The flu shot, an annual vaccination against Influenza strains A and B, accounts for only 10-17% of the circulating viruses responsible for causing cold and flu like symptoms, assuming the scientists accurately ascertained the correct seasonal strains. See current 2020-21 US available influenza vaccines below.

The Flu Shot and Mercury

Mercury has been banned from all pediatric vaccines, except the flu shot.  The flu shot is also highly recommended to pregnant women even though there is insufficient data to assess the risks of a flu shot during pregnancy. However, a (2004) study showed higher miscarriages associated with the flu shot. In spite of these warning studies, the CDC recently recommended two annual flu shots.

Your baby may be receiving the same flu shot as a healthy, robust 18 yrs old male. Sound strange? Your baby might also have mercury, a known neurological-toxin, injected into his/her bloodstream. If you walk into your local pharmacy for your annual flu shot with your new baby, it’s likely you could both receive .5mL of the Fluzone Quadrivalent†flu shot. Plus, if they give it to both of you from a multi-dose vial, you both could receive a whopping .25mL of mercury. As shown above, the EPA believes that weight matters in regards to mercury intake. Young infants and children given the flu shot might receive mercury levels that exceeds EPA’s recommended mercury levels by as much as 35x.

The flu shot’s mercury content is 250x higher than the level the EPA classifies as hazardous waste. This shot is recommended by CDC to pregnant women and small babies.

The Afluria Quadrivalent*Seqirus single syringe presentation of .25ml is a type of flu shot for children 6 months to 3 years. The single syringe presentation does not have mercury, butthe multi-dose vial of the same vaccine does have mercury. However, this is where it can get tricky. Although the CDC recommends the multi-dose vial for children 6yrs and older, the insert allows the .5 mL multi-dose vial “for persons 6 months of age and older.” This means if you do not specifically ask for the pre-filled syringes, your baby or young child could receive Afluria Quadrivalent* Seqirus from the multi dose vial which contains 12.5 mcg of mercury. If your 3 yr old gets the .5mL adult multi-dose vial that the insert/manufacturers allows for that age, your 30 lb toddler will receive the same dosage that is intended for a 200 lb grown man and have 24.5 mcg of mercury injected into their bloodstream. Why would CDC recommend that children under the age of 6 years not receive a multi dose vial injection, yet allow manufacturers to label it as free to give to 6 mo and older?

“In February 2017, Children’s Health Defense collected 89 peer-reviewed published articles linking autism, mercury and thimerosal.” Link The CDC studies that confirm the safety of mercury in these amounts use adult participants (not children) and use different routes of transmission such as oral ingestion instead of injection.

Ensure you and your loved get a mercury-free flu shot

If you feel like you or your family need to get a flu shot or are required to for work, in order to ensure it does not have mercury, request to receive a thimerosal-free shot from a pre-filled syringe or a single vial.

