More Than 100 Seniors Died After Receiving This Flu Shot Given By Pharmacies


Health providers and senior citizens receive two different brochures about the flu shot, with key information missing on the latter.




As it happens every winter, the marketing push for receiving a flu shot continues. CVS is offering a 20% shopping pass when you get your flu shot.  They are also marketing a high-dose vaccine, which is of course more profitable for the manufacturer and the pharmacy, but there are plenty of reasons to be wary of it — especially for seniors.

Fluzone® High-Dose is an injectable vaccine, specifically approved for people ages 65 and older. Manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur, this shot contains three flu strains and four times more antigen (substance that causes an immune response) than regular flu shots, claims CVS Pharmacy (Rite Aid also offers it and admits that “more studies are being done” to see whether it actually offers an improvement at all).

The pharmacy does admit that the vaccine is not recommended for anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction (especially Guillain-Barré syndrome) to vaccines in the past.

But between their marketing campaigns and promoting a 20% shopping coupon, they omitted a vital piece of information: 105 seniors died after taking part in two Fluzone high-dose vaccine trials, and 91 died after getting the regular Fluzone vaccine. 




Deaths after the Fluzone Clinical Trials

Fluzone 2

Rite Aid and other pharmacies also offer the shot, but many people have questioned whether seniors are being told the truth about their risks.

Two clinical trials were conducted before Fluzone received approval. Both studies were led and sponsored by Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine manufacturer itself (clear potential for conflict of interest).

In the first study 2,573 adults ages 65 and older received the Fluzone high-dose and 1,260 received regular Fluzone shots. Out of those a surprising number of seniors, 156 high-dose and 93 regular-dose recipients, had a severe adverse event (SAE) within 6 months post-vaccination.

In addition, 16 high-dose and 7 regular-dose recipients died between 29 and 180 days post-vaccination. But as the package insert received by unsuspecting patients puts it, “no deaths were reported within 28 days post-vaccination.”

Pharmaceutical companies have been known to present and phrase study results in ways that downplay the risks, and many have wondered if this is indeed the case with Fluzone, including the website Health Impact News in a 2013 article that went viral on social media. Usually studies report the results in round numbers, such as what adverse reactions happened during the first 30, 60 and 90 days. In this case the study chose to state in the package that no one died during the first 28 days. But a total of 23 (high-dose and regular dose) participants died starting on day 29. Why did they choose the 29th day to begin counting?

Second Study: More Adverse Reactions, Deaths 

In the second study 15,992 adults ages 65 and older received the Fluzone high-dose and 15,991 received the regular Fluzone. Results show that 1,323 high-dose and 1,442 regular Fluzone recipients had a SAE within 6 to 8 months post-vaccination (204 high-dose and 200 regular-dose experienced a SAE within 30 days). In addition, 83 high-dose and 84 regular-dose died within 6 to 8 months, and 6 high-dose recipients died within 30 days post-vaccination.

According to the Fluzone vaccine information sheet none of these deaths were linked to the vaccine. They state that “these data do not provide evidence for a causal relationship between deaths and vaccination with Fluzone High-Dose.”

The first study claims the deaths cannot be linked to the clinical study because “the majority of these participants had a medical history of cardiac, hepatic, neoplastic, renal, and/or respiratory diseases.” The second study claims the same due to the majority of participants having “one or more chronic comorbid illnesses.”

The question arises – without further investigating, how did they arrive at the conclusion that none of the deaths were connected to the vaccination? Why wasn’t the data between seniors with existing conditions and without existing conditions ever compared or added to the package insert? And can we trust the word of the pharmaceutical company who sponsored its own study?

At any rate, 105 deaths and the sheer amount of adverse effects recorded between the two studies are serious red flags for anyone considering a flu shot. Serious adverse events include life-threatening issues like Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which has symptoms similar to polio including paralysis.

Perhaps, that is one of the reasons why when receiving the vaccine, the patient needs to sign a consent form first.

The Consent Form: Risk Awareness and Inability to Sue the Company

When receiving a vaccination (this one from Rite Aid), the patient has to read and sign a form which includes the following:

“I have read, or have had read to me the Vaccination Information Sheet (VIS) regarding the vaccine(s). I have had the opportunity to ask questions that were answered to my satisfaction and understand the benefits and risks of the vaccine(s). I consent to, or give consent for, the administration of the vaccine(s). I fully release and discharge Rite Aid Corporation, its affiliates, officers, directors, and employees from any liability for illness, injury, loss, or damage which may result there from,” states the Rite Aid consent form.

