Is the Flu Vaccine Safe? Effective? Studies to back it up.

flu vaccine.png

Since its getting colder and everyones vitamin d levels are plummeting, the CDC will soon start engage in their "Recipe for the Flu Vaccine." We've compiled studies to help show you the studies your doctors won't. Not only does it not facilitate herd immunity, it creates respiratory syndromes in those who have never had issues before. First, let us all remember the package insert on the Influenza Vaccine clearly states:

"There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination"


Lets say they get the flu strain correct for that year, are you protected? The CDC Director Julie Gerberding says...... "the vaccine is not 100% effacious" What an easy way to cop out when you fall ill as many do, up 2 weeks after the vaccine.


By far the best publication done on the Flu vaccine was by Peter Doshi, A post doctoral fellow from Harvard. His study, published in the British Medical Journal titled Influenza: Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease includes this:

"The United States government public health agency, the CDC, pledges "To base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived." But experts argue that in the case of influenza vaccinations and their marketing, this is not so.....

Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today............ Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets -- even some drive-throughs.

This enormous growth has not been fuelled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives...

Not to worry: officials say influenza vaccines save lives 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.” 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.” 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%. 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.”

Deciphering the numbers As concern surged this January over a worse than usual influenza season, members of the media seemed unsure whether the CDC’s announcement that “vaccine effectiveness (VE) was 62% ” represented good versus disappointing news. NBC anchor Brian Williams: “I worry about this number. I woke up to reports of this number. It can disincentivize people to go get that flu shot which all of you are saying is still so important.” Chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman: “And I had the same concern when you see 62%, because I’m afraid people will say ‘well, it’s half and half.’ But remember, if you have a 62% less chance of getting of getting the flu, it means less chance of being on antibiotics, less chance of ending up in an intensive care unit, and as we’ve seen from this uptick in numbers, 62% less chance of dying.” Although the study never tested more severe outcomes such as hospitalizations and death, the logic is nonetheless tempting: if 62% fewer people get influenza, then would not one expect 62% fewer of all of influenza’s complications? Not necessarily so. The reason is that the 62% reduction statistic almost certainly does not hold true for all subpopulations. In fact, there are good reasons to assume it does not. It is well known that influenza infections are more severe for certain groups of people, such as the frail older population, compared with others like healthy young adults. The CDC study did not present the statistics by age or health status, but an update of the study release done month later showed 90% of participants were younger than 65years, and for older people, there was no significant benefit (vaccine effectiveness was 27%; 95% confidence interval,31% to 59%). Selling sickness: what’s in a name?

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. 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 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. 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...... (Study continued in photo below.) Source:

flu vaccine scam study 2013.png

Another influenza study ( done by the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration titled Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults (Review) states:

"Authors’ conclusions

There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission."

Meaning, no, the vaccine doesn't create herd immunity, and no, the vaccine doesnt protect against what the media is fear mongering-- Flu deaths or even pneumonia. Later the Authors Conclusions were changed in 2014, I assume by industry pressure because in all my years of researching, I have never seen a published studys conclusions literally changed after a year, on their own, for the "greater good" and conveniently at the same time-- lowers vaccine industry bias. The new conclusion states:

Authors' conclusions: Influenza vaccines have a very modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost in the general population, including pregnant women. No evidence of association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events was found in the comparative studies considered in the review. This review includes 90 studies, 24 of which (26.7%) were funded totally or partially by industry. Out of the 48 RCTs {{ Random Controlled Trials}}, 17 were industry‐funded (35.4%).

cochrane flu fraud study.png

Nonetheless the original study continues and goes on to state:


This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size.Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines.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. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding."

Despite the manipulation of industry funded studies, it goes on to state:

Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses. Each year, the World Health Organization recommends which viral strains should be included in vaccinations for the forthcoming season.

Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited.."