CDC recommended 2020-21 influenza vaccines

Vaccine	Age Group	Brands	Dose	Contraind..	Serious Adverse Events	Pregancy	Placebo/Comparator	Mercury
Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (IIV4) egg based	6 months and older	Afluria Quadrivalent* Seqirus	.25ml for 6-35 months (presented in either pre-filled syringe or multi-dose viral); .5ml for children 3yrs and older	Contains eggs. “Severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any component of the vaccine including egg protein, or to a previous dose of any influenza vaccine.”	In adults 18 and older, with1,721 participants, 2.3% reported Serious Adverse Events within 180 days, including 5 deaths. Children 6-59 months, with 1618 participants, 2 had febrile seizures and had the same amount of SAE as the control group. Percent not disclosed.	“There are limited data for AFLURIA QUADRIVALENT administered to pregnant women, and available data for AFLURIA (trivalent formulation) administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”	Adults in the control group received a trivalent influenza vaccine. Children in the control group younger than 6-56 months, were administered a U.S.-licensed comparator quadrivalent influenza vaccine.	Contains mercury in multi dose presentation. “each 0.5 mL dose contains 24.5 mcg of mercury 406  and each 0.25 mL dose contains 12.25 mcg of mercury.”
	6 months and older	Fluarix Quadrivalent  (GSK)	.5ml single prefilled injection for all age groups	Contains eggs.	Adults: .5% reported serious adverse events within 21 days. 44% of children under 6 reported unsolicited adverse events within 28 days, and 3.6% reported serious adverse events within 6-8 months.	“There are insufficient data on FLUARIX QUADRIVALENT in pregnant women to inform vaccine- associated risks.”	Adult controls received Trivalent Influenza Vaccine (3 strains); children, based on age, received another non-influenza vaccine (pneumococcal 13-valent, Hepatitis A or varicella.)	No
	6 months and older	FluLaval Quadrivalent  (GSK)	0.5-mL single-dose prefilled syringes for all ages	Contains eggs	In children 6-35mo, within 28 days of vaccination, 46% reported unsolicited adverse events (n = 1,207). There was no death reported in 21 days post vaccination. Unknown for 180 days post vaccine.	“There are insufficient data on FLULAVAL QUADRIVALENT in pregnant women to inform vaccine- associated risks.”	Controlled Groups received different vaccines: Havarix, Trivalent Influenza Vaccine (TIV), and a U.S.-licensed quadrivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine (manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur Inc).	No
	6 months and older	Fluzone Quadrivalent† Sanofi Pasteur	CDC recommends .5mL to 6months and older in any 3 presentations (prefilled single syringe, single dose vial, 5mL multi dose vial) However, a .25mL prefilled single-dose syringe is available for 6-35months.	Contains eggs	In study 2, children 6-35 months received .25mL and .5mL, .5% both groups reported Serious Adverse Events in 28 days. However, the SAE were not disclosed. Studies also did not disclose the presentation method. It is unknown if participants received an influenza shot from the multi- dose mercury vials in the clinical safety trials. It is also unknown if the comparator/”placebo” vaccine TIV, contained mercury. The safety analysis for children 6-35 mo only included 1941 participants, even though there was an original 1950 participants in the trial.	“Available data with Fluzone Quadrivalent use in pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risk of adverse developmental outcomes.”		Yes. Each .5mL dose taken from a multi-dose vial contains 25mcg of mercury. Clinical safety trials do not disclose if they used the presentation that contains mercury or not.
Quadrivalent IIV (IIV4) cell culture based	4 years and older	Flucelvax Quadrivalent  Seqirus	0.5 mL prefilled syringe or multi-dose vial	Contains no egg proteins.	Trials with 4 -17 yrs olds, .5% reports SAEs. 18 years and older, 3.9% reported SAEs (until 6 months after vaccination)	“There are insufficient data for FLUCELVAX QUADRIVALENT in pregnant women to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”	Controlled groups used different vaccines. See insert for more details.	Yes. Each .5mL dose taken from a multi-dose vial contains 25mcg of mercury.
Quadrivalent RIV (RIV4) – Recombinant HA	18 yrs and older	Flublok Quadrivalent  Sanofi Pasteur	0.5 mL single dose pre-filled syringes	Contains no egg proteins.	SAEs and deaths were reported. See insert for details. The word “placebo” is used in the SAE section to describe a control group that had been given a comparative flu vaccine.	“Available data on Flublok Quadrivalent and Flublok (trivalent formulation) administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnant women.”	Controlled groups were given a “comparator vaccine”/ “comparator inactivated influenza vaccine (Fluarix® Quadrivalent, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline)”	No.

---

IS THE SCIENCE SETTLED?

Although the mainstream media claims unparalleled success of the CDC recommended vaccination program, there are many scientific articles that do not support current vaccination claims.

The Flu Shot and Children

Does the flu shot reduce death rates? Reduce hospital admissions? Reduce transmission? Lower acute respiratory illness (ARI)?

The 2005 Lancet review rebukes the efficacy of the flu shot in young children. “Immunization of very young children is not lent support by our findings.” It goes on to state “we recorded no convincing evidence that vaccines can reduce mortality, admissions, serious complications, and community transmission of influenza.” Link

Dr Mayer Eisenstein, in the book Make an informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child, illustrates how influenza deaths increased sevenfold after the CDC began strongly recommending the influenza vaccine for young children. In 1999, “just 25 children in the United States under the age of 5 years died from influenza. In 2000, 2001, 2002, there were just 19, 13 and 12 influenza deaths, respectively, in this age group.” In the mid 2002, CDC began to strongly advocate that young children receive the influenza vaccine. “In 2003, influenza deaths in children under 5 years of age skyrocketed to 90 cases- a sevenfold increase over previous years.” (Eisenstein, 37).

Another study that reviewed 8 influenza seasons showed that the Trivalent Inactivated flu 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.”

Based on several studies, children are more likely to get a flu like illness if they receive the influenza vaccine. A 2018 study, showed children, especially children under the age of 4 years, who received the flu shot were 4.8x more likely to get ARI. The authors of the study concluded that amongst 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.”

A 2014 study found, ‘Influenza-vaccinated children were 1.6 times (P = 0·001) more likely than unvaccinated children to have a non-influenza ILI.” (ILI, Influenza-like illness).

