House of Representatives USA June 15, 2000 Serial Number 106-239

“We’ve looked very carefully at conflicts of interest. We’ve taken a good, hard look at whether the pharmaceutical industry has too much influence over these committees. From the evidence we’ve found, we believe that they do.”

“How confident in the safety and need of specific vaccines would doctors and parents be if they learned the following:

“The chair of the FDA and CDC advisory committees who make these decisions own stock in drug companies that make the vaccines.”

“Individuals on both advisory committees own patents for vaccines under consideration, or affected by the decisions of the committees.”

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

There is no valid evidence to support the claims of clinically meaningful benefit from the flu vaccine campaigns and the “healthy user effect” negates all the falsely claimed benefits of reductions in hospitalizations and all-cause mortality.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO

Educate yourself and your loved ones with valid scientific evidence from valid scientific studies.

In next month’s newsletter I will share the evidence about the effectiveness of Vitamin D and Omega-3 supplementation for optimizing immune function and reducing incidence and severity of seasonal respiratory illness from colds and flus.

You need to supplement with 4000-5000 IUs/day of Vitamin D and 1.6 g/day of Omega-3 Fatty Acids EVERY DAY – FOR LIFE! Innate Choice® OmegA+D Sufficiency™ contains this EXACT dosage.

For more information and to order the Innate Choice® Essential Nutrient System™ Supplements, please visit www.eatwellmovewellthinkwell.com.