Tag: influenza

The Non-Existent Flu Cases of 2020

In 2020, the United States faced the shock of a new pandemic — but also a baffling medical mystery: the disappearance of the seasonal flu. While COVID-19 cases dominated headlines and hospital beds, flu diagnoses plummeted to “too low to estimate,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with later estimates at a mere 2000.

That’s not just a statistical anomaly — it’s a statistical impossibility. From an estimated 48 million cases in 2019–2020, the flu dropped to 2000 cases, statistically zero, in 2020–2021, amounting to a 99.999998% decrease — or put another way, a nearly 10 million percent drop. In the realm of infectious disease, that kind of disappearance doesn’t happen without a force far greater than a virus. In this case, that force may have been government incentives, diagnostic bias, and political opportunity.

Side-by-Side Comparison: Flu vs. COVID-19 (and Total Deaths)

Here is a year-by-year comparison of flu and COVID-19 cases in the U.S., alongside total recorded deaths from all causes:

YearFlu CasesCOVID-19 CasesTotal U.S. Deaths
2015–1624 millionN/A2.7 million
2016–1729 millionN/A2.7 million
2017–1845 millionN/A2.8 million
2018–1929 millionN/A2.8 million
2019–2048 millionN/A2.9 million
2020–212000~20 million3.4 million
2021–2211 million~35 million3.5 million
2022–2331 million~25 million3.3 million
2023–2440 million~15 million3.3 million

If mask mandates, social distancing, and lockdowns truly drove flu cases to extinction in 2020, why did COVID-19 — transmitted in much the same way — surge to 20 million cases that same year? It’s a paradox that challenges the public narrative.

Keep reading

Moderna Pulls Application for FDA Approval of Flu-COVID Shot After FDA Calls for New Clinical Trials

Moderna is withdrawing its application for U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of its mRNA-1083 combination flu and COVID-19 vaccine, the company announced today — just one day after the FDA said it would require new clinical trials to approve COVID-19 boosters for healthy people under 65.

According to Fierce Biotech, the company will resubmit its application when data from a Phase 3 trial of its mRNA-1010 flu vaccine, which is a component of the combined shot, are available later this year. The company expects to have interim data from the trial available this summer.

Markets reacted negatively to the news, with Moderna’s shares falling 1.4% in premarket trading on Wednesday, The Guardian reported.

According to Reuters, Moderna’s decision to withdraw its application at this time “is the latest sign of increased regulatory scrutiny of the vaccine approval process since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took the top U.S. health job earlier this year.”

Last week, for instance, the FDA approved Novavax’s new COVID-19 vaccine, but limited its approval to groups that are considered high-risk.

Sayer Ji, co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom and founder and director of GreenMedInfo, said Moderna’s decision to withdraw its application is “telling” and “appears to reflect not only concerns over efficacy but also a growing public skepticism toward hastily developed, multi-antigen formulations that lack sufficient long-term safety data.”

Ji said:

“The withdrawal may be a preemptive move to avoid public scrutiny or regulatory resistance tied to unresolved questions in their clinical data. Combination shots, especially those involving mRNA platforms, introduce compounded risks due to the simultaneous delivery of multiple immunogenic agents.

“These risks are poorly understood and grossly under-evaluated, particularly in vulnerable populations. The immunological complexity of such a vaccine also raises questions about long-term impacts on immune regulation, potential autoimmunity and unintended synergistic effects that could compromise health rather than protect it.”

Keep reading

A new study finds that flu vaccines have negative efficacy, meaning the risk of getting flu is higher after vaccination

Based in Ohio, USA, Cleveland Clinic is considered a leader in clinical research, education and care. With tens of thousands of employees, they are uniquely placed to investigate outcomes of staff vaccination policy including covid and influenza vaccine mandates.

In 2022, Cleveland Clinic researchers led by Dr. Nabin Shrestha and Dr. Steven Gordon at the Department of Infectious Diseases followed over 51,000 employees. They found that the proportional risk for covid infection increased with the number of covid vaccine doses an individual received.

