2015-2016 Flu Shot Reporting as only 18% Effective in Adults, 15% in Children

by Jefferey Jaxen
Health Impact News

This years 2015-2016 flu shots in the United States are showing 18 percent effectiveness in adults and 15 percent effectiveness in children according to local news reports popping up around the country. Local news outlets in Michigan, Georgia, California, and other states have decided to run the headline with this information yet, at the time of this writing, no national mainstream news appear to be touching these figures.

Although continually touted by mainstream outlets as “the single best way to prevent against the flu,” this is the second year in a row the flu shot’s effectiveness in the U.S. has been under 25 percent. Last January, USA Today ran the headline “Flu Shot Only 23 Percent Effective This Season.” These dismal effectiveness numbers in the U.S. would have been welcomed by “officials” at the Canadian Centre of Disease Control who reported during last years flu season that their flu shots offered zero protection.

A panel decides what flu strains to immunize against in the spring before each years flu shot goes into production in the run up to flu season. “Experts” in the U.S. are hypothesizing that the lack of effectiveness this year may be due to the flu virus mutating or the presence of other flu virus strains circulating that were not included into this years flu vaccine. These same reasons were given last year for the lack of meaningful effectiveness of the flu shot. Either way, “the single best way to prevent against the flu” has fallen short again. So what answers do the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and medical community have now that their one-shot-fits-all flu solution doesn’t work…again? The message going out appears to be to keep pushing the ineffective shot regardless because there are no other options. In a world of patented medicine owned by criminal drug companies for maximum profit, not a word will ever be spoken of the laundry list of far superior natural immune boosters and flu virus killers.

Herd This?

This brings us to the question of “herd immunity.” The definition of “herd immunity” given by vaccines.gov is “When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak.” “Herd immunity,” right or wrong, safe and effective or not, is the driving ideology setting policy for the U.S. federal government and medical mainstream medical community. The Healthy People 2020 initiative calls for 80 to 90 percent vaccination coverage over all categories of recommended vaccinations in 57 different categories. How can “herd immunity” be achieved in regards to the seasonal flu virus if this years shot is only 18 and 15 percent effective respectively? Even if 100 percent of the population received the shot, 82 percent of adults and 85 percent of children would be virtually undistinguishable from those that didn’t get the flu shot to the dominant H3N2 strain.

Finally, speaking on the lack of effectiveness of the flu vaccine, Dr. David Brownstein states:

“When the influenza vaccine is a good match for the circulating strain of influenza, the best of the randomized controlled trials of influenza vaccines have shown that vaccinating between 33 and 100 people resulted in one less case of influenza. In other words, the best of the flu vaccine studies found that, in healthy people, the flu vaccine fails 97-99% of those that are vaccinated. In the elderly the effectiveness of the flu vaccine is much worse.”

The Flu Shot: Use at Your Own Risk

Now let’s take a moment to look at the myth of “safe” in the “safe and effective” farce. 

For starters, the list of flu shots recommended by the CDC, made by multiple drug manufacturers including Flucelvax, FluLaval, Flublok, Fluarix, Afluria, Fluzone, and Fluvirin all state the following on their product insert:

“Safety and effectiveness have not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers.”

“…has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential.”

With 18 and 15 percent effectiveness respectively this year, many are rightfully questioning if the risk outweighs the reward. An October NPR health poll of 3,008 adults revealed that 64% of adults were refusing the flu vaccine this year with the following responses:

Furthermore, children appear to shoulder more of a burden according to the vaccine package insert warnings which read as follows:

• Flubok: “Safety and effectiveness in children 3 years to less than 18 years of age have not been established.”
• Flucelvax: “Safety and effectiveness have not been established in children less than 18 years of age.”
• Fluzone: “Safety and effectiveness in children below the age of 6 months have not been established.”
• Fluvirin: “The safety and immunogenicity have not been established in children under 4 years of age.”
• FluLaval: “Safety and effectiveness in children younger than 3 years have not been established.”
• Afluria: “…not approved for use in children less than 5 years of age.”
• Fluarix: “…not approved for use in children younger than 3 years.”
• Fluvirin: “The safety and immunogenicity have not been established in children under 4 years of age.”

Despite what your health practitioner will say as they attempt to convince you to get the flu vaccine, the shot has not been evaluated for cancer risks, safety in pregnant women, or safety in various age range categories for children. Furthermore, all who receive each years flu vaccine are acting test subjects for a completely experimental vaccine with unknown health consequences. As explained by Dr. Geier, the CDC does not follow the law for vaccines in requiring long-term safety testing for the influenza vaccine like they do with other vaccines, as it is impossible to test a vaccine that changes every year.

Next, the latest Department of Justice numbers reported regarding quarterly vaccine injury information reveals that the flu shot remains the most dangerous vaccine based on injuries and death compensated by the U.S. Government. According to the report, Guillain-Barre Syndrome is the most frequent complication from the flu vaccine. Other complications include fibromyalgia, transverse myelitis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and death.

If you are considering the flu shot this year, it is important to familiarize yourself with the list of signs and symptoms of vaccine injury. In addition, understand the process to file with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program because you do not have any legal recourse against the vaccine manufacturers within the U.S. It is also vital to become familiar with the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) because many health professionals are either completely ignorant of it or are simply not using it to report adverse effects as they are required. 

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.