Thread

It usually referred to as the flu shot, not vaccine, for a reason. Its a vector of transmission, and even says as much on inserts.

I saw a reference to a study a while back that talked about how raw milk and/or raw local honey are significantly more effective against the flu than the annual flu shot.

one of the best influenza vaccination population studies originated from the UK NHS in 2020 "Vaccination rates rose significantly at 65, but there was no corresponding statistically significant reduction in influenza/pneumonia hospitalizations (estimated effect: –5.8%, 95% CI –25.3% to 12.9%) or all-cause mortality" 📄.pdf View quoted note →

This paper is fake research, there is zero evidence that vaccination causes the flu, despite what this says I've read the paper. No randomised control of the vaccination People who are older and less healthy are more likely to agree to be vaccinated, and also more likely to get tested, and therefore you'll get these misleading numbers I'll be unfollowing/blocking some people, I don't want my timeline filling up with this slop

my review of this non peer reviewed study

medRxiv

Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season. Met...

This prospective cohort study evaluates the effectiveness of the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine among 53,402 employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System. Using a time-dependent covariate Cox proportional hazards model, the authors report that they were unable to identify a protective effect of the vaccine. There is a strong likelihood that the results are driven by unmeasured confounding, specifically differential healthcare-seeking behavior and detection bias. Ther defense against this bias is not great. The authors admit in the results are driven by vaccinated individuals being significantly more likely to undergo PCR testing than unvaccinated individuals. They argue that because the test positivity rate was similar between groups (figure 2), the higher case count involves true infection rather than PCR test seeking behavior. If the vaccine has low or null effectiveness and the vaccinated population is tested at a rate 1.5x or 2x higher than the unvaccinated population, the observed incidence rate will be higher in the vaccinated group simply due to increased case ascertainment. A similar test positivity rate across groups, combined with higher testing volume in one group, means we would expect to find more cases in the high-testing group. The study is really just measuring the "incidence of detected influenza," which appears to be a function of testing and they were unable to adjust for "propensity to seek care." It is not possible to find an associated increased case of influenza with vaccination but there is no doubt from this data set that the influenza vaccine had little to zero protective effects in terms of getting the disease --- and therefore raises the question are potential adverse effects worth the injection if it doesn't protect against the disease?