How the Government and Media Lie about the Safety and Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine

I am crowdfunding independent journalism on vaccines, including a major multi-part exposé on how the government and mainstream media systematically deceive the public about the safety and effectiveness of the influenza vaccine.

You can help me get this vital information out to the public by making a financial contribution to the effort.

Update, May 24, 2019: Thanks to generous donations from readers, part four of my flu shot series has been published!

I’ve also raised the funds necessary to upgrade my account with my email service provider to enable a greater number of people to subscribe to my newsletter. I was nearing my contact limit but now will be able to reach an even bigger audience with this empowering knowledge.

I’ve applied the amount raised above that fundraising goal toward my new goal of raising the funds necessary for me to be able produce the fifth installment of the series.

You can help me get this important informatou out by making a financial contribution today.

Project Overview

I am writing a major multi-part exposé demonstrating how the government and media routinely and systematically deceive the public about the safety and effectiveness of the influenza vaccine.

Thanks to financial contributions from my community of readers, I have been able to research, write, and publish the first three installments:

1. Should You Get the Flu Shot Every Year? Don’t Ask the New York Times.

2. How the CDC Uses Fear and Deception to Sell More Flu Vaccines

3. How You’re Being Lied to about the Risks of Getting a Flu Vaccine Annually

4. The CDC’s Criminal Recommendation for a Flu Shot During Pregnancy

In part one, I show how the New York Times, in order to persuade readers to obediently line up for a flu shot every year in accordance with the CDC’s recommendation, deceives readers by grossly mischaracterizing its own sources from the scientific literature on the influenza vaccine.

In part two, I dive even deeper into the medical literature to illustrate further how, by so deceiving the public, the media are just following the CDC’s example, as well as how public vaccine policy represents a threat to both our health and liberty.

In part three, I focus more specifically on the question of vaccine safety, showing why the claims that the flu shot is “safe” cannot be trusted and how studies have shown that getting vaccinated annually may actually increase your risk of illness.

In part four, I focus on the use of mercury in vaccines and the CDC’s recommendation that pregnant women get flu shots, showing how if the pharmaceutical companies made the same claims the CDC does about the safety of this practice, they could be held criminally liable for committing fraud. I expose how the CDC lies about the science, misrepresenting its own cited studyies. I also show how science has established biologically plausible mechanisms by which this practice might be contributing to the increasing prevalence of autism.

I am now fundraising to be able to dedicate the time to writing part five, in which I will focus again the the question of effectiveness by even more fully exposing the CDC’s lie that getting a flu shot is “the best way” to prevent the flu. In part five, you’ll learn:

  • How there are long-term unintended consequences and opportunity costs to vaccination that aren’t taken into account under existing public vaccine policy.
  • How natural immunity is superior to vaccine-conferred immunity.
  • How there are benefits to naturally acquired immunity that must be taken into consideration.
  • Examples of unintended consequences and opportunity costs will include:
    • How mass vaccination for pertussis has caused a genetic shift in the bacteria so that today vaccinated individuals have a higher odds of being infected with the dominant circulating strains.
    • How natural infection during childhood with measles conferred numerous health benefits.
    • How mass vaccination for measles has shifted the risk burden away from children, in whom it is generally a benign disease in developed countries like the US, and onto those in whom it poses a greater risk: infants and adults.
    • How mass vaccination for chicken pox has likewise shifted the risk burden and, far from being an efficient means of disease prevention, has caused a perpetual cycle of disease and treament that places a net economic burden onto society.
    • How early childhood infection with Haemophilus Influenzae B virus (Hib) has been found to protect against childhood cancer.
    • How mass Hib vaccination has also caused a shift in the genetic makeup of circulating strains and may have likewise shifted the risk burden onto older patients in whom it poses a much greater risk.
    • How getting a flu shot denies individuals the opportunity to develop the superior immunity conferred by natural infection and how the consequences of this are harmful. (Review of key takeaways from part three.)
  • How the CDC’s claim that getting a flu shot is “the best way” to prevent the flu is unsupported by scientific evidence.
  • How there are ways to naturally prevent infection and to boost your immune system to readily handle the virus in the event of exposure, and how these things might be far more effective at reducing the risk of illness and lowering health care costs.
  • How influenza is in large part a disease of vitamin D deficiency, and yet how the CDC refuses to advise the public to maintain vitamin D sufficiency during winter months — the “flu season” — in favor of pushing flu shots for the pharmaceutical industry.
  • How the government and pharmaceutical industry focus on vaccines biases the direction of scientific research and wastes precious resources that could be put to use more effectively toward the goal of bettering public health.