This is known as negative efficacy and can be due to a multitude of factors, including but not limited to:

  • the fact that RNA viruses (including coronaviruses and influenza) mutate rapidly, rendering vaccines targeting prior strains useless. This is known as immune imprinting, or “original antigenic sin”;
  • immune suppression caused by persistence of circulating covid vaccine-induced spike protein can increase the risk of infection as well as other immune-related disorders;
  • repeated exposure to vaccine-induced spike protein can result in antibodies switching from protective IgG1, IgG2 and IgG3, to the less protective and immune-suppressing IgG4 class, which is also associated with other risks.

Influenza is also an RNA virus, but with haemagglutinin (“HA”) and neuraminidase (“NA”) proteins on its surface, rather than the spike proteins present on coronaviruses. As with the spike protein, HA and NA proteins mutate rapidly. This forms the theory behind annual updates to influenza vaccines as manufacturers attempt to predict evolutionary changes to the HA and NA proteins.

In a recent study, the same Cleveland Clinic researchers followed over 53,000 employees through the 2024-2025 US influenza season, which lasted for 25 weeks from 1 October 2024. The preprint of their study was published at ‘Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season’.

Cleveland Clinic employees are mandated either to receive an annual influenza vaccine or to seek an exemption on medical or religious grounds. By the end of the study, 82.1% of the study cohort had received an influenza vaccine, and 98.7% of these received an inactivated 3-valent influenza vaccine.

A proportional hazards model was used to calculate the relative risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, adjusting for age, sex, clinical nursing job and location to minimise potential bias. Participants were only counted as vaccinated seven days after receiving a single dose of influenza vaccine.

The outcome for influenza-vaccinated employees by the end of the study was a statistically significant 26.9% increased risk of testing positive for influenza compared with employees who did not receive the seasonal vaccine.

Keep reading

Army soldier’s long-time quest for religious exemption from mandated flu shot

Though the COVID-19 pandemic brought widespread resistance to the Biden-era military’s vaccine mandate, COVID isn’t the only mandated shot being resisted by some service members for religious reasons.

Army Sergeant Dan McGriff (a pseudonym) spoke to WorldNetDaily on the condition of anonymity, anticipating reprisals. He emphasized that his views do not reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Department of the Army.

In the summer of 2021 during the thick of the pandemic, the non-commissioned officer “saw the writing on the wall,” suspecting a COVID-19 shot mandate was on the way for military service members. So, in August 2021, he was not surprised to see the rollout of former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s now-rescinded mandate.

After conferring with his wife, he made the decision to seek exemption, not only from the COVID-19 shot, but for all future vaccines as well.

“Some people were getting responses back within 30 to 90 days at most, but mine took about six months, going all the way up to the Army surgeon general to be denied or accepted,” McGriff told WND. “And in March 2022, I received my initial denial.”

While the decision could be appealed, the Army sergeant said there was no guidance available. “I sent my appeal within seven days, and from that moment on I was a ghost.” He explained that even though he had approved orders for a new duty station, he was not allowed to move because he was “unvaccinated.”

During this period, he was also barred from attending schools or trainings that could have advanced his career.

Keep reading

3 studies show definitively that the influenza vaccines don’t work

We’ve known for over 20 years now that flu vaccines don’t work.

So why is the CDC and mainstream media still promoting them?

It’s been confirmed in two other studies since then, one that explicitly used a different method and found exactly the same thing and one paper that accidentally exposed the fraud (they only realized it after I pointed it out).

Still no change.

Keep reading

Get jabbed, get infected: New flu vaccine study appears to validate RFK Jr. skepticism

Less than 100 days into the second Trump administration, the Department of Health and Human Services’ newfound skepticism of vaccine claims under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seems to be prescient, notwithstanding media hand-wringing.

