Flu Facts: Flu Shot Efficacy

So how effective are these flu shots we keep getting jabbed with each year. We’ll hear a wide range of percentages depending on the year due to the strain of virus in circulation. But when we hear 50% or 70% effective, what do these numbers actually mean?

Again, I am not a doctor or expert, and am certainly not doling out advice or recommendations. This is simply information that you can choose to ignore, or use as a jumping off point to dig deeper into a topic which isn’t as straightforward as we are led to believe.

Wikipedia provides us with the following chart regarding annual flu shot effectiveness against symptomatic disease which is an ambiguous and subjective definition, and leads one to believe that like the magical COVID shots, these flu “vaccines” do not actually prevent infection. This data comes from the CDC and is a display of relevant efficacy which means very little to the average person.

According to interim estimates published on the CDC’s website for 2021-22 (emphasis added is mine):

Overall, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended outpatient ARI associated with influenza A(H3N2) virus was 16% (95% CI = −16% to 39%), which is considered not statistically significant. This analysis indicates that influenza vaccination did not reduce the risk for outpatient medically attended illness with influenza A(H3N2) viruses that predominated so far this season.

In the real world where people outside of the pharmaceutical industry live, absolute risk reduction or efficacy is what matters most. Relevant risk reduction or relevant efficacy only shows the percentage difference between the numbers of infections of the treatment group vs number of infections in the control group.

But not everybody catches the flu or COVID. Absolute risk reduction or absolute efficacy shows the difference of the effect of a treatment in the total population of the treatment group vs the population of the control groups.

We’ll use this study titled Efficacy of a Cell-Culture–Derived Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Children published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) as an example of Big Pharma’s sleight of hand when it comes to efficacy or risk reduction.

But first, let’s look at a couple of articles that highlight this study to see how it’s presented to the public. One article titled Flu shot: Seqirus presents absolute efficacy data on cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine would lead a person to believe that the article actually shares the absolute efficacy of these shots. But no such information is actually shared in the article. In fact, this is nothing more than a press release.

Then there is the following article titled The New England Journal of Medicine Publishes First-of-its-Kind Study on Cell-Based Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine (QIVc) Efficacy in… that was published on StemCell.tv. This is also a press release, but it does actually contain some information from the study. Importantly, it shares that the efficacy of this shot was 54.6% against laboratory-confirmed influenza illness. Sounds impressive, right?

Now let’s go back to the study printed in the NEJM. In the Methods section of the abstract, the authors claim:

During three influenza seasons, participants from eight countries were enrolled in an observer-blinded, randomized clinical trial comparing IIV4c with a noninfluenza vaccine (meningococcal ACWY). All the participants received a dose of a trial vaccine. Children 2 to less than 9 years of age without previous influenza vaccination who were assigned to the IIV4c group received a second dose on day 29; their counterparts who were assigned to the comparator group received placebo.

True to all published studies from Big Pharma, they are incredibly short on details and have likely cherry picked the data they want to present for the articles so we have to go off of what they are giving us here.

First, they really have two entirely different trials going. Children in the treatment group received a single dose of the test vaccine, IIV4c, and the comparator group, or control group, received a meningococcal vaccine. But children ages 2 to less than 9 years of age who had not received a previous influenza vaccination received 2 doses of the trial vaccine 29 days apart and were compared to a placebo group which received 2 doses of placebo.

Second, why are they comparing an influenza vaccine to a meningococcal vaccine?

Instead of comparing the treatment group to another influenza vaccine, or better yet, a placebo, they give part of the the control group a meningococcal vaccine. What does one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing! Why do this then?

Well, you don’t have to worry about a meningococcal vaccine working better against influenza than your trial vaccine which would obviously not be good for your efficacy results. Also, vaccines can cause Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) which is when the antibodies produced as a result of the vaccine actually make it easier for viruses to enter the cells and make the disease condition worse! Placebos won’t cause ADE.

We’re assured in an article by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia that any vaccines that caused ADE are no longer on the market. Perhaps that’s the case, but we’ve also been told that Pfizer’s COVID shots were 95% effective even though they didn’t actually test regularly for COVID infections during their trials, and that they are safe even though there is no safety data.

Pharmaceutical companies have a nasty habit of not looking for things they really don’t want to find. Why would they take the risk of finding something that might complicate the approval process, or strangle their potential cash cows in the crib when they don’t have to? I take their assurances with a 50lb block of salt.

The results of the study show that 175 participants in the treatment arm became infected with influenza and 364 in the control group became infected which translates to a 54.6% risk reduction against the comparator group.

But, this is the relative risk reduction.

Remember, we need to look at the rate of infection in the treatment group vs the rate of infection in the control group. These numbers are 7.8 and 16.2 respectively which translates into an 8.4% (16.2% - 7.8%) absolute risk reduction assuming there were no errors or manipulations of the data such as forgetting to test people in the treatment group for infection. No one gets to see the raw data so we have to take these companies with potentially billions of dollars at stake at their word.

Unfortunately, most doctors do not understand relative risk reduction vs absolute risk reduction, and pharmaceutical companies are in no hurry to educate them. In fact, pharma companies actively market relative risk reduction, and do not disclose absolute risk reduction because ARR is usually unimpressive.

One other thing to keep in mind is that what is done in trial setting very rarely mimics what we experience in the real world which is why efficacy in the real world is usually way lower than advertised. Think of this like the fuel efficiency on the window sticker of the car vs what you actually experience driving.

So, your best option at protecting yourself against the flu in the minds of the sick care purveyors reduces your risk of infection by less than 10% at best in this case. If you knew that something maybe reduced your risk by 8-9% yet also carried potentially significant adverse effects, would you rush out to get this “protection?”

For millions of years humans have been able to survive and thrive without these magical interventions. Yes, under the wrong circumstances, pathogens such as influenza can be quite serious and even deadly. But we have this wonderful thing called an immune system that most in the developed western world do an incredible job of weakening thanks to our lifestyles.

Following a lifestyle that is consistent with our evolutionary path is critical to strengthening our immune systems in order to fend off pathogens such as the flu virus. An optimal lifestyle is also important to prevent, and even help reverse chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, auto-immune disorders, mental disorders, etc.

Even the healthiest people can still get sick but they tend to recover more quickly, and optimizing your lifestyle gives you the greatest return on your investment - much greater than just a flu shot with questionable efficacy. Eliminating or significantly reducing processed foods, sugar, grains, and seed oils along with increasing nutrient dense foods will go a long way toward changing your risk profile.

Getting adequate sunshine is also important even during the winter months. Depending on your location, you probably won’t produce vitamin D, but you are still receiving the beneficial far infrared light which has healing properties.

You may need to supplement with vitamin D3, but if you aren’t eating nutrient dense foods including animal products, you may want to consider good magnesium and vitamin K2 supplements as well to make sure your body actually uses the vitamin D3.

We can all take much greater control over our health than the sick care industry wants us to believe. Cheers to your good health this winter!