The Published Research Showing Influenza Vaccines are Ineffective, and Often Harmful

Flu shots are a scam; pass it on.

The global influenza vaccine market was valued at almost US $8 billion in 2023.

“These drugs cost very little to manufacture and people are being charged 100 times what it costs to make the drugs and often these are drugs that are no longer on patent, so itʼs pure profit,” said Dr Gerard Anderson, a public health professor at Johns Hopkinsʼs Bloomberg School of Public Health.

This lucrative market is driven by a sustained propaganda campaign, in which the public is continually warned the impending flu season will be an especially nasty one. Predictably, The Experts™ claim the best way to protect one’s self from this impending sniffle tsunami is to get injected with an influenza vaccine.

In a textbook classic case of pro-vaccine hogwash, then-CDC Director Tom Frieden claimed at a 2015 news conference:

“Flu is unpredictable, but you can predict that the single-best thing you can do to protect yourself is to get a flu vaccine.”

That’s utter nonsense.

Published research shows the influenza vaccines are useless.

Actually, they’re worse than useless - some studies show they increase the risk of getting sick and requiring hospitalization.

The Studies You’re Never Told About

Leibovitz 1971 compared an inactivated influenza vaccine with no vaccine among 1,682 vaccinated and 7,934 controls. The subjects were newly inducted trainees receiving basic combat training at Fort Ord, California.

During the study period (February 1, 1970 - May 18, 1970), an identical proportion of subjects in each group (17%) were hospitalized with upper respiratory infection.

In Monto 1982, 306 students received either a live, attenuated influenza B virus vaccine or a placebo containing Hanks' balanced salt solution (a mixture containing various minerals, chloride, phosphate, bicarbonate and glucose).

During the first six days post-injection, sore throat occurred briefly in 26% of the vaccine recipients and in 10.5% of the placebo recipients.

Three months after injection the flu season of 1980 occurred, during which a similar number of vaccine and placebo subjects reported respiratory illness (50.7 versus 49.3%, respectively).

Keitel 1988 compared a trivalent influenza vaccine with sterile saline placebo in nearly 700 healthy 30- to 60-year-old volunteers in Houston, Texas, over two ‘epidemic’ seasons (1983-1985).

The percentage of volunteers reporting any illness was similar for each vaccine group during each epidemic, as was the percentage with fever, and lower respiratory and/or systemic illness.

The duration of illness and number of volunteers whose activity was restricted were similar for all three groups.

The researchers admitted, “Although significant protection against documented influenza infections was demonstrated for all three major viruses in our study, no reductions were noted in the frequency of respiratory illness reported during either epidemic season for either vaccine group when compared with the placebo group.”

Testing negative to non-existent influenza viruses via ‘serologic’ testing or PCR is not the same thing as actually being free of respiratory illness.

Weingarten 1988 was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted during the 1985-1986 influenza season.

The subjects were 179 full-time employees at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, randomly assigned to receive either inactivated influenza split-virus vaccine or saline placebo.

The published paper was titled “Do Hospital Employees Benefit from the Influenza Vaccine?”

The answer was no.

Over the two-month study period, the incidence of illness, duration of fever, and severity of illness was similar between groups.

The only meaningful difference was that the vaccine group suffered a far higher rate of irritation and pain at the injection site.

Atmar 1990 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial with 74 healthy adults (18 to 40 years). The subjects received a monovalent cold-recombinant influenza virus vaccine or placebo (the placebo was not a saline solution, but allantoic fluid - a clear fluid emanating from a sac-like structure in embryos called the the allantois).

The subjects were followed for a week post-injection.

A higher number of the flu vaccine recipients suffered a respiratory illness during the following seven days compared to placebo subjects (37% versus 15%, respectively).

One female volunteer who received the flu vaccine developed subacute thyroiditis within one week post-injection.

Beran 2009 was a Czech study comparing a trivalent inactivated split virus influenza vaccine with a placebo containing saline solution.

