“Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. 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 fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree 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. Through this lens, the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities, precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates. 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.” -Peter Doshi (editor of the British Medical Journal), Influenza: Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease, BMJ, 2013 
Have you ever wondered where the flu goes between flu seasons? The truth is there is no “flu season”. Flu strains are constantly circulating, mutating, evolving, and readily available to those who have a weakened immune system. The flu doesn’t “go away” through summer months and then come back during the winter to kill and torment. Which further proves the fact that health is the only immunity. I believe that more and more, and once you start opening your mind to it, the evidence is everywhere. The reason the flu is more prevalent during the winter is a multitude of reasons including the following: people get less sunlight and less fresh air because the weather is cold and they stay inside and don’t air out their houses. They have lower levels of vitamin D which is essential to a well-functioning immune system. They eat higher amounts of sugar and empty carbs (especially over the holidays, which let’s be honest, starts with Thanksgiving and goes till after Easter) and less fresh fruit and veggies. It’s a combination of all this and more that leads to a vulnerable population and fertile ground for flu and other opportunistic illnesses like pneumonia. Incidentally, flu season in tropical countries that don’t experience winter have “flu season” during rainy season. 
I want to give you a portrayal of the hype and the lengths public health officials will go to, in order to push this vaccine on us, along with a few times they’ve been called out by other scientists, and at least one incidence where the media was caught in actual lies.
There is a presentation by the acting Director of Media Relations at the CDC related to the flu vaccine, and a few of the slides are titled “Recipe For Fostering Public Interest and High Vaccine Demand”. Here’s the recipe:
- Influenza’s arrival coincides with immunization “season” (i.e., when people can take action)
- Dominant strain and/or initial cases of disease are:
“Associated with severe illness and/or outcomes”
“Occur among people for whom influenza is not generally perceived to cause serious complications (e.g., children, healthy adults, healthy seniors)”
“In cities and communities with significant media outlets (e.g., daily newspapers, major TV stations)“
- Medical experts and public health authorities publicly (e.g., via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes), and urge influenza vaccination.
- The combination of 2 and 3 result in:
- A.Significant media interest and attention
- B.Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as “very severe,” “more severe than last or past years,” “deadly”)
- Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people; helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.
- Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)
- References to, and discussions, of “pandemic influenza” along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination.
He continues by saying, “Fostering demand, particularly among people who don’t routinely receive an annual influenza vaccination, requires creating concern, anxiety, and worry. For example:
“A perception or sense that many people are falling ill;
“A perception or sense that many people are experiencing bad illness;
“A perception or sense of vulnerability to contracting and experiencing bad illness.” 
Dr Peter Doshi criticized this attitude along with the lies perpetrated by the CDC in a peer reviewed article published by the BMJ titled “Are US Flu Death Figures More PR Than Science?” In a rare display of disgust, he actually calls out the CDC director by name and cites this as proof of the willingness of the CDC to cite figures and outcomes that science can’t support, all in the name of getting more people vaccinated. He says, “In a written statement, CDC media relations responded to the diverse statistics: “Typically, influenza causes death when the infection leads to severe medical complications.” And as most such cases “are never tested for virus infection…CDC considers these [NCHS] figures to be a very substantial undercounting of the true number of deaths from influenza. Therefore, the CDC uses indirect modelling methods to estimate the number of deaths associated with influenza.” (guess work, anyone?) They also combine flu and pneumonia deaths to cushion the numbers and make them more scary, which is admitted in this article. He finishes the article with, “If flu is in fact not a major cause of death, this public relations approach is surely exaggerated. Moreover, by arbitrarily linking flu with pneumonia, current data are statistically biased. Until corrected and until unbiased statistics are developed, the chances for sound discussion and public health policy are limited. 
Peter Doshi isn’t the only one. Dr Tom Jefferson of the highly esteemed and independent Cochrane Collaboration issued a blistering report on the flu vaccine in 2006. Cochrane’s goal is to provide health information to the public free from bias and conflicts of interest. He starts by describing how he’s combed the data to find any evidence to support the rigorous pushing of the flu vaccine and then says about the targeting of the elderly, “Insufficient data were available in 11 of 17 retrospective studies of elderly people in institutions to allow reviewers to assess the authors’ claim of “high” or “epidemic” viral circulation. A metaanalysis 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.” He has this to say about recommending it to children, “The influence of poor study quality is also seen in the outcome of a review of evidence supporting the vaccination of all children to minimise transmission to family contacts. Five randomised studies and five non-randomised studies were reviewed, but although data were suggestive of protection, its extent was impossible to measure because of the weak methods used in the primary studies.” And goes on to say this: “The second problem is either the absence of evidence or the absence of convincing evidence on most of the effects at the centre of campaign objectives. 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. Reviews found no evidence of an effect in patients with asthma or cystic fibrosis, but inactivated vaccines reduced the incidence of exacerbations after three to four weeks by 39% in those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All reviewers reported small data sets (such as 180 people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), which may explain the lack of demonstrable effect.” He summarizes how baffled and shocked he is with this, “Public policy worldwide recommends the use of inactivated influenza vaccines to prevent seasonal outbreaks…(but) 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.
