First of before I start, I am only talking about one vaccine, not all of them. Each has to be taken on their own merits. No one tell me I am full of s*** because the polio or small pox vaccines do indeed work.
And, I do not consider "industry funded" studies to be scientific research because of the corruption involved.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
I will also foot note [x] the crap out of what I state.
Okay, so here goes. The scientific evidence is that the flu vaccine does not work very well, if at all . My own anecdotal experience is that the vaccine does not work at all.
To those healthy people to seem to think that the vaccine is working, there is an explanation for this. It is called the "Healthy user bias" . It causes "damage the validity of epidemiologic studies" 
So now to the main reason I am writing this. The flu shot causes you to be more susceptible to next years flu. Surprise! The mechanism is called "Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)" . And it can become " become life-threatening" .
Here is evidence of it happening (note that this study barely squeaked by entrenched financial interests):
Based on the sentinel study of 672 cases and 857 controls, 2008–09 TIV was associated with statistically significant protection against seasonal influenza (odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.33–0.59). In contrast, estimates from the sentinel an d three other observational studies, involving a total of 1,226 laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 cases and 1,505 controls, indicated that prior receipt of 2008–09 TIV was associated
with *increased risk of medically attended pH1N1 illness* during the spring–summer 2009, with estimated risk or odds ratios
ranging from 1.4 to 2.5. Risk of pH1N1 hospitalization was not further increased among vaccinated people when comparing hospitalized to community cases. 
And a financial explanation of all this from 2018:
The flu season in North America officially began 5 weeks ago, and the vaccine publicity juggernaut is still picking up steam. Manufacturers are hoping to sell 166 million doses in the US this season. One business group predicts an $8 billion US influenza vaccine market by 2025. (Coherent Market Insights, 1/5/18) The 2016-17 vaccine *increased the risk of H3N2 illness among UK elderly by 68%*, and officials are calling for better vaccines. (Osterholm, NY Times, 1/8/18) Meanwhile, in the absence of any evidence that it would help, officials and ordinary citizens in the US and UK wrangle about flu shot mandates for healthcare workers.
So let all get in line and make Big Pharma and Big Med rich(er)! A little extra mercury and preservatives, along with a live virus that does not protect from the virus in the wild and will make it easier to catch next years virus, is good for ya! Got to love those guys int he marketing department! 
I wonder if the good comrade doctor read this?
1. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424
Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration)
2. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22895945
Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo. Twenty- eight children over the age of six need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza (infection and symptoms). Eight need to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza- like-illness (ILI). We could find no evidence of effect on secondary cases, lower respiratory tract disease, drug prescriptions, otitis media and its consequences and socioeconomic impact. We found weak single-study evidence of effect on school absenteeism by children and caring parents from work
3. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20166072
The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older
4. Healthy user bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias
The healthy user bias is a bias that can damage the validity of epidemiologic studies testing the efficacy of particular therapies or interventions. Specifically, it is a sampling bias: the kind of subjects that voluntarily enroll in a clinical trial and actually follow the experimental regimen are not representative of the general population. They can be expected, on average, to be healthier as they are concerned for their health and are predisposed to follow medical advice, both factors that would aid one's health. In a sense, being healthy or active about one's health is a precondition for becoming a subject of the study, an effect that can appear under other conditions such as studying particular groups of workers (i.e. someone in ill health is unlikely to have a job as manual laborer).
5. Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement
Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) occurs when non- neutralizing antiviral proteins facilitate virus entry into host cells, leading to increased infectivity in the cells. Some cells do not have the usual receptors on their surfaces that viruses use to gain entry. The antiviral proteins (i.e., the antibodies) bind to antibody Fc receptors that some of these cells have in the plasma membrane. The viruses bind to the antigen binding site at the other end of the antibody. ADE is common in cells cultured in the laboratory, but rarely occurs in vivo except for dengue virus. This virus can use this mechanism to infect human macrophages, causing a normally mild viral infection to become life-threatening
6. Official doubletalk hides serious problems with flu shot safety and effectiveness https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k15/rr
Some history: 1960 Nobel Laureate and a primary developer of today’s influenza vaccine, Macfarlane Burnet, didn? ??t think it was worth much. (Br J Path 1936:17:282. Natural History of Infectious Disease 1972, page212)….In 2000 Kenneth Mc Intosh warned that we should not routinely give influenza vaccine to healthy children until multicenter randomized trials were done over several seasons to be sure that it was safe and effective. (Editorial, NEJM 2000;342:225) His advice was ignored….In 2004 a “Seven-Step Recipe” for using the media to boost demand for the vaccine was presented to the National Influenza Vaccine Summit, sponsored by the CDC and the AMA. The recipe included, “…statements of al arm by public health authorities…prediction of dire outcomes from infl uenza… continued reports that influenza is causing severe illness affecting lots of people…repeated urging of influenza vaccination…” (Doshi, BMJ 2005;331:1419) Sound f amiliar?
7. Association between the 2008–09 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine an d Pandemic H1N1 Illness during Spring–Summer 2009: Four Observation al Studies from Canada https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id .1371%2Fjournal.pme d.1000258
8. Official doubletalk hides serious problems with flu shot safety and effectiveness https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k15/rr
estimates from the sentinel and three other observational studies, involving a total of 1,226 laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 cases and 1,505 controls, indicated that prior receipt of 2008–09 TIV was associated with *increased risk of medically attended pH1N1 illness* during the spring–sum mer 2009, with estimated risk or odds ratios ranging from 1.4 to 2.5
9. Just checking to see if anyone read this far. :-)