Political Graphics 2025

[Slide Rule]

[Slide Rule]

The hate speech that hurts their feelings

[Slide Rule]

[ChemEngrMBA]

[Slide Rule]

[Slide Rule]

New Study Shows Those Who Received Flu Shot Were More Likely To Get Flu
Vaccinated Cleveland Clinic workers were significantly more likely to test positive for influenza

Ian Miller
September 17, 2025 9:23 PM EDT

https://www.outkick.com/analysis/cleveland-clinic-study-finds-flu-vaccine-had-negative-effectiveness-rate-flu-season


It's an endless mantra on the part of public health and its media partners: get
every available respiratory virus vaccine immediately, if not sooner. COVID
vaccines were the most extreme example – the campaign to get every person
vaccinated with Pfizer or Moderna's mRNA shots crossed the line from
aggressive to coercive and compulsory.

COVID boosters were treated similarly, even after the two-dose "full vaccination
series" failed to live up to communications from the CDC and Anthony Fauci that
it would stop the virus in its tracks and prevent onward transmission.

But another part of the never-ending vaccination crusade from public health
officials and "experts" is the flu vaccine. COVID vaccines and the yearly
"updated" boosters aren't enough; flu vaccines are necessary to stave off
infection, illness and potential harmful impacts from the common flu.

Take Ashish Jha, for example.

Jha, who is the Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, was
previously White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator under the Biden
administration, was effusive in his praise for the flu vaccine during his time of
national prominence. One of his most famous quotes, said during a White House
briefing, was "I really believe this is why God gave us two arms, one for the flu
shot and the other one for the COVID shot."

And he wasn't done there.


Ashish Jha, White House Covid-19 response coordinator, from left, Anthony Fauci, director of the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Vivek Murthy, US surgeon general, and Xavier
Becerra, secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), listen to US President Joe Biden in the
Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2022. Photographer:
Al Drago/Pool/Sipa USA


New Study Shows Flu Vaccine Was Likely Useless This Past Year
Jha told ABC's "Good Morning America" in November 2022 that "The most
important thing people can do to protect themselves and their families this
holiday season is to get those vaccines."

He had a similar message for CBS News in 2022, "The best way to save lives this
holiday season is to ensure all Americans, particularly seniors, get their updated
COVID vaccine and their flu vaccine."

Then he doubled down in 2023, "You do not want to get into November without
these three shots," he said referring to COVID, flu and RSV vaccines, per WBUR.

In a PBS NewsHour interview, he was once again effusive: "The flu shot [and]
COVID shot… are going to… make an enormous difference."

This is just one "expert" to praise the flu shot – Anthony Fauci and many others
have echoed similar sentiments. But how effective has it actually been in recent
seasons? How accurate was Jha's assessment, how important is it to get the flu
shot, is it "the most important thing people can do?"

In short, no. No it isn't.


The Cleveland Clinic released the results of their system-wide study on the
effectiveness of the flu vaccine over the 2024-2025 season, covering over 53,400
employees. They tracked those employees who were vaccinated, which came to
43,857, or 82.1% of the total cohort, and the remaining 9,545 who did not get
the flu shot.

As they explain, the results were…extremely poor.

"In years where there is a good match between the vaccine strains and the
infecting strain, vaccine effectiveness is expected to be good," they write. "In
years where there is a poor match between vaccine strains and the circulating
infecting strain, vaccine effectiveness is expected to be poor."

Despite this obvious reality, which the study authors themselves admit, the
Cleveland Clinic has a mandatory flu vaccine policy for employees. Only those
who received an approved exemption are allowed to continue working without
receiving a flu shot. With nearly 18 percent declining flu shots, it provided an
opportunity for the clinic to study effectiveness with a large sample size.


So what were the results? Well, influenza infection was extremely rare: just
1,079 employees, or 2.02 percent, tested positive for the flu over that nearly
six-month period. As always, people are much more likely to believe they have
the flu, mistaking common cold coronaviruses with influenza.

They found that, unsurprisingly, vaccinated employees were significantly more
likely to get tested than unvaccinated ones. It stands to reason that those more
scared of the flu would be more likely to get vaccinated, right? Except, they
checked for that, and based on their statistical analysis, that's not the reason why
vaccinated employees were tested more frequently.

"However, the ratio of the proportion of vaccinated persons’ tests that were
positive to the proportion of unvaccinated persons’ tests that were positive on
each day of the study was not significantly different from 1.00, during the period
when most of the infections occurred, suggesting that the additional testing
among the vaccinated was not from a higher propensity to get tested but rather
from a higher number of infections itself."

Put simply, vaccinated people got tested more frequently than unvaccinated
people, because those who got vaccinated were more likely to get the flu. That's
not a misprint, they were more likely to get the flu. Here's how their data
charted out over time, showing that the cumulative incidence rate of positive flu
tests was significantly higher among the vaccinated cohort.