The current flu vaccine, whose effectiveness is a tossup every year, in fact makes infection substantially more likely than not getting jabbed, according to the latest Cleveland Clinic study of its own employees. The study has yet to be peer-reviewed, which means it’s new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Nearly 44,000 of its 53,000 employees for whom age and sex data were recorded received the flu vaccine during the 25-week study, a research feat made possible by the Cleveland Clinic’s free, mandatory vaccination for employees without a medical or religious exemption.

About 2% got infected, according to the Cleveland Clinic research team led by infectious diseases physician Nabin Shrestha, also a professor in its medical college.

“The cumulative incidence of influenza was similar for the vaccinated and unvaccinated states early” but “increased more rapidly” for the former as the study went on through March 26, eventually reaching negative effectiveness of 27%, the researchers found. 

“Notably, this was a relatively young population, with a mean age of 42 years, and 75% were female,” the paper says. “About 20% had a clinical nursing job.”

Keep reading

NEW STUDY – Flu Vaccination Linked to 27% Increased Risk of Flu

The Cleveland Clinic study titled, Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season, was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server:

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

Methods Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment in Ohio on October 1, 2024, were included. The cumulative incidence of influenza among those in the vaccinated and unvaccinated states was compared over the following 25 weeks. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results Among 53402 employees, 43857 (82.1%) had received the influenza vaccine by the end of the study. Influenza occurred in 1079 (2.02%) during the study. The cumulative incidence of influenza was similar for the vaccinated and unvaccinated states early, but over the course of the study the cumulative incidence of influenza increased more rapidly among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing job, and employment location, the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated state (HR, 1.27; 95% C.I., 1.07 – 1.51; P = 0.007), yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of −26.9% (95% C.I., −55.0 to −6.6%).

Conclusions This study found that influenza vaccination of working-aged adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season, suggesting that the vaccine has not been effective in preventing influenza this season.

Keep reading

NIH has known for decades that flu vaccinations do not reduce deaths among the elderly but instead increases them

In 2005, the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) launched an effort to do “the” definitive study that would actually prove, for the first time, once and for all, that flu vaccines were beneficial to the elderly.  The study, published in JAMA, was covered up but Sharyl Attkisson, at the time an investigative journalist for CBS, aired a report on it in 2006.   

In her report, she interviewed Dr. Thomas Reichert, a co-author of the study.  She had originally agreed to interview the lead author, Lone Simonsen, but Simonsen’s bosses at the NIH blocked the interview.  Dr. Reichert was independent of the US government and so Attkisson was able to interview him.

“Here’s what scientists have found,” Attkisson said. “Over 20 years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from 15% to 65%. It stands to reason that flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip … Instead, flu deaths among the elderly continued to climb.”

“We realised we had incendiary material,” Dr. Reichert said.  They not only checked the data to make sure what they found was correct, “we’ve looked at other countries now and the same is true,” he said.

Attkisson revisited her investigation in her blog in 2015.  She said the study emphasised how these vaccines might kill lives instead of saving them. While the researchers wanted to prove that the pressure on mass flu vaccination would save the world, they were “surprised” that the data did not support their assumption at all. The data actually shows that the number of deaths in the elderly increased after vaccination: 60 percent of people aged 65 and over have an enormously increased risk of death if they get the flu shot.

Last year, she again reminded her readers about Simonsen’s 2005 study in an article on her Substack page. “An important and definitive ‘mainstream’ government study done nearly two decades ago got little attention because the science came down on the wrong side,” she wrote.

“It found that after decades and billions of dollars spent promoting flu shots for the elderly, the mass vaccination program did not result in saving lives. In fact, the death rate among the elderly increased substantially,” she said.

Adding, “After the Simonsen study, many international studies also arrived at the same conclusion. Flu shots weren’t correlated with declining mortality in any age group. Yet you probably haven’t heard much about these ‘incendiary’ findings.”