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. The reasons are probably complex and may involve “a messy blend of truth conflicts and conflicts of interest making it difficult to separate factual disputes from value disputes” or a manifestation of optimism bias (an unwarranted belief in the efficacy of interventions).
Whatever the reasons, it is a sobering thought that Archie Cochrane’s 1972 statement that we should use what has been tested and found to reach its objectives is as revolutionary now as it was then.” 
Here is a visual of actual flu deaths compared to “estimated” flu deaths by the CDC:
Here is an article detailing why flu vaccines so often fail.
A study by Cowling shows the flu shot makes you more vulnerable to other respiratory infections, which I could have told them about, simply from my experience as a nurse. “We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had an increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of confirmed seasonal influenza infection between recipients of TIV or placebo.”  So not only did it not show a large amount of protection against the flu, it created a vulnerability to all kinds of other respiratory infections.
In a study by Kelly, the vaccinated got the flu at a rate of 53% to 34% in the unvaccinated. And the cognitive dissonance is so severe they decided it was impossible, so their conclusion doesn’t even match the data they obtained.  (not an uncommon thing when studies are done by biased scientists, but I’m just thankful they leave the body of the study intact even if their conclusion doesn’t match.)
A study by Hayward in 2015 showed that unvaccinated children are better protected against multistrain flu than the vaccinated and why, although this is another one where the conclusion doesn’t match the data.  The why is that when you naturally get the flu, every single layer of the immune system is activated, all of them carrying memory and making you stronger against all strains of the flu, while the vaccine targets only one part of the immune system and it’s the part that creates absolutely zero memory that lasts longer than a few months, which is why the flu vaccine is recommended every year.
In a study by Bedowes, the comparison of vaccinated CF patients and unvaccinated children showed unvaccinated children develop T cell immunity that is comprehensive, and that vaccinated children do not. Showed higher likelihood (75%) of asymptomatic infection, and less shedding in the unvaccinated. Showed lower risk to pandemic infections than yearly vaccinated children (paraphrased).  (well there goes the herd immunity theory when applied to the flu vaccine).
The CDC claims influenza vaccination, “may protect people around you…” but gives no citation for this statement. They also make the statement that the vaccine might “reduce the severity of illness in people who get vaccinated but still get sick”. 
So let’s think this through. If the vaccine decreases your symptoms, doesn’t that mean that a host of people who are actually positive for the flu are still going about their daily lives, going to work, to school, to the grocery store, despite the fact that they’re contagious but don’t feel bad enough to be in bed? So if this statement really is true, can we say that the CDC actually cares about protecting the vulnerable?
But what if it’s not? What if the evidence is against them? This Cochrane Database Review concluded that, “There is no evidence that influenza vaccines effect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” 
This study showed, “Children who receive annual flu vaccination are 3 times more likely to be hospitalized for influenza.” 
And what happens when you actually look at the data in a health department? Melissa Floyd did that with the health department in CA where she lives, and posted the results which were as follows: “…research at the California Department of Public Health regarding last year’s flu outbreak on cases with known vaccination status and guess what? ***Reported data showed half of adults, and more than half of children, with SEVERE or FATAL influenza received the 2017-2018 influenza vaccine.***
To repeat that, HALF of the most serious cases—ones that involved hospitalization and death (with known vaccination status)—occurred in individuals who were already “protected” by the vaccine. But I thought they said the shot reduced the severity of the flu if you got it?
If you think that’s bad…during the 2016-2017 flu season, CDPH confirms a whopping 70% of adults and 65% of children with SEVERE or FATAL influenza received the 2016-2017 influenza vaccine. You already know, heck, everyone knows, the flu vaccine doesn’t work very well. But 70% of people with severe or fatal cases of influenza had the shot? I mean, come on. Remind me again why it’s so important to “get vaccinated anyway”?
