That "lab tested influenza" - which might exclude some actual influenza if not tested....?
Don't forget to read this bit from Rrrrrachels post which seems like vaccine is helping with some things:
"Deaths from pneumonia were significantly reduced (VE 39%, 95% CI 2-62%), as were deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27-50%)."
The Cochrane Review states quite strongly that the studies (including the ones you quote) are low-quality.
Again, quoting the lead researcher (whom you and Rachael pointedly ignore):
"In other words, we report that no effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza and its complications such as death. We detected an effect on non-influenza specific outcomes such as death for all causes. This we found to be implausible given that in the elderly and frail death occurs for a variety of causes completely unrelated to influenza. Dr. Kendall forgot to mention our warning that all studies in the review were of low quality (which is the most likely explanation for the findings on death from all causes).
Why on earth would anyone want to spend hours and hours on the Internet, passionately defending the flu shot, even though the gold standard of mainstream medical review says that there was no detectable effect on flu, hospitalization from influenza, pneumonia from influenza, or death from influenza? Why would anyone feel its so important to trumpet the findings of industry-designed, low-quality studies over those of an independent, highly respected reviewer? Why would anyone claiming to be "pro-science" ignore the strongest science related to the flu shot?
I am mystified.