A total of 6,203 subjects were randomized to receive the vaccine (4,137) or placebo (2,066). The subjects were followed for 21 days post-injection.

During the follow-up period, 6% of vaccine recipients experienced an influenza-like illness event, compared to 5.6% of the placebo recipients.

Cochrane Review Finds Little Evidence of Efficacy

A 2018 Cochrane review included 52 trials examining the efficacy of influenza vaccines. Of these, 15 were sponsored by industry, 32 were funded by “government, institutional, or public” funds, and 5 received mixed funding.

The researchers warned, “It is now known that industry funding of influenza vaccine studies determines publication in high-prestige journals and higher citation rates than other types of funding. In addition, industry funding is associated with optimistic conclusions, but the quality of the majority of influenza vaccine studies is low, irrespective of funding.”

From this mass of less-than-optimal research, they concluded:

Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% … and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% …

Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalisation in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1% … Vaccines may lead to little or no small reduction in days off work (-0.04 days).

Inactivated vaccines cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%.

(Bold emphasis added).

So even taking these results at face value, 81.9% of those who take a flu vaccine will supposedly remain free of influenza-like illness, compared to 78.5% of those who do not take a vaccine.

Taking these results at face value, 85.9% of those who are vaccinated will stay out of hospital due to ILI, compared to 85.3% of those who shun that season’s vaccine.

But we should not take these results at face value, because they are derived from studies funded by intensely pro-vaccine entities, primarily government and industry, neither of which have an admirable reputation for honesty and transparency.

The reality is the true results are likely to be even more unimpressive than what these entities have claimed in their published papers.

CDC’s Own Data Shows Increased Risk of Acute Respiratory Illness from Flu Shots

Remember the CDC, one of the world’s biggest vaccine shill organizations that insists the best way to stay healthy during flu season is to get injected with pharma drugs?

In 2017, it published a paper examining the rate of laboratory-confirmed acute respiratory infection (ARI) in the 14 days after influenza vaccination.

From 2013 to 2016, they conducted a cohort sub-analysis of 999 participants (68.8% children, 30.2% adults) from a primarily immigrant Latino community in northern Manhattan, New York City.

The hazard of laboratory-confirmed influenza in individuals during the 14-days post-vaccination was similar to unvaccinated individuals.

However, the 14-day risk of ARI from non-influenza respiratory pathogens was 65% higher among vaccinated participants. When stratified by age, the hazard remained higher for children (hazard ratio 1.71) but not for adults.

The researchers were forced to admit:

“Among children there was an increase in the hazard of ARI caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period.”

Influenza Vaccination Increases Hospitalization Among Children and Teens

Joshi 2012 reported a case control study of pediatric subjects (6 months to 18 years old) evaluated at the Mayo Clinic who had laboratory-confirmed influenza during each flu season from 1999 to 2006.

Two hundred twenty-six (86.5%) subjects were unvaccinated and 35 (13.5%) subjects were vaccinated. Thirty-four of those 35 had received the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine.

Those thirty-four kids had a 3.67 times higher rate of hospitalization compared to those who did not get vaccinated.

Influenza Vaccination Does Not Help the Elderly

Anderson 2020 sought to determine the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in reducing hospitalizations and mortality among elderly UK residents (55 to 75 years).

The dataset was massive, covering cover 170 million episodes of care from April 2000 to March 2011, and 7.6 million deaths from January 2000 to December 2014.

In the 2000-to-2001 influenza season, UK policy was revised to prioritize vaccination of persons aged 65 years or older. This was reflected in a significant increase in vaccination rates after 65 years of age.

However, the researchers found no evidence of reduced total, pneumonia or influenza hospitalizations after the 65-year threshold. There was also no evidence of reduced all-cause mortality nor of mortality related to pneumonia or influenza.

The “I Get Vaccinated to Protect You” Farce

During COVID, we were bombarded with nonsense about “herd immunity” and told we should get injected, not just to protect ourselves, but others.