If you are going to accept a level of risk that comes with a particular vaccine, you would at least expect to get something in return (and I don’t mean Guillain Barre Syndrome). And if by chance you’re going to get the flu anyway, because they just can’t seem to predict the right strain, you would hope there was truth to what they told you regarding lessened severity, right? But it turns out that may have just been a marketing line.”  (or search Melissa Floyd #truthpart3
In this more recent study, “Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. 
And if all that isn’t enough, here’s another one. “Influenza-vaccinated children were 1·6 times (P = 0·001) more likely than unvaccinated children to have a non-influenza ILI (influenza like illness).” 
For it to protect those around us, wouldn’t it first need to protect the people getting the vaccine? Its effectiveness is in severe question throughout the scientific community but we continue on as if these articles and studies don’t exist. It’s troubling to me that in the face of all this evidence against it, and the lack of evidence to support it, even for healthcare workers… “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 existent literature. The decision to get vaccinated should, except in possibly extreme situations be that of the individual healthcare worker, without legal, institutional, or peer coercion.”  Even when they admit it so clearly and it’s published in scientific journals and right on pubmed, instead of listening to the scientific evidence, hospitals continue to FORCE their staff to get a yearly flu vaccine. Isn’t this supposed to be an evidence-based system? If there is no evidence to support it and so much evidence against it, why not back off a bit and let it be a personal choice? Why the coercion? Why the religious fervor and the denial of the scientific data? Why the judgment and discrimination against nurses who decide to opt out? Why the widespread punishment of these nurses in making them wear a mask all season long? I can only conclude that this behavior is so much more a cult belief system than a scientific approach. It’s simply not the behavior of a scientific, logical system. It’s illogical and discriminatory and I wish it would stop.
I’m almost done. I’ve thoroughly covered the fact that there is no benefit from the flu vaccine, and that it comes with the risk of paralyzing your immune system, making you vulnerable to other infections, and also exposing you to pandemic strains of the flu. I haven’t even touched on the ingredients or side effects. If you’ve made it this far, thank you. I know this is getting long, but I’m trying to be thorough, and to do that, I’m going to have to go a little longer.
Guillan Barre and permanent paralysis are listed on every flu vaccine package insert, and NBC recently actually covered a case where a woman won in vaccine court for this very issue. 
I was going to say that most of the side effects from the vaccine are basically the flu (which is probably why they have to over and over debunk the “myth” that you can get the flu from the vaccine; nothing like telling you your experience isn’t real and it was all just a coincidence), but now I’m looking at package inserts, and it’s much worse than that, “thrombocytopenia, lymphadenopathy, GBS (Guillan-Barre syndrome), convulsions, myelitis (including encephalomyelitis—inflammation of brain and spinal cord, and transverse myelitis–paralysis), facial palsey (Bell’s palsey), optic neuritis/neuropathy, syncope, dizziness, parasthesia, Steven Johnson syndrome, chest pain…”  to name a few that were alarming to me. Much more alarming than simply getting the flu naturally.
Here are some ingredients: formaldehyde, egg protein, octylphenol ethoxylate (Triton X-100), sodium phosphate-buffered isotonic sodium chloride solution, sucrose, Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell protein, protein other than HA, polysorbate 80, cetyltrimethlyammonium bromide, and β-propiolactone, ovalbumin, sodium deoxycholate, α-tocopheryl hydrogen succinate, squalene, thimerosal (multi-dose vials)…
To top all that off, this was just reported about the flu vaccine for this year….“In fact — the agency rated its effectiveness at just 9% against that strain and the overall effectiveness for the entire season at 29%. Early in the season, the vaccine was working really well. The CDC reported in February that the vaccine was 47% effective, which is higher than the past two years.” 
I just have to ask the obvious question. In what mythical universe is 47% effective “working really well.” The fact that we say to ourselves, to quell logic with banal reassurance, “47% is better than zero!” is a sign that the propaganda is working. What other product would we say this about, especially with this huge a pile of evidence against it? And you know what? That entire sentence is built on a false premise. You are only ever at zero percent when you get the vaccine and it doesn’t work (like that 9% BS mentioned above). Then you have a paralyzed immune system that can’t protect you from the flu, much less all the other opportunistic viruses out there. When you choose not to vaccinate, your percentage is much higher than 9%. If you build up your immune system by going outside a few times a week during winter, you take a good quality vitamin D supplement, eat healthy, and maybe take elderberry syrup, a probiotic, or super-tonic (or all 3), you’re basically impervious. And if you do happen to still get it, you can treat with vitamin c and garlic and all the other good things, and be over it in 2-3 days. But please stay at home and keep from spreading it to others. Nutrition, sanitation, and quarantine should still be respected and practiced despite the “protection” of vaccines and people seem to be forgetting that these days.
- graph: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/