Flu Shot Concerns
FLU SHOT CONCERN 1:
The effectiveness of the flu shot is embarrassing.
The CDC teaches that flu viruses are continually mutating. (1) Because of their ever-changing nature, scientists must reconstitute the flu virus vaccine every year to target the anticipated strains.
As would be expected, this guesswork does not have a high success rate.
According to the CDC, the vaccine effectiveness rate averages only 40% each year. In fact, the VE rate was below 50% in 12 of the 16 most recent flu seasons reported. The best we accomplished: a meagre 60%. The worst: a paltry 10%. (2)
Even more telling: the CDC’s vaccine effectiveness (VE) rates do not represent true probabilities of avoiding the flu, as one might assume. Instead, they compare relative risk, as opposed to absolute risk.
Once the fuzzy math is taken away, at best, the flu vaccine reduces the absolute risk of contracting the flu by only 4-5%. (3) In the years where the flu shot was not as effective, it may only offer a 1-2% decrease in the absolute risk of becoming infected, from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% with the vaccine. (4)
A Cochrane review of 52 clinical trials including over 80,000 adults came to the same conclusion: “Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect… as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case.” (5)
FLU SHOT CONCERN 2:
Flu vaccine manufacturers are not legally or financially liable for injuries or death caused by their flu shots.
In 1986, Congress caved to lobbying pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). The Act established a mandatory, no-fault compensation system for specified injuries caused by vaccines. (1)
In these cases, there is no discovery, no cross-examination, no pleadings, no jury, and no trial. (2) Instead, families who fall victim to vaccine injury or death cannot sue and must file a petition in district court against the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The stated original intent of the Act was to allow the Vaccine Court to quickly compensate families for certain common injuries. (3) For injuries included within the Table, the burden of proof was on HHS to prove that a vaccine was not the cause. (4) Initially, the Act appeared to be working as designed, as almost 90% of claims were “Table claims,” and quickly settled.
However, in the 1990’s, HHS amended the Table such that 98% of new claims are now considered “off-Table.” (5) Now, the undue burden of proof falls solely on families to prove that a vaccine caused the death or injury of their loved one. Meanwhile, vaccine manufacturers bear zero burden or consequence.
The 1986 Act also established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). Payouts for cases won in vaccine injury court are paid out through the NVICP from a tax collected on each vaccine sold/administered. Once again, drug companies bear no cost for payouts. Instead, it’s up to taxpayers.
In total, the NVICP has paid out over $4 billion in vaccine injury claims, and payouts for flu shot vaccine injuries alone reached a new milestone in 2020: almost $900 million. (6) That is a staggering number, especially considering that flu vaccines were not added to the list for compensation until 2005, and not expanded to include all seasonal influenza vaccines until 2013. (7)
FLU SHOT CONCERN 3:
The flu vaccine reportedly causes the most injuries of any vaccine.
Flu shots comprise approximately 44% of administered vaccines, but 70% of compensated vaccine petitions. (1)
Of the $282 million paid out by the NVICP in fiscal year 2017, roughly $188 million (two thirds) was for influenza vaccine injuries and deaths alone. Furthermore, the flu shot made up more than 7 out of every 10 petitions filed to the NVICP between 2016 and 2017. (2)
This trend continues to be concerning. In 2020, over 2,000 influenza petitions were pending to the NVICP. Not even a year before, that figure was 50% less. (3)
A look at the filed petitions reveals a devastating list of injuries caused by the flu jab. The most common severe injuries reported following influenza vaccination are:
SIRVA – Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
GBS – Guillain-Barre Syndrome
TM – Transverse Myelitis
CIDP – Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy
ADEM – Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis
Death (4)
Still not convinced that flu shots cause injury and death? Consider watching these real-life testimonies:
Lisa suffered paralysis after the flu shot - https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/the-chd-bus-tour/flu-vaccine-paralyzed-me-from-the-neck-down-cdc-fda/
Nicole’s daughter died after the flu shot - https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/the-chd-bus-tour/flu-shot-killed-my-7-year-old-daughter-vt-flu/
Amanda’s son regressed into autism after the flu shot - https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/the-chd-bus-tour/flu-vaccine--autism-ri/
Amber experienced a miscarriage three days after the flu shot - https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/the-chd-bus-tour/flu-vaccine-while-pregnant-ohio/
FLU SHOT CONCERN 4:
Flu shots are big business.