As with parts one through four, my pledge to you is that part five will be packed with empowering knowledge, fully referenced so you can check my sources for yourself and have those resources available to you, and masterfully written so you’ll able to quickly and easily consume the vast amount of information I’ll be providing to you.

Nobody is paying me to do this work, which costs me considerably. I have living expenses and a family to provide for, so to be able to continue this mission, I require financial support from readers. This is a 100% reader-funded project! 

Your donation will help me get this vital information out to the public.

Why Crowdfund? And How Does It Work?

This project is being made possible by financial contributions from my readers.

You might be wondering why I’m not using one of the available crowdfunding platforms out there, such as Kickstarter or Patreon, for this fundraiser. One reason is that these companies take a 5% cut of the total amount raised, whereas by hosting it here on my own site and using PayPal, I can reduce that to 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction. Another reason is that independent voices have had their accounts suspended on such platforms, and by self-hosting this fundraising effort, I can speak out without the risk of this happening.

Sound good? If this works, it will serve as a model for me moving forward to be able to deliver you impactful journalism that empowers you with actionable knowledge. This is not just about creating a series of articles. It is about revolutionizing how journalism is done. It is about working together to help make a positive impact, to help ensure a brighter future for our children and future generations of humanity.

Why It Matters

This project focuses on the influenza vaccine, but the implications are profoundly greater. This exposé is relevant because, as it illuminates, our health, lives, and liberty are at grave risk. Public vaccine policy poses a threat to our children and future generations of humanity.

My exposé will connect the dots and synthesize a vast amount of information in a way that enables you to see the big picture and fully grasp the significance of just how dangerously the public is being systematically lied to.

This exposé is needed because there is no serious discussion about vaccine happening in the mainstream media. What the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different things.

I have already incontrovertibly demonstrated that in the already published installments, but there is still so much more to cover!

This project matters because in order for this threat to our health to be alleviated, political change must occur, and for political change to occur, the nature of the mainstream discourse about vaccines must change.

Together, we can and will make a positive impact. We have to. Our children are depending on us.

How This Project Is Different

While the mainstream media has not only utterly failed to educate the public about vaccines, there is a ton of information available online from alternative sources (including, of course, the medical literature itself, searchable at So how is my exposé different from everything else out there about the flu vaccine?

Well, for one, most people just don’t have time to research the medical literature for themselves. It takes a huge amount of time, and the science can be very difficult to interpret and analyze. What is required is for journalists with the necessary research and analytic skills to convey the most critical information in a meaningful way to the general public.

There are a lot of people doing amazing work in this area. But another part of the problem is that there is so much information out there. There is a great deal of misinformation on both sides. While some alternative media sources do cover the vaccine issue reasonably well, one tends to get disparate glimpses of various facets. Content that really comprehensively overviews a topic such as “the influenza vaccine” in a way that enables the reader to relatively quickly and easily get fully up to speed on what the science says and approaches the issue from all angles is rare or nonexistent. And that’s no surprise because, frankly, this is an extremely difficult and time-consuming task that requires specialized skills.

I recognize that I have the required skills in research, analysis, and, above all, writing, and I feel compelled by my conscience to utilize these skills to get this information out there. I have shifted the focus of my work away from US foreign policy and toward the vaccine issue because this is where I feel my voice is most needed at this point in time.

But this is not a selfless effort. On the contrary, I view it as being in my own best interests to do everything in my power to make a positive impact. Indeed, my primary consideration is what kind of world I want my son to grow up in. If you are a parent, you know there can’t be any greater motivation than that.

