Placebo controlled study here shows that flu vaccine increases risk of non-influenza infection. In addition to risk of autoimmune diseases, flu vaccine causes illnesses. There are more studies showing the same thing. [...]
In a double-blind randomized controlled trial, we randomly
allocated [115] children aged 6–15 years to receive 2008–2009 seasonal
trivalent influenza inactivated vaccine (TIV; 0.5 mL Vaxigrip;
Sanofi Pasteur) or placebo
TIV recipients had significantly
lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on
serologic evidence (Supplementary Appendix). However,
participants who received TIV had higher risk of ARI associated
with confirmed noninfluenza respiratory virus infection
(RR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.31–14.8). Including 2 additional confirmed
infections when participants did not report ARI, TIV
recipients had higher risk of confirmed noninfluenza respiratory
virus infection
115 children total in study (both placebos and tivs)
from your paper:
The increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infection
among TIV recipients could be an artefactual finding
artefactual. adjective. (1) Referring to something produced by human hands. (2) Referring to an inaccurate finding, deviation or alteration of electronic readout or morphology due to some form of systemic error. Segen's Medical Dictionary.
This is a separate study referencing the one above, using an immensely larger sample size (rather than individual cases, it's from anonymized records databases), showing that even without controlling for vaccination, there is still an interference effect between influenza infection and other respiratory infections - many viral respiratory infections reduce the chances of getting one another, which works at the population level into a cycle where flu epidemics suppress other infections.
It doesn't hold true for bacterial infections, however, whose trends seem to ignore other infections, and several viral infections (rhinovirus, norovirus, rotavirus, enterovirus) also merrily had overlapping outbreaks with the diseases that did interfere.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4833272/
A third study, also referencing the one in the OP, showing an general antiviral effect in the body after an influenza infection, not specific to respiratory infections as the previous study was limited to. The discussion also suggests this may be a general effect of viral infections and not necessarily specific to influenza, but that was the only infection studied.
The long and short of it is that other research suggests you would get the same chart as above if you controlled for respiratory infection instead of for vaccination.
First of all, if you're going to talk science, talk science. Not 'scam', not how 'dumb' something is - that sets you up immediately as biased and not someone anyone is willing to engage in real debate with. But, since you opened the door, and I'm a generous and helpful soul, lets dig in a little.
Disclaimer. I am not a scientist, I am not a doctor, I have no specific skills in immunology. However, the tenet of the brief seems to say that there's an increased risk in NON INFLUENCE related virus infections. That means people may be at a higher risk of getting other non-flu illnesses if the influenza vaccine is administered. The study even says "Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses."
So why you jump to the conclusion that the influenza vaccine is a scam is puzzling. In addition "In addition to risk of autoimmune diseases, flu vaccine causes illnesses. " - You're making the standard 'causation vs correlation' fallacy. People may be getting sicker. Does the vaccine cause that? Unlikely, and there's no causative link.
I'd love to see more information, and less hyperbole and handwaving.
As I understand it, you are less likely to get other respiratory infections if you get the flu, as shown in the study @Hevach quoted. So it should not be surprising that people who are vaccinated against flu are more likely to get other respiratory viruses, because they are less likely to get the flu.
Seeing as flu is the more serious illness, and flu prevalence is greatly reduced by the vaccine, how do you conclude that the vaccine is "dumb" or a "scam".
Additionally, you don't seem to be taking the relative severity of the diseases into account. "Noninfluenza respiratory virus" is basically medical speak for the common cold. (Yes there are other types, but rhinovirus is the most common one.)
Anyone who has had proper influenza will agree that they would accept a higher risk of getting a cold in return for a lower risk of getting flu any day of the week!
Placebo controlled study here shows that flu vaccine increases risk of non-influenza infection. In addition to risk of autoimmune diseases, flu vaccine causes illnesses. There are more studies showing the same thing.
I think you're misinterpreting both the talk-home messages and significance of this report. Some excerpts you might want to re-read (bolding is my own):
In the prepandemic period of our study, we did not observe a statistically significant reduction in confirmed seasonal influenza virus infections in the TIV recipients (Table 3), although serological evidence (Supplementary Appendix) and point estimates of vaccine efficacy based on confirmed infections were consistent with protection of TIV recipients against the seasonal influenza viruses that circulated from January through March 2009 [16].
The increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infection among TIV recipients could be an artefactual finding; for example, measurement bias could have resulted if participants were more likely to report their first ARI episode but less likely to report subsequent episodes, whereas there was no real difference in rhinovirus or other noninfluenza respiratory virus infections after the winter influenza season. The increased risk could also indicate a real effect. Receipt of TIV could increase influenza immunity at the expense of reduced immunity to noninfluenza respiratory viruses, by some unknown biological mechanism. Alternatively, our results could be explained by temporary nonspecific immunity after influenza virus infection, through the cell-mediated response or, more likely, the innate immune response to infection [21–23].
Our results are limited by the small sample size and the small number of confirmed infections.
So basically, their results are not conclusive yet they do not contradict the seasonal flu shot's efficacy and can be explained by things like bias and known uninteresting mechanisms. As Hevach has pointed out, other studies support the idea that the results they see in this report are likely due to general viral interference.
But let's say your interpretation of their results is correct. Let's say that if you get the seasonal flu vaccine you definitely increase your risk of other upper respiratory viruses. Influenza and influenza related pneumonia kills about 55,000 (this is thought to be an underestimate) people every year in the U.S. alone and has a unique potential to mutate into a virus that could kill millions in a single season is we are not careful and vigilant. On the other hand, other respiratory viruses that cause common cold symptoms rarely cause death and do not have the potential to become pandemic threats to humanity. Seasonal vaccination minimizes risk of both death and the birth of new deadly flu strains. If you honestly had to choose one risk over the other (which you probably don't), which risk makes more sense?
This seems to be the closest it gets to saying that, as one possibility:
Receipt of TIV could increase influenza immunity at the expense of reduced immunity to noninfluenza respiratory viruses, by some unknown biological mechanism.