While taxpayers and families are stuck bearing the burden of vaccine injury and death, drug companies are raking in big profits.
In 2022, the annual global influenza vaccine market reached $7.47 billion. (1) The market is projected to reach $14.35 billion by 2030. (2)
Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, and CSL Limited lead the way in the global flu vaccine sector. (3)
There is a common misconception that vaccines are not profitable. According to Sanofi’s 2019 annual earnings report, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Sanofi’s vaccine segment achieved the highest Net Income % of all their business segments in 2019, at a staggering 38.4%. Vaccines also achieved the award for their highest year-over-year growth (by a long shot) at +12%. (4)
Think Sanofi’s results could be an anomaly? Think again. GlaxoSmithKline’s 2019 results paint an even more profitable picture: Vaccine revenue surged 19% over 2018 results and operating margins achieved an extraordinary 41.4%. As with Sanofi, GSK’s vaccine segment boasted higher profit margins than any other business division. (5)
“What about CSL?” you may wonder. Their 2019-2020 annual report unabashedly proclaims right there in black and white: “total revenue [is] up 11% at CC basis, driven by our seasonal influenza vaccines.” (6)
With double-digit revenue growth, unmatched profit margins, and expanding mandates across the world, what justification can you find to continue exempting vaccine makers from liability?
FLU SHOT CONCERN 5:
Influenza vaccines, like all other vaccines, are not required to test against inert placebos in their pre-licensure safety trials.
Did you know that vaccines are not classified as pharmaceutical drugs? Instead, they are considered “biologics” and are therefore regulated differently than pharmaceuticals.
Biologics are regulated by the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) division, instead of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). (1) This difference in categorization opens the door for alarming disparities in safety testing requirements.
Unlike other pharmaceutical drugs regulated under the CDER, vaccines are not required to undergo the “Gold Standard” of safety testing: long-term, randomized, double-blind trials against an inert placebo control group. What’s the end result? Almost all vaccines are tested against other vaccines or adjuvants as their control group.
To illustrate, follow along on the deceptive path of the placebo controls used to license the six flu vaccines licensed for childhood use during the 2018-2019 flu season. (2) In yellow is each flu shot recommended for injection into children during the 2018-2019 flu season, with each descending line leading to the control(s) used:
Chart: https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ICAN-Reply-1.pdf
For example: Fluzone (IIV3) was licensed by the FDA in 1980 without assessing safety against any placebo control. That Fluzone (IIV3) vaccine was then used as the placebo control in the testing and approval of Afluria (IIV3) in 2007, Fluzone (IIV4) in 2013, and Fluarix (IIV3). Flulaval (IIV2) was subsequently tested using Fluzone, Fluarix, and Havrix in it’s pre-licensure trials. Like Fluzone, none of Havrix’s pre-licensure safety trials used a placebo control. (3)
Does that feel too alarming to be true? We understand. Just last year, the Informed Consent Action Network petitioned the Health & Human Services about this, and their response shocked us all: “Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine, and are thus not required.” (4)
This blatant disregard for the proper scientific method is one of the biggest problems vaccine-injured and vaccine-hesitant families have with vaccines. If saline or another inert, harmless substance is not used as the control in every vaccine safety study, how can trials properly evaluate a vaccine’s safety profile? The answer: they simply cannot.
FLU SHOT CONCERN 6:
Studies show flu shots increase susceptibility to other non-influenza respiratory illnesses.
Did you know that multiple studies show that people who get the flu vaccine have an increased susceptibility to developing non-influenza respiratory illnesses?
In a 2010 Canadian study, people who received the trivalent influenza vaccine were between 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to get infected with pandemic H1N1 than those who did not get the seasonal flu vaccine. (1)
In a follow-up Ferret study, vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccine worsened the symptoms of subsequent exposure to H1N1 flu. (2)
A 2011 study found that “seasonal flu vaccine weakens children's immune systems and increases their chances of getting sick from influenza viruses not included in the vaccine.” (3)
In a 2012 study, children receiving inactivated influenza vaccines had a 4.4 times higher relative risk of contracting non-influenza respiratory virus infections in the nine months following their inoculations.” (4)
Do you see a trend here?
