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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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).
The number of healthcare workers receiving COVID-19 and flu vaccines declined during the 2023-24 cold and flu season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Only 15.3% of acute hospital workers and 10.5% of nursing home personnel received a COVID-19 vaccine during the 2023-24 season — down from 17.8% and 22.8% respectively, the CDC said in its Oct. 31 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Based on data from the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network, flu vaccine rates for the same healthcare worker groups were higher than COVID-19 vaccine rates — 80.7% for acute care hospital personnel and 45.4% for nursing home personnel.
However, the rates remained “persistently below the levels during the prepandemic period.” For example, the flu vaccine rate for hospital workers in 2019-20 was 91%.
The CDC figures also showed that nearly 1 in 100 healthcare workers reported “a medical contraindication” to receiving either the COVID-19 (0.71%) or flu (0.89%) vaccine. The CDC figures did not provide information on the rate of vaccine side effects reported by healthcare workers.
The CDC said more research is needed “to identify effective strategies to improve vaccination at a time when health care personnel are susceptible to low vaccine confidence.”
AstraZeneca subsidiary MedImmune, LLC, the manufacturer of FluMist, anticipates that FluMist will be available for the 2026 influenza season as well.
FluMist, which is sprayed into the nose, is now approved for the alleged prevention of influenza disease caused by influenza virus subtypes A and B in individuals 2 through 49 years of age.
Each refrigerated FluMist sprayer contains a single 0.2 mL dose with “live” attenuated influenza virus (10^6.5–7.5 FFU) from three strains: A/Norway (H1N1), A/Thailand (H3N2), and B/Austria (B/Victoria lineage).
Alarmingly, the FDA package insert indicates that the vaccinated can shed (or transmit) the vaccine virus onto the unvaccinated, potentially infecting them.
“Vaccine viruses capable of infection and replication can be cultured from nasal secretions obtained from vaccine recipients,” the document reads.
Vaccine virus shedding within 28 days of FluMist vaccination was studied in two multi-center trials: Study MI-CP129 (200 healthy participants aged 6 to 59 months) and Study FM026 (344 healthy participants aged 5 to 49 years).
In both studies, nasal samples were collected daily for the first 7 days, then every other day through Day 28.
How can decision-makers justify promoting the mammoth undertaking of annual influenza vaccination when the best-quality evidence base is nearly empty?
This was the first question we left you with in the previous post.
In 2008, we examined several policy documents written by influential organisations from WHO, the UK, the US, Germany, Australia, and Canada. The power brokers of influenza prevention created compelling policy arguments for vaccination. For example, the WHO estimated that “vaccination of the elderly reduced the risk of serious complications or death by 70-85%.” What they didn’t point out was that this estimate was based on single studies. In the US, reductions in cases, admissions, and mortality of grandma were central arguments for extending vaccination to healthy children aged 6-23 months.
Therefore, we asked simple questions like who wrote the policy documents, whether there was a methods chapter explaining how the bigwigs reached their conclusions, and whether they had done some quality assessment of the studies or the data.
We were persistent and looked inside some of these documents. All policy documents contained misquotes, selective citation of text or results, factual mistakes in reporting either estimates of effect or the authors’ conclusions, inconsistent logic, and contradictions.
A new long-term study assessing the association of vaccines with reported cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) found that “most vaccines” were associated with GBS, and that reports of vaccine-associated GBS have been “increasing steadily over time.”
The study, published Oct. 19 in the journal Scientific Reports, part of the Springer Nature family of journals, examined global cases of GBS between 1967 and 2023. The authors found that of the 19 vaccines examined, 17 vaccines — including COVID-19 and influenza vaccines — were potentially associated with GBS.
The findings also showed that reports of vaccine-related GBS surged following the introduction of the swine flu vaccine in 2009 and the COVID-19 vaccine in 2020.
These results prompted the study’s authors to suggest that healthcare professionals “should consider the possibility that vaccines may be a contributing factor in cases of GBS, particularly in older patients, when there is a history of vaccination within the preceding two weeks in a clinical setting.”
GBS is a rare condition that attacks the peripheral nervous system. It can cause sudden numbness and muscle weakness in much of the body. Roughly 1-2 GBS cases per 100,000 people are reported annually.
GBS can be deadly. According to the Cleveland Clinic, “less than 2% of people die from GBS in the acute phase” of the disease, when symptoms are at their peak. But according to the study, the mortality rate for GBS can reach 17% in countries with “limited resources,” according to research published in The Lancet in 2021.
According to the study’s dataset, 117 deaths were reported among the 15,377 cases of vaccine-associated GBS, with 87 deaths (74.6%) occurring in people 65 and over, and two deaths (1.69%) occurring in children 11 or younger.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.