Ignored Government Study Questioned Effectiveness of Flu Shots in the Elderly

This old news was actually buried.

A recent article by Sharyl Attkisson highlights a significant 2005 government study revealing that flu vaccinations may not be effective for the elderly. Despite decades of promotion and billions of dollars spent on flu shot campaigns, the study concluded that mass vaccination efforts did not save lives among older Americans and may have actually contributed to an increase in the death rate.

Dr. Tom Reichert, a researcher involved in the study, expressed surprise at the findings, which contradicted long-held public health beliefs. The study, which aimed to confirm the benefits of flu shots for seniors, showed no correlation between vaccination rates and reduced mortality rates. This unexpected outcome prompted further investigations, including international studies that yielded similar results in countries like Australia, France, Canada, and the UK.

Despite the findings, the CDC continues to recommend flu shots for the elderly, suggesting that they might reduce the severity of illness rather than prevent deaths. .

Reevaluating the Impact of Influenza Vaccination on Elderly Mortality: An Analysis from 1968 to 2001

The comprehensive study revealed in 2005 that increasing influenza vaccination rates among the elderly in the United States did not correlate with the expected decline in mortality rates, challenging previous observational claims.

The study investigated the paradox between increased influenza vaccination coverage and rising estimates of influenza-related mortality among the elderly in the United States from 1968 to 2001. Initially, observational studies suggested that influenza vaccination could reduce winter mortality risk by 50% for those aged 65 and older. However, as vaccination coverage climbed from 15-20% before 1980 to 65% by 2001, influenza-related mortality estimates unexpectedly increased.

Researchers employed a cyclical regression model to assess seasonal excess mortality related to influenza across different age groups (65-74, 75-84, and 85+ years) and virus strains (A(H3N2), A(H1N1), and B) over 33 seasons. Findings showed that for those aged 65 to 74, excess mortality during A(H3N2)-dominated seasons declined post-1968 pandemic but plateaued after the early 1980s. For individuals aged 85 and older, mortality rates remained consistently high. In contrast, A(H1N1) and B seasons showed no significant change in mortality rates.

The study adjusted for age distribution and virus strain dominance, highlighting that excess mortality due to influenza never exceeded 10% of all winter deaths among the elderly. This data suggests that previous observational studies significantly overestimated the benefits of vaccination.

Several factors could explain these findings. For those aged 65 to 74, natural immunity acquired during the initial emergence of A(H3N2) viruses likely contributed to reduced mortality, overshadowing any potential vaccine benefits observed after 1980.

The study also addressed potential biases in observational studies, such as disparities in vaccination coverage among frail individuals. Moreover, it highlighted the need for further research into vaccine efficacy across different age groups.

These findings challenged the assumption that increased influenza vaccination coverage directly reduces mortality among the elderly, suggesting a need for reassessment of current vaccination policies and approaches to studying vaccine effectiveness.

Yet, according to Attkisson:

An important and definitive “mainstream” government study done nearly two decades ago got little attention because the science came down on the wrong side.