Even their FAVORED studies suggest influenza "vaccines" (they're not vaccines, they don't provide immunity) are a terrible bet.
By Alex Berenson
Unreported Truths
April 1, 2026
One child experienced nephrotic syndrome 13 days after the second vaccine dose; the child subsequently developed anaphylactic shock and venous thrombosis as iatrogenic events that occurred during hospitalization. 1-192127132
Flu shots are safe for kids.
Except when they're not.
Faced with massive parental resistance, health bureaucrats and the pediatricians who love them have largely stopped pushing mRNA Covid jabs. But (at least in the United States), they keep pressing for inactivated virus flu "vaccines."
Unfortunately, the evidence for flu jabs is far weaker than parents - and physicians - realize. In January 2023, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci (yes, THAT Dr. Anthony S. Fauci) wrote they probably shouldn't be licensed. No exaggeration.
Fauci's exact words, which I reported in a 2023 article:
"After more than 60 years of experience with influenza vaccines, very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection has been noted... our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases." [emphasis added]
Yet public health experts will not drop what is now a failed, decades-long experiment to push the shots on children, including healthy kids at very low risk from influenza.
They won a dubious victory last week when a Biden-appointed federal judge in Boston blocked Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Trump administration from removing flu jabs from the federally recommended childhood vaccine schedule.
Why?
The flu vaccine - like the Covid vaccine - does not really qualify as a vaccine at all. At best, it provides temporary and partial protection from a illness that nearly all kids beat after a couple of days without needing more than rest, fluids, and possibly over-the-counter fever-reducing medicines.
Yes, in very, very rare cases, influenza can send healthy children to the hospital or even kill them. But no one really knows why or what kids are at risk. And because those cases are so rare, we don't have proof from clinical trials that flu shots reduce serious complications of influenza or hospitalizations in kids.
At most, the trials tend to show that the shots reduce the risk of mild or moderate influenza - at a cost of serious side effects.
A recent trial that flu shot advocates point to as evidence for the shots proves the point.
Between 2011 and 2014, the giant British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline tested its flu shot in 12,000 toddlers aged 6 to 36 months. About 6,000 kids received the shot, while another 6,000 received a different vaccine. (Notably, the trial was not truly placebo-controlled, making it impossible to define the shot's side effects compared to a placebo.)
In 2018, the researchers reported the results of the trial. They called it a success. About 90 kids who got the shot suffered "moderate-to-severe" influenza - compared to 240 who didn't, implying the vaccine offered about 63 percent protection.
That 63 percent figure seems decent, though it is far below the 95 percent protection the Covid jabs seemed to offer in their clinical trials (a figure that turned out to be a fantasy), or the near-complete lifetime protection that vaccines like measles offer.
But the devil is in the details.
Only five of the 12,000 toddlers had severe cases of flu; two were jabbed, three were not. Not one flu case required intensive care.
On the other hand, the researchers reported six serious health crises likely caused by the vaccines, including "facial paralysis," autoimmune-caused platelet destruction, and "nephrotic syndrome," essentially partial kidney failure. And in a footnote on page 22 of the 23-page appendix to the trial, the researchers disclosed that the kidney crisis had led to "anaphylactic shock and venous thrombosis."