There are two important parts to this consent: you are signing that you understand the risks and that you cannot sue the company if adverse reactions occur.

To fully understand the risks, you would have to read the full information sheet about Fluzone or Fluzone High-Dose, which includes the data on clinical trials and deaths post-vaccination, as well as almost 30 adverse reactions (from mild to potentially life-threatening) reported post-approval of the vaccine. However, this sheet is printed for the health provider only, and they are not likely to show it to the patient (could they be hiding something)?

What does the patient receive? – An official patient information sheet that only lists pain, aches, tiredness and headache for side effects of Fluzone high-dose and tells you to ask your health provider about the rest. This is where as a patient, you have to be vigilant and ask very specific questions and do your own research.

The second part of your consent is understanding that you cannot sue the pharmacy that gave you the shot, but also it is important to know that you cannot sue the manufacturer of the vaccine as well.

Unlike suing the company that manufactured a drug that caused an adverse reaction (which is becoming a huge problem as anyone who watches late night TV has noticed), vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued. Instead, the adverse reactions can be reported to The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the person can apply for compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which has paid out over $3 billion to vaccine injury victims since it was started in 1986 (two-thirds of applicants are denied, so the real number of victims could be far higher).

While some people were successful at proving that the vaccine caused an injury (as in the case of Bailey Banks whose MMR vaccine caused ADEM, an intense swelling in the brain), the vaccine manufacturers can never be held liable. It’s an unfortunate reality that has allowed the industry to thrive even as these “significant adverse events” (like deaths) continue to mount. Be sure to keep these points in mind before you or your loved one goes in for their next shot.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. Consult a doctor before making any major changes to your health, diet, or medicine-related routine. 

Further reading: Why the High-Dose Vaccine for Seniors is Dangerous and Ineffective




8 Responses to “More Than 100 Seniors Died After Receiving This Flu Shot Given By Pharmacies”

  1. ian says:

    It’s things like this make me wonder about how much disinfo is about. I suppose it is a take your chances one way or another situation.

    • Aldous says:

      Ian, there’s no doubt that the vaccine racket (like the cancer racket) is all about Big Money/Charities and creating future customers for Big Pharma, along with killing off quite a few ‘useless eaters’. Big Pharma is all about creating CUSTOMERS NOT CURES
      Keep well away from jabs and orthodox (doomed/designed to fail) cancer treatments.
      There are some excellent anti-vaccination image memes on this first link (scroll down) as a picture is often worth a thousand words.


      The Medical Racket

  2. Dee says:

    If people read and understood the ingredients of these so called vaccines they would def think twice about getting them. A relative of mine lives on a complex for the elderly and infirm, after they got their shots last winter they all got chest infections and a couple died. Older relatives of mine who have health problems have had the shots routinely, they all seem to have died from or are fighting cancer….I can’t help but think Agenda 21 and depopulation.

  3. Lynn says:

    We keep seeing Saintsbury advertising in store. flu shots for a tenner. They are charging to kill…corporate murder.

    • sovereigntea says:

      Ask the Sainsbury family about the little children PIE

      He added in his letter to the D of Ed that to be doubly certain he ( Righton ) had sought a second opinion from a well known child psychiatrist who concurred with his expert opinion

      The psychiatrist in question was Dr.Morris Fraser, another convicted paedophile and PIE member who wrote a supporting report on Great Ormond St headed note paper

      This allowed Napier to embark on a new teaching career abroad employed by the British Council, founded by the UK Government in 1934

      He was able ( by his own admission in a number of letters to Righton over many years ) to abuse countless number of boys in Sweden and Egypt over many years in the late 70’s through the 80’s until 1992 when the arrest of Righton and the discovery of these letters led to his ( Napier’s) immediate dismissal

      In 1979, a Steering Committee was established to manage and oversee a course designed to provide an alternate qualification to the CQSW and CSS in managing disturbed young children in a residential setting.

      The idea was formed by Paul Gautier, a leading psycho-educationalist at the time, following a trip to Canada.

      Nick Stacey, the Director of Kent social services, formed the steering committee and funding was received from the Gatsby Trust, part of the Sainsbury Foundation.

      They received £60,000 over a three year period.

      £15,000 per year of this was spent on the Director salary.

  4. Gordon says:

    I personally know of two elderly people who took the flu shot and withing a week turned deaf. Coincidence? I wonder!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.