In this furious world, where political incompetence knows perfectly well how to bow to the most unbridled financial wishes of the pharmaceutical industry, it’s not surprising to see bills regularly being proposed that are as inept as they are dangerous. After forcing healthcare professionals to undergo a totally useless and, what’s more, extremely deadly anti-COVID vaccination, our elites are once again scrambling to re-inject them each year with highly suspect flu jabs, for their own good and that of their patients, of course. Whether through corruption, subservience or incompetence, the fact remains that this idea of forced influenza vaccination does not stand up for a second to a careful study of the reality underlying influenza disease and the insignificant poverty of the protection conferred by these vaccines.
Introduction
On 11 July 2025, a bill was tabled to re-introduce compulsory flu vaccinations for healthcare professionals and allow reimbursement for all insured persons, on an experimental basis and in three regions (1). There has also been talk of making it compulsory for residents of nursing homes, but no bill appears to have been tabled (1 bis).
Eleven basic epidemiological facts about influenza
1- Remember that the flu vaccine increases the risk of healthcare professionals being infected by the virus. (2)(3)
2- According to a 2005 Cochrane review, offering flu vaccination to people working in care homes would have little impact on the number of residents who contract influenza or go to hospital with a lung infection, compared with those living in care homes where no vaccination is offered. (4)
3- People vaccinated against influenza excrete 6 times more virus when they are infected, and are therefore more likely to infect others than if they had not been vaccinated. (5)
4- Vaccination against influenza does not prevent transmission of the virus within families, nor does it protect against infection. The more you vaccinate, the less effective the vaccine becomes. (6)
5- According to a 2005 study, there is no correlation between increased vaccination coverage and lower mortality rates, and observational studies considerably overestimate the benefits of vaccination. (7)
6- According to a 2012 meta-analysis by the Johns Hopkins Institute, there is a lack of evidence that the flu vaccine is effective in the over-65s (8).
7- According to a Cochrane review conducted by Tom Jefferson in 2020, the available data are of poor quality and provide no indication of the safety, effectiveness or efficiency of influenza vaccines in people aged 65 or over(9).
8- According to a 2020 study, influenza vaccination does not reduce hospitalisations or mortality in the over-65s (10).
9- In children, there was an increased risk of acute respiratory infections caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens after influenza vaccination, compared with children who were not vaccinated during the same period. (11)(12)
10- According to several Cochrane review articles, the flu vaccine has not proved effective in children, or in people with COPD or cardiovascular disease. (13)(14)(15)
11- In short, to put an end to the nonsense about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine:
The opinion of the authorities
– Odile Launay, coordinator of the CIC de Vaccinologie Cochin-Pasteur (APHP), acknowledges in 2019 that the flu vaccine is a gamble renewed every year. (16)
– Agnès BUZYN acknowledged in 2019 that the flu vaccine is a gamble that is repeated every year, and that its effectiveness is highly variable and unpredictable . (17)
– In 2023, the HAS wrote that, given the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, making it compulsory for carers was not appropriate. It recommended other measures to improve the CV of carers. (18)
According to a French study, for the 2024-2025 season, vaccine effectiveness was 60% in the 0-64 age group and 22% in the over-65s, lower than in the previous season. Efficacy is lower for influenza A strains than for influenza B strains. The calculations are indirect (case-control studies) and consider a person as vaccinated only for the period from 14 days to 3 months after the injection. When you look at the figure comparing cases of influenza in vaccinated and unvaccinated over-65s, you wonder how the 22% effectiveness rate was achieved: the curves are identical! (19)
Flu vaccines for today and tomorrow
A comment on flu vaccines, which are conventional at the moment, but not so conventional!
Since at least 2009, vaccine manufacturers have been looking to replace the chicken embryo manufacturing process, which requires a lot of eggs and mutates the virus during production. That’s why they took advantage of the COVID pandemic to launch mRNA vaccines, avoiding the minimum 10 years of testing required to bring a vaccine to market (see my book Science and Power).
Another option is to culture the virus in dog kidney cells. But this raises a new problem: these MDCK (Madin-Darby Canine Kidney) cells are a transformed cell line that can cause tumours and transfer its neoplastic activity to the vaccinated cells.
Researchers are trying to find a way to stop these cells from being carcinogenic (MiR-2779-x, a key microRNA linked to the tumorigenicity of the MDCK cell line) (20).
For the moment, Flucelvax Tetra from Seqirus and Optaflu (trivalent) from Novartis are the only influenza vaccines grown on MDCKs authorised in France and Europe…