"Assessment of reporting biases

The main problem with influenza vaccines studies is their poor quality and discrepancies between data presented, conclusions and authors’ recommendations. For example, an earlier review of 274 influenza vaccines studies in all age groups (including the stud- ies in this review) showed an inverse relationship between risk of bias and direction of study conclusions. Conclusions favorable to the use of influenza vaccines were associated with higher risk of bias. In these studies the authors made claims and drew conclusions unsupported by the data they presented. In addition, industry funded studies are more likely to have favorable conclusions and be published in significantly higher impact factor journals and have higher citation rates than non-industry funded studies.

“On the basis of one randomised trial (Scheifele 2003) on 651 healthy adults aged around 45, trivalent split inactivated vaccine (TIV) causes mild oculo-respiratory syndrome in people with no previous history of ORS. ORS was defined as bilateral conjunctivitis, facial swelling (lip, lid or mouth), difficulty in breathing and chest discomfort (including cough, wheeze, dysphagia or sore throat). ORS ...., hoarse- ness ...... and coughing ...... occurred within six days of vaccination. The association did not appear to be specific for any type of TIV.”

“The authors report several non-significant drops in lung function up to seven days post-inoculation and a higher incidence of influenza like illness (17/46 versus 4/26) in the vaccinated arms.” “Parenterally administered influenza vaccines appear significantly better than their comparators and can reduce the risk of developing influenza symptoms by around 4%, if the WHO recommendations are adhered to and the match is right. However, whilst the vaccines do prevent influenza symptoms, this is only one part of the spectrum of “clinical effectiveness” as they reduce the risk of total “clinical” seasonal influenza (i.e.influenza-like illness) symptoms by around 1%. When the results of our analysis are expressed as RD the effect appears minimal. This is remarkable as healthy adults are the population in which inactivated vaccines perform best.

And last but not least, perhaps the most important conclusion of this study:

"We found no evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications.”

no evidence herd immunity flu.png

So this year, when your doctor tries to hand you that flyer called " Flu Vaccine Misconceptions" You can hand them....some REAL science. The Cochrane Collaboration is known to be highly respected by many of our doctors today and they may not have seen this information. They are no longer in school, it is up to us to educate them!

Back to that "Recipe" the CDC has created to convince you, to manipulate your buy a product. Knowledge is power, know what they are doing. Fear is always their goal with every "epidemic"

Flu vaccine recipe 4.jpg
Flu vaccine recipe 5.jpg

Flu vaccine recipe 6.jpg

flu vaccine recipe 7.jpg

flu vaccine recipe 8.jpg

flu vaccine recipe 9.jpg

flu vaccine recipe 10.jpg

flu vaccine recipe 11.jpg

flu vaccine recipe key time points.jpg
flu shot gas pump.jpg

Other studies on Influenza Vaccines: Effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in influenza-related hospitalization in children: a case-control study.

"Using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for asthma status stratification, there was a significant association between hospitalization in asthmatic subjects and TIV (vaccine). TIV did not provide any protection against hospitalization in pediatric subjects, especially children with asthma. On the contrary, we found a threefold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did get the TIV vaccine. " Allergy Asthma Proc. 2012 Mar

"reporting bias was too low to explain the magnitude increase in fetal-demise reporting rates in the VAERS database relative to the reported annual trends. Thus, a synergistic fetal toxicity likely resulted from the administration of both the pandemic (A-H1N1) and seasonal influenza vaccines during the 2009/2010 season."

" The studies aiming to prove the widespread belief that healthcare worker vaccination decreases patient morbidity and mortality are heavily flawed and the recommendations for vaccination biased. No reliable published evidence shows that healthcare workers' vaccination has substantial benefit for their patients—not in reducing patient morbidity or mortality and not even in increasing patient vaccination rates. Conclusion. The arguments for uniform healthcare worker influenza vaccination are not supported by existing literature. The decision whether to get vaccinated should, except possibly in extreme situations, be that of the individual healthcare worker, without legal, institutional, or peer coercion."