In Australia, a 2011 study found that the flu shot increased influenza infection by 73% and increased non-influenza acute respiratory illness in children by 55%.

A study from Hong Kong reported similar findings and found the influenza vaccine given to children increased the risk of non-flu respiratory infection by 5x and flu infections by 3x.

A 2012 study found that children who received the inactivated flu vaccine were 4x more likely to have respiratory virus infections than unvaccinated children. “Participants who received TIV had higher risk of ARI associated with confirmed noninfluenza respiratory virus infection (RR, 4.40).”

Pregnant Women and the Flu Shot

Although CDC highly recommends the flu shot for pregnant women, their claim is not supported by science. Legally, vaccine manufacturers are required to declare on influenza vaccine inserts that there is insufficient evidence to assess the risk in pregnant women. In addition, there are some studies that show the flu shot may actually be harmful. “Comparison of VAERS fetal-loss reports during three consecutive influenza seasons. Was there a synergistic fetal toxicity associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season?“

Vaccines “have not been tested on pregnant women with prospective long-term studies to look at outcomes in those children through school age.”

Paul Thomas, M.D., pediatrician

Effectiveness of the Flu Shot in Healthy Adults?

In the study, Influenza Vaccine: Review of Effectiveness of the U.S. Immunization Program, and Policy Considerations, authors state “Between 1979 and 2000, influenza vaccine was shown to have little or no effectiveness over the U.S. population for preventing influenza cases, deaths, or hospital admissions.” The report went on to say, “The results of the present study appear to be similar to those obtained by the CDC in a recent analysis of the population efficacy of the 2003-2004 influenza vaccine. The CDC determined that immunization with the 2003-2004 influenza vaccine offered negligible population protection against developing influenza-like illnesses, and that in some of their methods of analysis there were results, which, though not significant at the 95% confidence level, indicated that influenza vaccination was associated with an increased risk of developing influenza-like illnesses. Our results also appear to be similar to those observed by Demicheli et al. in their meta-analysis of published studies to assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing cases of influenza in healthy adults. These researchers determined that the yearly recommended influenza vaccines had low effectiveness against clinical influenza cases, and minimally reduced lost work time. Demicheli et al. concluded that universal immunization of healthy adults with influenza vaccine is not supported.”

Based on a 2010, analysis of over 70,000 people “Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults“, the influenza vaccine only made a 3% reduction in developing influenza symptoms. There was also no difference in hospitalization or complication rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated. However, the influenza vaccine is associated with causing Guillain‐Barré Syndrome in 1.6 per million vaccinations. In conclusion the author states “Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.

Does the Flu Shot Reduce Elderly Deaths?

A 2005 study stated “We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group. We conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”

A 2009 study states “Cohort studies have consistently reported that vaccination reduces all-cause winter mortality by about 50%- an astonishing claim given that only about 5% of all winter deaths are attributable to influenza. The vaccine overestimation has now been attributed to profound confounding frailty selection bias.“

Currently, there are influenza vaccines specifically for 65yrs and older: Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent (Sanofi Pasteur), Fluad Quadrivalent Seqirus, and Fluad Seqirus. See inserts for more details.

Transparent Results? Quality Science?

Do the clinical safety trials report the difference between the mercury laden or mercury free versions of the vaccine?

If you get a flu shot from the brand, Afluria Quadrivalent*Seqirus or Flucelvax Quadrivalent Seqirus, it is possible you may or may not receive the “mercury version” of the vaccine. Do the clinical safety trials report the difference between the mercury laden or mercury free version of the vaccine? No. The inserts do not disclose the method of presentation used in the reported trials. Given the lack of disclosure on the insert, it is possible they do not do safety trials on the version of the vaccine that has mercury. Furthermore, given the lack of disclosure, is it also possible that the “comparator/placebo” vaccine used in the control group has mercury. This means it is possible for the vaccine manufacture to manipulate the safety data by using a non-mercury version of the vaccine being tested (even though the majority of the vaccine given to the American public is in a multi-dose vial that has mercury) while the control/placebo group is given a vaccine with mercury. Sound like good science? It’s not surprising that a 2005 Lancet review of influenza vaccine studies found “clear evidence of systematic suppression of safety data.”

In the study, “Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children,” authors state “The manufacturers’ refusal to release all safety outcome data from trials carried out in young children, together with obvious reporting bias and inconsistencies in the primary studies does not bode well for a fair assessment of the safety of live attenuated vaccines.”