Sources:
(1) A Canadian study published in 2010 found that people who received the trivalent influenza vaccine during the 2008-2009 flu season were between 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to get infected with pandemic H1N1 in the spring and summer of 2009 than those who did not get the seasonal flu vaccine.
(2) To double-check the above findings, Skowronski and other researchers conducted a study on ferrets. “A double-blind, placebo-controlled animal study suggests that vaccination with seasonal influenza vaccine did, in fact, worsen symptoms after subsequent exposure to H1N1 flu… ‘We needed to follow up on those studies from Canada. They were clearly indicating something important about the interaction between seasonal and pandemic viruses,’ she said.
(3) Another study, published in the Journal of Virology in 2011, found the seasonal flu vaccine weakens children's immune systems and increases their chances of getting sick from influenza viruses not included in the vaccine. When blood samples from 27 healthy, unvaccinated children and 14 children who had received an annual flu shot were compared, the former unvaccinated group was found to have naturally built up more antibodies across a wider variety of influenza strains compared to the latter vaccinated group.
(4) A 2012 study in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, found that children receiving inactivated influenza vaccines had a 4.4 times higher relative risk of contracting non-influenza respiratory virus infections in the nine months following their inoculation.
FLU SHOT CONCERN 7:
Flu vaccines may make you more infectious.
Not only is the flu vaccine not very effective at preventing the flu, it may actually increase the transmission of flu in the population.
Clinical research has demonstrated that when individuals vaccinated for the flu become infected with a strain of the flu not covered by the vaccine, they cough, sneeze, and exhale 640% more infectious viral particles. (1)
FLU SHOT CONCERN 8:
New research points to a possible higher risk of dying from COVID-19 if vaccinated for influenza.
The data is clear that the elderly have the highest risk of dying from COVID-19. Most of them, particularly those in nursing homes, are given flu shots every year. Could the flu shot, rather than helping to protect them, be putting our elderly at even greater risk of dying from COVID-19?
A new study published in early October in the journal Peer J found just that.
The study, “Positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide,” (1) examined data from 39 countries to determine if “heterologous immunity” – the term applied when an infection by one pathogen alters the immune response, for better or worse, against another unrelated pathogen – could protect against COVID-19 via influenza vaccination, specifically in elderly people.
The author, Christian Wehenkel, expected to confirm that the flu vaccine lowered death rates: “A negative association was expected.” Instead, she found the opposite: Both the COVID-19 deaths per million and COVID-19 case fatality rates were “positively and statistically significantly associated with IVR [influenza vaccination rates] in people >65 years old.” (2)
Of course, we know that correlation does not equal causation – Wehenkel also recognized this and went to great lengths to control for confounding factors. Yet, the positive association remained.
Wehenkel makes no grand claims; she doesn’t argue that flu vaccination should be halted. She simply asks for more research to be done to “explain these findings,” because while a correlation does not indicate causation, it is a very concerning alarm bell. This study demands further research to rule out any causation between the flu shot and COVID-19 fatality before we seek to vaccinate every person in America with the influenza vaccine.
BONUS - FLU SHOT CONCERN 9:
Adult vaccine mandates have begun.
Activists in our movement have been saying for years that the pharmaceutical industry’s goal is to implement vaccine mandates not only for children, but for adults as well. After all, that is where the real money is to be made.
COVID-19 gave them their golden opportunity.
This is when Americans began to see the first adult mandates pop up around the nation, starting with the flu shot.
Colleges and universities across the country began to require the flu shot for students and staff. For example, the University of California was sued over their mandate that all students, faculty, and staff (510,000 people) be inoculated for the flu before November 1, 2020. (1) (2)
Legislation passed in Massachusetts made the flu shot the first mandated vaccine for adults. The state mandated the flu shot for school children K-12, plus colleges and universities. (3) (4)
New Jersey proposed similar legislation as Massachusetts and other states may follow suit. (5)
Download our Flu Shot Concerns flyer here.
KANSANS FOR HEALTH FREEDOM, INC. provides information on this site for general informational purposes only and the information is not intended to be and does constitute legal or medical advice. Anyone relying upon this information is advised to use their own judgment including consultation with their own physician, attorney, or other professionals before taking action based upon any information contained on this website.