by Steve Kirsch, Steve Kirsh’s Newsletter:
But the press still thinks it does. There are record flu deaths in California this year, but they never report on the vaccination status of the people who died. Why not?
Executive summary
So why is the CDC and mainstream media still promoting them?
It’s been confirmed in two other studies since then, one that explicitly used a different method and found exactly the same thing and one paper that accidentally exposed the fraud (they only realized it after I pointed it out).
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Still no change.
The 2005 CDC study
I first heard about this study on X:
The video in that post is awesome. Take 3 minutes and watch it.
Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few mainstream journalists willing to challenge pharmaceutical narratives, reported on a groundbreaking NIH-funded study that fundamentally contradicted the established narrative on flu vaccine effectiveness.
A pivotal moment in the history of flu vaccine scrutiny.
The paper in question was:
“Impact of Influenza Vaccination on Seasonal Mortality in the US Elderly Population“ by Lone Simonsen et al., published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (now JAMA Internal Medicine) in February 2005.
This study was absolutely devastating to the flu vaccine narrative because:
- It examined three decades of data (1968-2001)
- It found no decrease in mortality among the elderly despite vaccination rates increasing from 15% to 65%
- It was conducted by researchers from the National Institutes of Health itself
- It concluded that observational studies had “substantially overestimated” vaccine benefits
The most damning conclusion stated: “We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group.”
In other words, the flu vaccine doesn’t work.
Attkisson’s January 2006 CBS report brought this study to public attention, highlighting how it contradicted the CDC’s continued claims of 50-70% mortality reduction.
Her reporting represented a rare moment of mainstream media challenging the pharmaceutical establishment.
What happened next is equally telling:
- The study was largely ignored by public health officials
- No major policy changes resulted despite the significance of the findings
- The aggressive flu vaccine campaigns continued unabated
- Attkisson faced increasing resistance to her investigative reporting on vaccines
This episode exemplified how even the highest quality evidence is systematically sidelined when it contradicts established pharmaceutical interests and institutional positions. The fact that this study came from within the NIH itself makes its subsequent burial all the more revealing about how science is selectively promoted or suppressed.
The UK study: The Anderson discontinuity study
I found this one myself. The Anderson 2020 discontinuity study.
Read More @ kirschsubstack.com