As they explain, "…Over the course of the study the cumulative incidence of
infection increased more rapidly among the vaccinated than among the
unvaccinated. The risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated
compared to the unvaccinated state on unadjusted Cox proportional hazards
regression. In a multivariable model which adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing
job, and primary employment location, the risk of influenza remained
significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated state."

So what's the headline figure, what's the actual estimate of vaccine
effectiveness, per this massive Cleveland Clinic study? Negative 27 percent.
Well, -26.9% percent to be exact.

That's correct, the flu vaccine had negative effectiveness. You were more likely
to get the flu and test positive for it, by a substantial margin, if you got the flu
shot. "The most important thing people can do" to protect themselves, Ashish
Jha said.

This study was a much more accurate estimate of vaccine effectiveness than
others because of its design. It had real controls, allowed for real-time
effectiveness estimates, and tracked a moderately representative sample of the
healthy adult population, though their employees did skew more female.

With all that in mind, it's even more important that the results showed negative
effectiveness. It's a thorough repudiation of public health "experts" who simply
hear the word "vaccine" and assume "good." Yes, the flu shot can be more
effective in some years, and might prove helpful for some specific individuals.
No, it did not prove effective this year. And that's why it's important to evaluate
evidence and data on a case-by-case basis, instead of issuing blanket
recommendations, unsupported claims, and hyperbolic statements.

Will they learn their lesson? Of course not. They never do.

[Slide Rule]

[Smokin Joe]

New Study Shows Those Who Received Flu Shot Were More Likely To Get Flu
Vaccinated Cleveland Clinic workers were significantly more likely to test positive for influenza

I have never had a flu shot, and haven't had the flu (knock on wood).

First off, do people get flu shots because they have a history of catching the flu (susceptibility issues)?

Second, while the shots may not make people more likely to get infected, do the people who get them work/live in environments which increase their likelihood of exposure?

Those matters appear to have been addressed in the study, as they worked for the clinic.

But part of the second is that such people are encouraged to eat 'healthy' diets low in red meat, which is a main dietary source of zinc, which does have proven antiviral properties. I remain curious if those more likely to get the shots also are more likely to conform to dietary guidelines.

(It has not been conclusively established that diets high in red meat may provide more viral resistance vs diets low in red meat, nor, to my knowledge, has that even been researched. It is just something I suspect.)

[Cyber Liberty]

I have never had a flu shot, and haven't had the flu (knock on wood).

First off, do people get flu shots because they have a history of catching the flu (susceptibility issues)?

Second, while the shots may not make people more likely to get infected, do the people who get them work/live in environments which increase their likelihood of exposure?

Those matters appear to have been addressed in the study, as they worked for the clinic.

But part of the second is that such people are encouraged to eat 'healthy' diets low in red meat, which is a main dietary source of zinc, which does have proven antiviral properties. I remain curious if those more likely to get the shots also are more likely to conform to dietary guidelines.

(It has not been conclusively established that diets high in red meat may provide more viral resistance vs diets low in red meat, nor, to my knowledge, has that even been researched. It is just something I suspect.)

There is a third possibility.   The traditional Flu vaccines were composed of three strains of Flu that were somehow predicted to be the strains most likely in that Flu season, and they "guessed" poorly.  Now I suppose they slap together some mRNA proteins and call it good

[240B]

[240B]

[240B]

If you know ... you know

[Smokin Joe]

There is a third possibility.   The traditional Flu vaccines were composed of three strains of Flu that were somehow predicted to be the strains most likely in that Flu season, and they "guessed" poorly.  Now I suppose they slap together some mRNA proteins and call it good

Well, there is the H (Hemagglutinin) factor and the N (neuraminidase) factor, of which there 18 and 11 different types. Of those, Only H1, H2, and H3, are associated with human epidemic flu outbreaks; the rest affect animals. N1 and N2 are the ones which have caused epidemics in humans. That leaves six major combination types to infect humans, and some alterations occur which make those (subclades) more resistant to vaccines.

As for the shots, if they get both the H and N correct, the shot is most likely to have good efficacy. If they get one of those right (The H or N factor), it will provide some protection. If they get skunked, it might not be effective.

It is up to the vaccine makers to try to anticipate which H and N factors will be present in a particular year, and to make a shot that will do some good. Continual monitoring of outbreaks, especially of Influenza A strains is needed to anticipate what will be circulating.

I have never had the shots, and just don't seem to be prone to catching the Flu. (Thank God).

[240B]

[240B]

MADE IN NEBRASKA!

[Smokin Joe]

MADE IN NEBRASKA!

They're for officers. They have Colonel all over them.

[240B]

[berdie]

They're for officers. They have Colonel all over them.