My exposé connects the dots, synthesizing a massive amount of information about the flu vaccine in a way that helps readers see the bigger picture. Basically, you could either spend hundreds of hours doing your own research to really understand the broad range of issues related to the influenza vaccine, or you can just read my exposé. (And then, if you want to dig even deeper, you can start by checking my sources and going from there.)

While there is some great work being done out there on this issue, the nature of the topic itself can make it difficult to effectively communicate ideas through writing. This is something I excel at. I’ve been described by Barron’s as “a writer of rare skill”, and I am confident that you’ll agree part one of my exposé is extraordinarily well written.

I don’t have a lot of resources, but even with my modest means, I have already been able to make an impact with my writing. My work has been cited by Dr. Joseph Mercola of the leading natural health website, and I have been collaborating with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s organization Children’s Health Defense (formerly World Mercury Project) to get my message out about vaccines. My work has also been published at and the National Vaccine Information Center’s publication The Vaccine Reaction.

I have had considerable impact despite my lack of resources, and hold that up as a testament to the quality of my work.

So that’s how this project is different, and why I feel it is worth supporting. In the end, it is really up to the information consumer to determine how knowledge is imparted to them through the media. Where you direct your dollars helps determine the future. I ask you to join me in this effort. My research, analysis, and writing. Your financial contribution. Together, we can have an impact and help change the nature of the public discourse on this critically important subject:

Key Takeaways from Published Installments

Key Takeaways from Part 1
Here are the key points to learn from part one, “Should You Get the Flu Shot Every Year? Don’t Ask the New York Times.

  • What the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different and contradictory things. A report from the New York Times advocating the CDC’s recommendation that everyone aged six months and up get an annual flu shot presents a useful case study.
  • The New York Times claims that science tells us that the vaccine confers a “big payoff in public health”, but its own source from the scientific literature actually concluded that the assumptions underlying the CDC’s universal flu shot recommendation are unsupported by scientific evidence.
  • The Times claims that harms from the vaccine are “almost nonexistent”, but its own source from the scientific literature actually highlighted the alarming lack of high quality safety studies and concluded that randomized controlled trials to assess the vaccine’s safety in young children are “urgently required”.
  • By so grossly deceiving its readers about the science, the media are just following the CDC’s example. In fact, the Times’ own source went so far in its criticism of the CDC’s recommendation that it accused the CDC of deliberately misrepresenting the science in order to sustain its policy.
  • The two key assumptions underlying the CDC’s policy are that the vaccine reduces transmission of the virus and reduces hospitalizations and deaths from influenza. But as the Times’ own source noted, neither of these assumptions are supported by the weight of scientific evidence.
  • The quality of the available scientific evidence, according to the Times’ own source, is also “low”, including because so many of the studies have been industry funded, with “evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions”.
  • Apart from the questionable nature of the evidence for effectiveness in older children, the CDC recommends the vaccine for children as young as six months even though the vaccine has not been shown to be either effective or safe in children under age two.
  • The CDC issue its recommendation that pregnant women get a flu shot during any trimester despite no randomized controlled trials to study the safety of doing so ever having been done.
Key Takeaways from Part 2
Here are the key points to learn from part two, “How the CDC Uses Fear and Deception to Sell More Flu Vaccines“:

  • The media, by deceiving the public about what the science says about vaccines, are just following the example set by the CDC.
  • The CDC views people doing their own research online to take control of their own health and make their own informed choices as an obstacle to be overcome in order to achieve its goal of increasing vaccination rates — to which end it employs a deliberate strategy of fear marketing.
  • The CDC claims that hundreds of thousands of people are hospitalized and tens of thousands die from the flu every year, and the media parrot this claim as though known fact, when the reality is that these numbers do not come directly from death certificates or surveillance data, but from mathematical models that are highly controversial because they are based on dubious assumptions that risk greatly overestimating the virus’s true impact on public health.
  • The CDC claims that vaccination greatly reduces deaths among the elderly, but the studies it has relied on to support this claim have been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community as suffering fatally from a “healthy user” selection bias: it isn’t that elderly people who were vaccinated were less likely to die during that coming flu season, but that people so sick and frail that they were more likely to soon die were less likely to get vaccinated.
  • Government researchers have acknowledged the effectiveness of natural immunity at reducing flu deaths among the elderly.
  • Studies have concluded that the billions of dollars spent on influenza vaccination campaigns every year is not a cost effective use of resources. One study concluded that it costs more to vaccinate in most years than it would be to not vaccinate.
  • While the CDC’s flu vaccine recommendation rests on the assumption that vaccination reduces viral transmission, a study published last year actually found that vaccinated individuals shed more than six times as much aerosolized virus in their breath than people who weren’t vaccinated.
  • The media frequently characterize anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy as believing in some kind of “conspiracy theory”, but no such theory is required to explain how the CDC could get it so wrong; the misuse of power by those with good intentions, the institutionalized bias within the medical establishment, and the endemic corruption within government agencies like the CDC and FDA are sufficient to explain it.
  • Public vaccine policy not only threatens our health, but also our liberty as it constitutes an all-out assault on our right to informed consent — one of the most fundamental ethics in the practice of medicine.
Key Takeaways from Part 3
Here are the key points to learn from part three, “How You’re Being Lied to about the Risks of Getting a Flu Vaccine Annually“:

  • As another illustration of how the mainstream media systematically misinform the public about what science says about vaccines, the Washington Post manufactures parental consent for public vaccine policy by blatantly lying that no vaccine has been added to the CDC’s routine childhood schedule until it has been studied for safety when given with every other vaccine on the schedule. Despite having been shown that this claim is false, they refuse to issue a correction.
  • The government and media also lie about the risks from aluminum in vaccines, telling the public that it is harmless. Yet the study the CDC and FDA rely on to support this claim amounts to nothing less than scientific fraud because it: (1) used an already falsified “minimal risk level” that was several times too high; (2) assumed that the body burden of exposure from injection is the same as ingestion, even though the FDA knows perfectly well no more than about 1% is absorbed through the gut lining, whereas 100% is absorbed through injection; (3) only considered the amount of aluminum found in the blood as contributing to the body burden, even while acknowledging that it can be carried by immune cells into the brain, where it accumulates. (Note: the flu shot doesn’t contain aluminum, but this deception is relevant for the forthcoming discussion in part four of mercury, which is contained in some flu shots.)
  • Brain inflammation is a known cause of autism, and the whole purpose of including aluminum in vaccines is to provoke a more inflammatory response.
  • Influenza vaccines have been associated with serious adverse events including narcolepsy, febrile seizures, and Guillain­-Barré syndrome (GBS). The Cochrane Collaboration has remarked that studies finding a statistically significant association between the influenza vaccine and GBS “demonstrate the danger of commencing a large vaccination campaign without adequate harms assessment.”
  • Commencing a large vaccination campaign without adequate harms assessment is what public health officials and the industry do every year. This is because every year the vaccine is manufactured differently, and manufacturers have only about six months from the time health officials make a determination which strains of influenza virus should be included to produce and get the vaccine to market in time for “flu season”.
  • Just because the FDA approves a vaccine for the market doesn’t mean that it has actually been shown to be effective at preventing the target disease. This is because the FDA uses an antibody response as a surrogate marker for vaccine effectiveness. This is scientifically invalid because an antibody response is neither always sufficient nor even necessary for the development of immunity, but it allows the pharmaceutical industry to get their vaccines to market without having to prove that they actually work.
  • The CDC reassures us that after a flu vaccine in Europe was shown to cause narcolepsy, it looked at data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and determined that there was no heightened risk of narcolepsy from flu shots in the US. However, this is not very reassuring because the CDC tightly controls access to the VSD and severe underreporting is a known problem with VAERS.
  • VAERS was a product of a 1986 law, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), the purpose of which was to grant legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers since pharmaceutical companies were going out of business due to vaccine injury lawsuits, which threatened the supply chain and hence also public vaccine policy. The Supreme Court upheld this immunity in 2011, determining that the “unavoidability” of vaccine injuries establishes a complete defense against injury claims, assuming the vaccine was properly prepared and accompanied with adequate warnings (i.e., the vaccine package inserts).
  • Also established under the NCVIA is the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which effectively shifts the financial burden for vaccine injuries away from the pharmaceutical companies and onto the taxpaying consumers.
  • Numerous studies have found the diphtheria, tetanus, and whole cell pertussis (DTP) vaccine to be associated with an increased risk of death in childhood. This illustrates the importance of taking the opportunity costs of vaccination into consideration, which public health officials simply do not do.
  • The influenza vaccine presents another particularly useful illustration, as studies have shown that repeated annual vaccination can actually increase your risk of illness. This is because naturally acquired immunity is superior to that conferred by the vaccine and protects not only against the infecting strain of influenza, but other strains as well, and even against other viruses. While vaccines are designed to stimulate a strong antibody response, natural immunity confers the additional benefit of a robust cell-mediated immunity, thus offering greater protection in the long run.