Keep reading

The real reason why this winter’s flu is the worst for years

The corporate media, written and edited by bought-and-paid-for propaganda hacks and ignorant lackeys posing as journalists, claim that the 2025 flu is the worst for years. Some have warned that there have been more deaths from the 2025 flu than there were from covid-19, which is odd because I seem to remember we were told that the manufactured fake covid scare was killing tens if not hundreds of millions. (They weren’t, of course. The figures show that covid-19 killed about the same number of people as an ordinary flu.)

The fake journalists working for the corporate media do, of course, have an explanation for the terror which is apparently being unleashed upon us.

People are dying because they haven’t been vaccinated with the latest flu jab! Those nasty anti-vaxxers have been telling people the truth about vaccines and so now millions of people run the other way if they see a doctor or nurse with a syringe in their hands.

Actually, of course, the fake journalists are talking gibberish.

There are several real reasons why the flu this year is killing more people than any flu in memory.

And several reasons why next year’s flu will be even more lethal. And so on and so on indefinitely.

First, the absurd lockdown laws and social distancing regulations which were brought in (with no supporting evidence whatsoever, of course) left everyone who obeyed the rules more susceptible to infection. And locking people indoors meant less sunshine and less vitamin D – a vital vitamin in protecting us against infection. (Early in 2020 I made a video encouraging people to take vitamin D supplements. Naturally, the thoroughly evil YouTube took the video down and banished it permanently. When are YouTube’s executives going to be arrested and charged with accessory to genocide?)

Second, the deliberate dimming of the sun (And don’t believe the lies online that they haven’t started doing this yet, they have been doing this for a long time – and I have evidence of this) means that people are now getting very little vitamin D. Without vitamin D they are more susceptible to infection.

Third, the BIG reason is, of course, the covid-19 vaccine. Way, way back when the most toxic vaccine in history was first introduced, I warned that it would damage immune systems AND make the vaccinated more susceptible to other infections in the future – dangerously so. (My early videos containing these warnings were all deleted because they contained the truth and nothing but the truth but the scripts from 2020 are available in three books: `Covid-19: The Greatest Hoax in History’; `Covid-19: Exposing the Lies’ and `Covid-19:The Fraud Continues’. All are available through the bookshop on my website.)

Again, as I have been saying for years, it would be easy to prove just how damaging the covid-19 vaccine has been.

Find out how many covid-vaccinated people got the flu this year and then compare the figure with the number of people who weren’t given the covid-19 vaccine but who got the flu this year. It would cost peanuts to do this and the answer would tell us forever whether the covid vaccine was as dangerous as I said it was.

So, naturally, that simple trial will not be done. Ever. The results would prove that the medical establishment, all politicians, a pile of celebrities, thousands of greedy doctors and hordes of corporate journalists were all lying through their teeth.

Keep reading

They’re Trialing Self-Amplifying RNA-LNP-Based Products

On November 11, 2024, an article was published online in Business Wire pertaining to the launch of a clinical trial NCT06602531 intended to test “Safety and Immunogenicity Study of Self-Amplifying RNA Pandemic Influenza Vaccine in Adults.” 

Question: Why is the word “Pandemic” in the title? 

The article provides information on the ARCT-2304 product which is a “sa-mRNA vaccine candidate formulated within a lipid nanoparticle (LNP).”

So. Many. Questions. For example, beyond the use of the word pandemic in the study title, why is this product being called a vaccine? Why is a new version of a product riddled with unresolved compendial standard issues being trialed?

ARCT-2304 is a gene-therapy-based prodrug that uses self-amplifying RNA technology (specifically, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) gene, which allows it to replicate autonomously) that originates from an Alphavirus. Just so you know, this makes these products genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and this is because of the fact that the coding template is a modified Alphavirus genome with the virus sub-genomic bits spiked out and the foreign flu genes ‘spiked in.’ The genetic material is capable of reproduction. The following slide shows how they did this for the Covid-19 version (KOSTAIVE® (ARCT-154) Monovalent: JN.1). 

Keep reading