Did Vaccines Reduce Flu and Pneumonia Deaths?

What the Numbers from 1900 to 2020 Tell Us

Without propaganda there can, of course, be no large-scale immunisation, but how perilous it is to mix up propaganda with scientific fact. If we baldly [in plain or basic language] told the whole truth it is doubtful whether the public would submit to immunization...[1]

—Dr. Charles Cyril Okell, 1939

We can’t even be sure how to tell when the immune system’s not working right, let alone why not, because we don’t have good metrics of what a healthy human immune system looks like. Despite billions spent on immune stimulants in supermarkets and drugstores last year, we don’t know what—if anything—those really do, or what “immune stimulant” even means.^[2]

—B. Goldman, 2011

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—
deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent,
persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the
comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought

—John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Vaccines are often credited as one of the greatest achievements of modern public health. As with every other vaccine, the flu vaccine has become so deeply embedded in our culture that almost no one thinks to question it. It is available virtually everywhere—from pharmacies to clinics—and can be given to anyone at any time, regardless of health status. It has truly become something done casually, almost as an afterthought while you’re out shopping or running errands. “Just do it” should be its tagline—if Nike hadn’t already claimed it.

Governments and medical professionals rarely question this notion, and any possibility that the basic premise is mistaken is routinely discarded. Still deeper is the idea that a single entity (a virus in this case) is the source of illness and death, regardless of any other factors, including the nutritional or basic health status of an individual. Everyone is considered the same “widget” that should use the same intervention, as there is assumed to be no downside, since every vaccine is automatically labeled as “safe and effective.” This year, as with every year, the CDC recommends a flu vaccine for virtually everyone.

“The CDC’s newly appointed Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to recommend annual influenza vaccination for all persons aged 6 months or older with no contraindications.”[3]

No possibility of a problem. No contraindications. And absolutely no evidence is provided by those who insist on making an automatic “safe and effective” decision and slapping it with that rubber stamp.

But when we examine historical data on influenza and pneumonia mortality in the United States, a more complex picture emerges—one that raises important questions about the timing and true drivers of these declines in pneumonia- and flu-related deaths.

The Historical Data: 1900 to 2020

In 1900, influenza and pneumonia were among the leading causes of death in the United States, with a combined crude death rate of 202.2 deaths per 100,000 population. Over the next seven decades, this rate fell sharply, reaching 25.8 per 100,000 by 1975. This represents an 87% decline in mortality—a remarkable public health achievement by any measure.

However, it's essential to recognize that this decline occurred before the widespread adoption of influenza vaccination. Annual flu vaccines were first introduced in the 1940s, but recommendations for routine use in older adults and other high-risk groups didn’t appear until the 1960s. Even then, vaccination uptake remained relatively low. In fact, influenza vaccine coverage among adults aged 65 and older did not reach 60% until the 1990s.

Yet, have you ever heard of this massive decline? Has any government, public health official, doctor, pediatrician, or mainstream source ever examined—or even mentioned—this phenomenal improvement?

Post-1975 Trends: A Flattened Curve

It’s tempting to note that after vaccination coverage increased among adults aged 65 and older in the 1990s, deaths from flu and pneumonia fell. While that is technically true, the endpoints are almost the same: 25.8 in 1975 and 25.9 in 2018. Thus, the linear slope is virtually flat. Mortality climbed for roughly three decades, peaked around 2000, then declined—hence the near-zero long-term slope.

Keep in mind that any decline is minor compared to the sharp drop observed in the first three quarters of the 20th century, of over 85%. By 1975, the death rate had already fallen to a historically low level. The post-1975 data indicate a period of relative stability, marked by only slight year-to-year fluctuations and no meaningful downward trend.

So, isn’t it worth having this data? Why doesn’t anyone give you this information? Do they even know it themselves?

Here is the data I used to generate these charts, presented in an Excel spreadsheet format. All the sources from which I obtained the data are clearly listed. Please use it to verify the charts and point out any errors you find. I am providing you with public data that your government typically withholds or does not openly disclose. Feel free to use it as you see fit. (NOTE: Charts may not render properly in Google Sheets compared to Excel.)

Please share this information, along with the accompanying charts, with your pediatrician or doctor. Don’t hesitate to ask them tough, probing questions — your health deserves nothing less than clarity and thorough answers.

What Drove the Decline Before 1971?

The dramatic reduction in mortality from influenza and pneumonia between 1900 and 1975 was almost certainly the result of a broad array of public health improvements. These include:

• Development of sanitation infrastructure (including clean water and waste removal)

• Improved housing and nutrition

• Expansion of hospital care and supportive treatments such as oxygen therapy

• Rising standards of living and greater access to medical care

Antibiotics are often cited as a major turning point in controlling infectious diseases. However, penicillin—the first mass-produced antibiotic—did not become widely available until 1944, by which point the death rate from influenza and pneumonia had already fallen by approximately 75%. While antibiotics certainly contributed to further reductions, their role in the early decades of mortality decline is often overstated.

The Scientific Acknowledgment of Vaccine Limitations

A 2023 article in Cell Host & Microbe, titled “Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and other respiratory viruses,” makes a candid assessment of the long-term challenges in vaccine development for respiratory pathogens. The authors write:

“As of 2022, after more than 60 years of experience with influenza vaccines, very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection has been noted. As pointed out decades ago, and still true today, the rates of effectiveness of our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases… Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines… Durably protective vaccines against non-systemic mucosal respiratory viruses with high mortality rates have thus far eluded vaccine development efforts.”[4]

This quote underscores a long-standing issue that protection from “respiratory viruses… have thus far eluded vaccine development efforts.” That statement alone speaks volumes.

A Recent Example: The 2024–2025 Flu Season

Further illustrating this challenge is a recent study titled “Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024–2025 Respiratory Viral Season,” published on medRxiv in early 2025. The authors concluded:

“This study found that influenza vaccination of working-aged adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza during the 2024–2025 respiratory viral season, suggesting that the vaccine has not been effective in preventing influenza this season.”[5]

Read that again—“influenza vaccination of working-aged adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza.” Does that sound “safe and effective” to you?

A More Evidence-Based Understanding

It’s tempting to attribute all declines in disease mortality to a single intervention, as it has been done for centuries. But data and history show that diseases don’t work that way. The case of influenza and pneumonia in the United States demonstrates that mortality improvements are often multifactorial. While vaccination and antibiotics are usually touted as playing a pivotal role in modern public health, the largest declines in death rates for these diseases occurred long before vaccines were widely administered—and even now, their ability to prevent death from the flu based on the data remains highly questionable.

Meanwhile, nutrition, sanitation, improved living conditions, and access to medical care formed the real foundation of early public health success. These often-overlooked factors deserve far more attention in today’s strategies, especially as we continue to confront respiratory-related deaths that defy our current simplistic one-shot solutions.

---

[1] Charles Cyril Okell, “From a Bacteriological Back-Number,” The Lancet, January 1, 1938, pp. 48–49.

[2] B. Goldman, “The Bodyguard: Tapping the Immune System’s Secrets,” Stanford Medicine, Summer 2011.

[3] Heidi Splete, “New ACIP Supports Previous Universal Flu Vaccination,” Medscape, June 27, 2025, https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/new-acip-supports-previous-universal-flu-vaccination-2025a1000h9v

[4] David M. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, and Anthony S. Fauci, “Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and other respiratory viruses,” Cell Host Microbe, January 11, 2023, pp. 146–157.

[5] “Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season,” medRxiv, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421v3