Really? What gives you such certainty? Do you have first-hand knowledge of his medical history?
How do you know that he didn't have an unusual autoimmune or inflammatory reaction to the vaccine that subsequently spiraled out of control over the next few weeks? How do you know his immune system didn't have an unusual (or perhaps not so unusual) reaction to the flu vaccine, that left him unable to cope with the croup, if it even was croup--remember, many doctors incorrectly assume it can't be pertussis if the child was fully vaccinated, and don't even consider pertussis as a possible diagnosis. How do you know that he didn't have any underlying autoimmune disorders that might have contraindicated a flu shot?
Fact: you DON'T know.
We can't say with any certainty that he died because of the shot, but we can't say that it wasn't a causal factor, either.
We do know that the doctor who diagnosed croup gave him steroids to help him breathe. That's right, steroids--which would inhibit or even shut down his ability to fight influenza, croup, pertussis, and pretty much any other virus or bacteria. So within a few weeks, an apparently healthy child was given at least one vaccine (the flu shot), maybe more, and then steroids--and then he died.
Gee, I wonder if they gave him Tamiflu on top of everything else after they decided that he had H1N1?
How very unscientific of you insist on ruling out a possible factor with absolutely no evidence. But at least you are consistent: you consistently ignore the findings by the Cochrane group that the flu shot is ineffective in children.
Because that makes no sense. The first sentence in the article is "Doctors confirm an Oregon boy, 5, has died from the H1N1 virus. " He died from the flu. Not from the flumist given to him a month earlier.
In a different article his mother says that both her and her husband were recovering from the flu when he started getting sick. He was clearly exposed.