Crowdfunding Progress


Goal: 2000.00
Raised: $506.00
Donors: 21
Fundraiser Started: May 13, 2019
Page Updated: May 24, 2019

Previous Fundraiser

Help me reach a bigger audience! Success! I’ve raised the funds needed to upgrade my email service to enable a greater number of people to subscribe to my newsletter.

  • $950/$991 104% 104%
“Jeremy Hammond is a true investigative journalist, not afraid to dig for the truth on vaccine safety or to expose the corruption, lies, and manipulative tactics of the official vaccine promoters, such as the CDC and the FDA, with laser-like clarity.

“By contrasting the actual research on vaccine science—or lack thereof—with the pap being sold to us by the media, CDC, and public health officials, it becomes glaringly obvious that the powers-that-be do not have the public’s best interest in mind.

“I find his work not only very educational for myself as a naturopathic physician as well as for my patients, but am also impressed by his dedication to his craft; it takes hundreds of hours to research and write such articles and nobody is paying him to do this.

“Jeremy is providing a true service to humanity with his investigative work and deserves our deepest gratitude, respect and support. He certainly has mine.” Dr. Anke Zimmermann, ND, FCAH

Naturopathic Physician,

“I dare say that journalists have gotten either very lazy, very scared, or both. It is a rare journalist – like Jeremy Hammond, or Sheryl Attkisson – who actually digs deep for the truth on a matter.” Dr. Kelly Brogan, MD

Holistic Women's Health Psychiatrist and New York Times Bestselling Author,

“Jeremy Hammond has recently produced two stellar pieces of investigative journalism on how the science of flu vaccines is mis-reported by the CDC and the mainstream media. He is currently working on a third. I have found his pieces to be carefully sourced, thoughtful, highly readable and compelling….

“If we want investigative journalism on this topic, we’re going to have to fund it ourselves, or we won’t get much of it! I’d rather pay him than for a subscription to the Washington Post or New York Times, both of which continue to demonstrate woeful bias on this topic.” Jen Downey

“Glad to see that a rare few independent thinking journalists exist.” J. P.

“I don’t know how to thank you enough.” A. R.

“Jeremy, you’re doing great work! Good on you for taking on the media behemoths and trying to get out all the facts about vaccines.” K. R.

“Thanks for all you do!” B. S.

“You’re amazing! Keep up the great work.” J. N.

“I am a Mom of an autistic son 13.5yrs old… Thanks!!!” C. S.

“Thanks for what you’re doing! Keep it up!” J. G.

“Thank you so much for taking the time out of your life to pursue the answers to relevant largely unposed questions about our vaccine program, and the science that bears on it.” J. D.

“Great work!!” C. P.

“A greatly needed public service! … Thanks so much Jeremy for your dedication to searching for the truth on the flu shot.” M. E.

“Jeremy, A friend forwards me your articles — which I much appreciate. Thank you for the good work you do.” Y. P.

“Keep up the great work. Don’t let the industry shills and trolls get you down.” F. P.

Pin It on Pinterest