"Despite wide use of the influenza vaccine, relatively little is known about its effect on the measurement of inflammatory markers. Because inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) are increasingly being used in conjunction with lipids for the clinical assessment of cardiovascular disease and in epidemiologic studies, we evaluated the effect of influenza vaccination on markers of inflammation and plasma lipid concentrations"

"Our findings show that the influenza vaccination causes transient changes in select markers of inflammation and lipids. Consequently, clinical and epidemiologic interpretation of the biomarkers affected should take into account the possible effects of influenza vaccination."

“The FluMist influenza vaccine strains replicate in the nasopharynx and can be recovered and cultured from respiratory secretions of vaccinated individuals (shed). The pattern and duration of shedding is important to understand because with prolonged shedding at high titer there is a theoretical risk of loss of attenuated phenotype, reassortment with wild-type influenza virus during influenza season, and transmission of vaccine virus to unvaccinated people, some of whom may be immuno-compromised and/or at risk for complications of live viral infections. “

“additional shedding samples collected every 7 days ... though some individuals shed vaccine strain virus as late as day 28”


"Together with an inflammatory reaction, influenza A vaccine induced platelet activation and sympathovagal imbalance towards adrenergic predominance. Significant correlations were found between CRP levels and HRV parameters, suggesting a pathophysiological link between inflammation and cardiac autonomic regulation. The vaccine-related platelet activation and cardiac autonomic dysfunction may transiently increase the risk of cardiovascular events."

"During 2009-2010 they found that the risk of narcolepsy among people aged 4-19 years old who had received pandemic influenza vaccine was nine times higher than that among those who had not been vaccinated."

"In August 2010 concerns were raised in Finland and Sweden about a possible association between narcolepsy and Pandemrix.13 A subsequent cohort study in Finland reported a 13-fold increased risk of narcolepsy after vaccination in children and young people aged 4-19, most of whom had onset within three months after vaccination and almost all within six months"

"The increased risk of narcolepsy after vaccination with ASO3 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 vaccine indicates a causal association, consistent with findings from Finland." -British Medical Journal

Annual influenza vaccination affects the development of heterosubtypic immunity.

Annual vaccination of healthy children >6 months of age against seasonal influenza has been recommended by public health authorities of some countries. However, currently used seasonal vaccines provide only limited protection against (potentially) pandemic influenza viruses. Furthermore, we recently hypothesized that annual vaccination may hamper the development of cross-reactive immunity against influenza A viruses of novel subtypes, that would otherwise be induced by natural infection. Here we summarize our findings in animal models in which we demonstrated that vaccination against influenza A/H3N2 virus reduced the induction of heterosubtypic immunity against highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus, otherwise induced by a prior infection with influenza A/H3N2 virus. The reduction of heterosubtypic immunity correlated with reduced virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses. An additional study was performed in humans, in which we collected peripheral blood mononuclear cells from annually vaccinated children with cystic fibrosis (CF) and age-matched unvaccinated healthy control children to study the virus-specific T cell response. An age-related increase of the virus-specific CD8+ T cell response was observed in unvaccinated children that was absent in vaccinated children with CF." 2012 May 27.

A 44-year old man was admitted to our hospital with edema in his face and legs and cervical lymphadenopathy which occurred 18 days after influenza vaccine (Agrippal®, Novartis). The laboratory showed: creatinine 44mg/l, urea 106mg/dl. In the urinalysis was evident: proteinuria 4g/24h and hyaline casts. Serological test (ANA, DNA, ANCAp, ANCAc, C3, C4, HBsAg, HCV and HIV) were negative. Renal biopsy was performed. Light microscopy showed evidence of severe acute tubular injury (Figure 1 A) and a moderate, diffuse interstitial inflammatory infiltrate consisting of mononuclear cells and severe edema.

Rhabdomyolysis secondary to influenza A H1N1 vaccine resulting in acute kidney injury.

This is a rare side effect of influenza A H1N1 vaccine. Physicians should advise patients to seek medical care when muscle symptoms are present and consider the possibility of rhabdomyolysis due to vaccination. Trials are required to better define the incidence of this important side effect."

