Well that study is 2 years old (published 7th July 2010). I haven't seen a panic about it yet - and I'm curious why it's news on the anti vax website. It's hardly damning of the entire pharmaceutical industry either - it's a discussion of the efficacy and side effects of flu vaccination in healthy adults. That's all.
If you actually read the study - the full text is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4/full - instead of the anti-vax spun summary of it, you can find things like:
When the vaccine matched the viral circulating strain and circulation was high, 4% (2% to 5%) of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms
So it made you 4 times less likely to get flu if it matched the circulating strain well, and if you keep reading, even when it didn't match so well it made you 2 times less likely to get it.
They also show that the flu vaccine costs the medical industry money (by reducing doctor visits):
42% less (95% CI 9% to 63%) physician visits are carried out in those vaccinated with WHO recommended vaccines matching circulating viruses
Their overall summary is that the vaccine does help, but not significantly enough to warrant a wide spread vaccination programme:
Inactivated influenza vaccines decrease the risk of symptoms of influenza and time off work, but their effects are minimal, especially if the vaccines and the circulating viruses are mismatched. There is no evidence that they affect complications or transmission.
And again it seems the UK National Health Service at least reads these things - healthy adults in the UK are not recommended to get flu vaccine routinely.
Oh and look there's a Aug 2012 report by the same group discussing flu vaccines for children.
if I recall kathymuggle posted it recently. This showed that vaccination programmes in children over the age of 2 was helpful (especially flumist).