Vaccinations for the flu have been acknowledged by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for several decades to potentially lead to increased mortality rates among the elderly.

In 2006, a significant increase in the number of elderly individuals receiving flu shots, from 15% to 65% over two decades, did not align with the anticipated decrease in death rates among this demographic. Contrarily, the death rate among senior citizens increased dramatically, as reported by CBS News in 2006.

This discrepancy led the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to initiate a comprehensive study in 2005, aiming to provide definitive proof that flu vaccines benefited the elderly. The results, published in JAMA, were initially covered up but were brought to light by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, who reported on them in 2006.

In her report, Attkisson interviewed Dr. Thomas Reichert, a co-author of the study. Originally, she intended to interview the study's lead author, Lone Simonsen, but her interviews were blocked by Simonsen's NIH supervisors. Dr. Reichert, who was independently affiliated with the US government, was able to provide insights.

"It is somewhat perplexing," Attkisson stated. "Over the past two decades, the percentage of seniors receiving flu shots has grown substantially. One would expect a corresponding decline in flu-related deaths among the elderly. Instead, the death rate among this demographic continues to rise."

"We thoroughly scrutinized our data to ensure its accuracy," Dr. Reichert explained. "We've also examined trends in other countries, and our findings remain consistent."

In 2015, Attkisson revisited her investigation in her blog, emphasizing that the study suggested these vaccines might lead to increased deaths rather than prevented ones. Although the scientists aimed to demonstrate that mass flu vaccination would save lives, the data contradicted their assumptions. Moreover, the data showed that individuals aged 65 and over faced an 60 percent higher risk of death if they received a flu shot.

In 2020, Attkisson reiterated these findings in an article on her Substack page. "In a groundbreaking, 'mainstream' government study conducted nearly two decades ago, the mass vaccination program for elderly individuals did not result in saving lives. Instead, the death rate among the elderly increased substantially," she wrote.

Additionally, she noted that many subsequent international studies arrived at similar conclusions: flu shots did not correlate with declining mortality in any age group. Despite this, these findings have received little attention.

Reference the original study's commentary HERE.

Sources:- Govt. Researchers: Flu Shots Not Effective in Elderly, After All, Science, Public Health Policy and the Law- Flu Shots Increase the Risk of Death in the Elderly, What's Behind the Dots, 12 September 2019

Read the original article HERE.

The increase in flu shots among elderly individuals from 15% to 65% over two decades did not align with a decrease in death rates, as anticipated.
Contrarily, death rates among senior citizens increased dramatically, as reported by CBS News in 2006.
This discrepancy prompted the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to initiate a comprehensive study in 2005.
The study aimed to provide definitive proof that flu vaccines benefited the elderly, but its results were initially covered up.
Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson revealed the hidden findings in her report in 2006.
Dr. Thomas Reichert, a co-author of the study, provided insights in the interview with Attkisson.
The data suggested that flu vaccines might lead to increased deaths rather than preventing them.
In 2015, Attkisson revisited her investigation, emphasizing that the study indicated a 60 percent higher risk of death for individuals aged 65 and over who received a flu shot.
In 2020, she reiterated these findings in an article on her Substack page.
Many subsequent international studies have arrived at similar conclusions: flu shots do not correlate with declining mortality in any age group.
Despite these findings, they have received little attention in the public discourse.
The original study, while gaining some coverage in science and public health policy outlets, has mostly been overlooked.
References to the original study commentary can be found HERE.
Sources for the study's implications include Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, as well as What's Behind the Dots.
Read the original article HERE.
The lack of attention given to these findings raises questions about the messaging surrounding community health and workplace-wellness policies.
This situation highlights the need for better science communication, transparency in policy-and-legislation, and a focus on evidence-based health-and-wellness practices for mental-health, mens-health, womens-health, cardiovascular-health, digestive-health, eye-health, hearing, skin-care, sexual-health, and all chronic-diseases, including respiratory-conditions, autoimmune-disorders, skin-conditions, and cancer. It also underscores the importance of general-news outlets covering scientific findings, including those that challenge existing health narratives, in order to inform the public about truths in our community and science, and to promote practices that support fitness-and-exercise, nutrition, and overall aging wellness.

Vaccinations for the flu have been acknowledged by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for several decades to potentially lead to increased mortality rates among the elderly.