A group of researchers, two of whom hailed from the CDC, followed 328 households with 1441 members, including 839 children, during the 2010–2011 influenza season.

Influenza was identified in 24% of households and 9% of individuals. Infection risk was 8.5% in the vaccinated and 8.9% in the unvaccinated, and there “was no evidence that vaccination prevented household transmission once influenza was introduced; adults were at particular risk despite vaccination.”

Flu Vaccines Have Not Produced Any Reduction in Flu Mortality Over Time

A major argument used to support other forms of vaccination is that they are responsible for large declines in disease. This argument fools a lot of people because most aren’t old enough to remember, or smart enough to know, that the marked decline in diseases like pertussis and measles occurred way before their respective vaccines were introduced.

The argument doesn’t work with influenza, because every year millions of people still develop influenza-like illnesses.

The National Vaccine Program Office, a division of the HHS, funded a study to examine flu mortality over the period of 33 years (1968–2001).

“We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group,” they reported.

They attributed the decline in influenza-related mortality among people aged 65 to 74 years in the decade after the 1968 ‘pandemic’ to the acquisition of natural immunity.

“Because fewer than 10% of all winter deaths were attributable to influenza in any season,” they added, “we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”

Vaccine Mandates are Based on ZERO Science

Ah, vaccine mandates. If I had my way, I’d roll up the paper they’re printed on, soak them in pure capsaicin, then shove them up the keester of everyone who has ever supported or enforced them.

Lest you think I’m being unfair, the science is on my side.

A 2016 Cochrane review assessed the effects of vaccinating healthcare workers on the incidence of laboratory‐proven influenza, pneumonia, death from pneumonia and admission to hospital for respiratory illness in those aged 60 years or older resident in long‐term care institutions.

The researchers reported:

Our review findings have not identified conclusive evidence of benefit of HCW vaccination programmes on specific outcomes of laboratory‐proven influenza, its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract illness), or all cause mortality in people over the age of 60 who live in care institutions.

This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of healthcare workers to prevent influenza in those aged 60 years or older resident in LTCIs.

It’s a Scam, Folks

It seems increasing numbers of people are wising up to the vaccine scam. While market analysts expect the flu vaccine market “to grow at a compound annual growth rate … of 6.98% from 2024 to 2030,” less people are offering themselves up for injection. Flu vaccination rates for the 2024-2025 season are well below those from the previous three years, according to CDC data.

The fact that sales have decreased means we can expect in an increase in pro-flu vaccine propaganda. Don’t fall for it. These drugs are ineffective at best, and often harmful.

In the common vernacular, that would be known as a lose-lose situation.

Don’t be a loser.

---

Please note: In the above article, I have repeated the terminology the researchers used to describe the studied vaccines, such as "attenuated influenza B virus vaccine", "inactivated influenza split-virus vaccine", "monovalent cold-recombinant influenza virus vaccine", and so on. This does not in any way constitute an endorsement of the virus paradigm.

I repeat this terminology solely to explain what specific vaccine product was used in the study, and to emphasize that no matter what influenza vaccine product is used, it is essentially useless.

The virus paradigm is a falsehood. Many people find this hard to fathom, because the virus paradigm has long been presented as a self-evident truth. The science, however, speaks for itself: No virus has ever been isolated by anything resembling valid scientific means.

If you are new to virus skepticism, I’d urge you to read the following articles:

Dear Virology: Do You Have ANYTHING Other than Insults, Logical Fallacies and Lies to Back Up Your Claims?

German Biologist Stefan Lanka Bet €100,000 the Measles Virus Doesn’t Exist. He Won.

The Great Covid Con: Sars-Cov-2 Doesn't Exist & Has NEVER Really Been Isolated

"Sars-Cov-2" Does Not Exist (Part 2): Why Chinese Researchers NEVER Isolated the Virus

Hey Steve Kirsch, Sars-Cov-2 is Still a Fraud and Your Genome Argument is a Disingenuous Sham