The flu vaccination is offered to practically everyone, indiscriminately, but is aimed in particular at groups considered “fragile” such as the elderly, children and pregnant women. Government campaigns promise to “defend everyone’s health”, but there is no solid scientific evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of this practice either for the general population or for “at risk” groups. For further information, consult Dr. Donzelli’s report on the website InfoVax,
The official rhetoric: protect everyone at all costs
The 2024-2025 anti-flu campaign, promoted, among others, by SItI (Italian Hygiene Society), is aimed at people over 60, pregnant women, children aged 6 months to 6 years, people with chronic conditions, their family members and close contacts, and categories of workers in sectors such as healthcare and law enforcement. The declared objective is to reduce the pressure on emergency rooms and reduce healthcare costs, reducing school and work absences. A noble intent, of course, but behind the slogan of “protecting everyone’s health” let’s ask ourselves a fundamental question: Is there concrete data to support this campaign which, in fact, is aimed at anyone?
The certainty with which professors such as Signorelli, Professor of Hygiene and President of the Nitag express themselves, in maintaining that increasing coverage will certainly lead to an average improvement in the health of the elderly population, is not currently supported by valid evidence.
Effectiveness in reducing complications: myth or realityhas?
Jefferson and Heneghan, epidemiologists from the University of Oxford question the quality of the scientific evidence that supports the extensive promotion of these vaccines. According to them, the lack of evidence of effectiveness is such that it does not justify such a large-scale campaign.
According to the pharmaceutical industries themselves, there are no adequate studies on the safety of the vaccine during pregnancy. Yet, rather than considering this a limit or a contraindication, this absence of data is interpreted as a lack of evidence of harm, paradoxically justifying its administration. It’s like saying: “We don’t know if it’s bad, so get vaccinated.”
The NACI document (equivalent to the US CDC ACIP for Canada) states:
“... influenza vaccination in pregnant women does not significantly reduce the incidence of flu syndromes or hospitalizations, there are no differences between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in terms of hospitalizations for influenza or pneumonia“.
So why insist? The response from the medical community is that “vaccination may still offer some benefit” — a vague and uncertainty statement.
The quality evidence reported by Jefferson shows that the benefits of vaccination are limited, with only a few isolated cases prevented: in fact, to avoid just 1 case of flu, it is necessary to vaccinate between 33 and 99 healthy adults.
Elderly and cardiovascular mortality
Come on elderly peoplefor whom the vaccine is touted as indispensable, the data currently available should not lead us towards mass influenza vaccination. A combined analysis of RCTs showed that, in the absence of acute chronic syndrome (heart attack or unstable angina), the mortalithas cardiovascular disease among vaccinated elderly people is higher than among non-vaccinated people. Those with stable heart conditions could risk more by getting vaccinated, with a increase in mortalityhas cardiovascular trend by 45%. But this data, which Donzelli highlighted in a letter published in JAMA Cardiology, has no place in public information campaigns, which focus on generic benefits.
Examining six high-quality trials (RCTs) comparing two groups of elderly people with similar characteristics and identical numbers, it emerged that there were 32 deaths in the vaccinated group, compared to 22 in the non-vaccinated group.
The question therefore is: perchand not openly report this result? Even if it isn’t definitive proof, the fact remains that the best evidence available at the moment points in a clear direction.
Children and the transmission of influenza in the family
In the Ministry commercial a little girl asks her grandparents “have you done the most important thing?”. The grandparents’ answer is yes, referring to the flu vaccination, which, as the commercial suggests, can also be done together with the anti-Covid-19 vaccine, by contacting your doctor.
There are significant studies like the one that Benjamin Cowling conducted in 2012 on 115 children, divided into two equivalent groups: one received the trivalent influenza vaccine, the other a placebo. Result? Vaccinated people had a 30 reduction in seasonal flu cases compared to unvaccinated people, but they had 302 more infections from other respiratory viruses. The total number of virus cases in the vaccinated group was 201 more than in the placebo group.
A subsequent study he then showed that There is no evidence that vaccination prevents the transmission of influenza once introduced into the household. Indeed, the data even suggests that vaccinated children may increase the risk of infection in the family, rather than reduce it.
Pregnant women and worrying trends
For them pregnant womenit is suspected that the“healthy-vaccine bias” (i.e. the fact that more educated and health-conscious women tend to get vaccinated more) may have a significant impact in evaluating the effectiveness of vaccination. Women who are better educated and more health-conscious, with healthier behaviors overall, and who seek better medical care, may be more compliant with influenza vaccination, which is increasingly recommended by doctors, professional societies, and public health authorities. The impact of lifestyle could be decisive in making vaccination effectiveness appear greater.
But what does the most robust evidence, such as RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials), tell us on this topic? Observational studies indicate no difference in severity of influenza infection in pregnant women, and three WHO systematic reviews have found no evidence of a serious risk for this group. Despite this, vaccination during pregnancy continues to be recommended without a solid evidence base from RCTs. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded four large randomized trials in low-income settings. The result? A emerged slight increase in deaths among vaccinated women (8 deaths versus 5)but in particular the data on newborns was even more alarming. In the groups of vaccinated mothers there was an excess of 24 deaths among their children compared to non-vaccinated ones, a trend excess of serious adverse events in all RCTs, and statistically significant in the largest RCT.
Given these signals, it is essential to request further solid and independent evidence before proceeding with global recommendations involving such a sensitive group.
Conclusions: between rhetoric and science
While the Ministry of Health invites mass vaccination with captivating commercials, we should ask ourselves about the absence of a scientific counterpart that invites us to reflect on the limits and uncertainties of these practices.
Is it really right to promote indiscriminate vaccination without solid evidence demonstrating certain benefits? Perhaps, as Donzelli suggests, it would be more ethical and transparent to speak openly about what emerges from the scientific data on the risks and benefits of flu vaccination, to allow everyone to make an informed choice.