“Although seasonal and H1N1 vaccines are safe and effective (CONTRADICTION), they also have the potential to induce autoantibodies in selected AIRD patients AND HEALTHY ADULTS. Follow-up of such individuals is proposed and further research is needed.”

"No safety comparisons could be carried out, emphasising the need for standardisation of methods and presentation of vaccine safety data in future studies. In specific cases, influenza vaccines were associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age in the USA, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia. If immunisation in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required. The degree of scrutiny needed to identify all global cases of potential harms is beyond the resources of this review. This review includes trials funded by industry." Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin .... there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies." 2012

Serotype replacement: "BACKGROUND:

In late spring 2009, concern was raised in Canada that prior vaccination with the 2008-09 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) was associated with increased risk of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) (pH1N1) illness. Several epidemiologic investigations were conducted through the summer to assess this putative association. CONCLUSIONS: Prior receipt of 2008-09 TIV was associated with increased risk of medically attended pH1N1 illness during the spring-summer 2009 in Canada."

Low 2012-13 influenza vaccine effectiveness associated with mutation in the egg-adapted H3N2 vaccine strain not antigenic drift in circulating viruses.


Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) is generally interpreted in the context of vaccine match/mismatch to circulating strains with evolutionary drift in the latter invoked to explain reduced protection. During the 2012-13 season, however, detailed genotypic and phenotypic characterization shows that low vaccine effectiveness was instead related to mutations in the egg-adapted H3N2 vaccine strain rather than antigenic drift in circulating viruses. The egg-adapted strain was itself antigenically distinct from the WHO-recommended prototype, and bore three AA mutations at antigenic sites B [H156Q, G186V] and D [S219Y]. Conversely, circulating viruses were identical to the WHO-recommended prototype at these positions with other genetic variation that did not affect antigenicity.

These findings underscore the need to monitor vaccine viruses as well as circulating strains to explain vaccine performance. Evolutionary drift in circulating viruses cannot be regulated, but influential mutations introduced as part of egg-based vaccine production may be amenable to improvements. {ya think?!} 2014

Flu vaccines and multi dose Pertussis vaccines containing thimerosal administered during pregnancy

Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level?

"This study focused on standardized embryonic and fetal Hg exposures via primary exposure to the pregnant mother of two common Hg sources (dietary fish and parenteral vaccines). Data demonstrated that Hg exposures, particularly during the first trimester of pregnancy, at well-established dose/weight ratios produced severe damage to humans including death. "

Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry Vol 94 2012

What we know NOW about thimerosal. Remember the CDC claimed this was completely safe and only taken out of some vaccines as a "precaution" "The associated behavioral and developmental outcomes found in ASD are plausible as a manifestation of Hg toxicity, since the brain is a target organ for TM’s toxic effects as well as a target organ for the bioaccumulation of the toxic, long-retained Hg species derived from injected Et-Hg compound exposures [95].

The evidence suggests that the abnormal sulfation chemistry, limited thiol availability, and decreased GSH reserve capacity could explain why the adverse effects of TM are greater in a subpopulation of children with this susceptibility and why the subsequent brain insult is more pronounced in them, as has been shown repeatedly in the animal model. Furthermore, it has recently been demonstrated that polymorphisms in glutathione-related genes modify Hg concentrations and antioxidant status in human subjects environmentally exposed to Hg [165].

With the rate of children diagnosed with an ASD in the US now exceeding 1 in 50 children [166] and the rate of children with neurodevelopmental/behavioral disorders in the US now exceeding 1 in 6 children [167], and the preceding evidence showing that there is vulnerability to TM that would not be known without extensive testing, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that TM should be removed from all vaccines."

Chart of Fetal Death Reports when doctors were pressuring Swine Flu vaccines during pregnancy in the 2009 Swine Flu scare. (via the documentary BOUGHT by Jeff Hays)


#herdimmunityisalie #corruptioninmedicine #influenzavaccine #vaccineinflammationresponse #vaccineineffectiveness #vaccinescandal #vaccineshedding

Recent Posts