Do conclusions and take home messages match the study data?
In a 2009 study, the authors stated “Publication in prestigious journals is associated with partial or total industry funding, and this association is not explained by study quality or size.” Neil Miller also analyzed this study in “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies” and stated “Although 70% of studies had conclusions favorable to influenza vaccines, just 18% showed agreement between data reported and study conclusions. More than half of the studies were at high risk of bias.” He also noted that higher quality studies had conclusions that more accurately matched the study data, and those conclusions were less likely to support vaccine effectiveness.

A 2013 study, states “the evidence that influenza represents a threat of public health proportions is questionable, the evidence that influenza vaccines reduce important patient-centered outcomes such as mortality is unreliable, the assumption that past influenza vaccine safety is predictive of future experience is unsound, and non pharmaceutical interventions to manage influenza-like illnesses exist.” A 2013 article also argues that CDC’s claim of using the highest science to inform public policy falls drastically short. “Closer inspection of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ rhetoric of science , the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality and do not substantiate the officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.” Harvard graduate, Peter Doshi, continues to question the influenza science in Are US flu death figures more PR than science?

Should vaccines that have different amounts of influenza strains be considered comparable? A vaccine with 3 or 4 strains of the virus is considered “comparable” safety (Afluria, Fluarix, etc). “The safety experience with AFLURIA (trivalent formulation) is relevant to AFLURIA QUADRIVALENT because both vaccines are manufactured using the same process and have overlapping compositions.” Is this rigorous science? The Afluria vaccine insert omits safety trials in lower age cohorts and uses the trials for another vaccine because the safety experience is considered “comparable”. The omitted data eludes to a .06% death rate for the clinical trial.

“The evidence that influenza represents a threat of public health proportions is questionable, the evidence that influenza vaccines reduce important patient-centered outcomes such as mortality is unreliable, the assumption that past influenza vaccine safety is predictive of future experience is unsound, and non pharmaceutical interventions to manage influenza-like illnesses exist.”

A 2010 report includes this warning, “WARNING: 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.”

Stronger Immune System?

Does taking the flu shot make you more vulnerable to more dangerous strains? Or does having the occasional flu help build stronger immunity?
Many peer reviewed studies have shown that taking the influenza vaccine can lower immunity to more dangerous strains of influenza.

Yearly influenza vaccinations: a double-edged sword?

Association between the 2008-09 seasonal influenza vaccine and pandemic H1N1 illness during Spring-Summer 2009: four observational studies from Canada.

Vaccination against Human Influenza A/H3N2 Virus Prevents the Induction of Heterosubtypic Immunity against Lethal Infection with Avian Influenza A/H5N1 Virus

Annual influenza vaccination affects the development of heterosubtypic immunity.

Infection of mice with a human influenza A/H3N2 virus induces protective immunity against lethal infection with influenza A/H5N1 virus.

Primary influenza A virus infection induces cross-protective immunity against a lethal infection with a heterosubtypic virus strain in mice.

Does the Influenza vaccine make you more susceptible the CoronaVirus?
A 2020 study, “Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season”, showed “vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus.” This means taking the flu shot was associated with higher risks in CoronaVirus infections. As summarized in Robert F. Kennedy’s Children Health Defense article, “the vaccinated were 36% more likely to get coronavirus.”

WARNINGS

PreMature and low birth weight Infants
This group is often associated with having greater vaccine risks. Size appears to matter. (See Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine studies, pages 211-221.) See pilot study.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
GBS is a serious disease where an overactive immune system attacks the nerves and can lead to paralysis and may be triggered by a bacterial or viral infection. Almost every flu vaccine has a Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) warning. The 1976 swine influenza vaccine was associated with an increased frequency of GBS.

Does “placebo” means something different in vaccine studies?
Essentially, yes. The word placebo is often used to describe a comparative vaccine given to the control group and is typically used while reporting serious adverse events and deaths. “SAEs were reported by 32 Flublok recipients and 35 placebo recipients.” (link section 5) No control group was given a “real placebo” in the CDC recommended 2020-21 Influenza vaccines. Placebos typically mean “other vaccines” and never a true sterile saline placebo.

Scientific studies that associate mercury with neurodevelopment disorders
There is a growing literature of peer reviewed studies that correlate mercury vaccines with neurodevelopment delays, speech disorders, sleep disorders, psychomotor development delays, ASD, and more. (See Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine studies, pages 20-44.) See mercury.

Vaccine Expert Asked of his Final Message to Leave with the Public

“Tell them I do not take the flu shot.” – Dr. Anthony Morris,
Nation Institute of Health Scientist and researcher, Elite vaccine group at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the 50’s, eventually fired in the 80’s after continuing to critique the vaccine program.