preprint cleveland clinic study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421v4
https://sayerji.substack.com/p/bombshell-study-reveals-27-negative
@meowski If you're not in your 60s~70s you should not be taking flu any vaccines.
it's not like all of a sudden when you turn 60, your immune system suddenly responds positively to this poison garbage and you'll benefit from it
@meowski In the US perhaps, not in the rest of the world.
To the best of my knowledge, the efficacy is around 40% (odds of not getting symptoms after infection compared to control).
For reference:
Around 10% is placebo, anything offering that level of protection isn't passing trials.
Chicken soup gets you to above 20%.
Eggs help with viral infection too, and so does honey, but I don't have numbers for that, sorry.
another major study discrediting flu shots that i'm referring to was conducted by the canadian government btw.
@meowski My point was that you shouldn't be taking those shots event under the assumption that the claimed efficacy is true.
The only people who even can potentially benefit, are those with lowered immunity, but still have some semblance of an immune system.
Under 60, and over 80, need not apply.
no matter how compromised or weak your immune system is there is still no benefit to taking it because they simply do not work.
the flu mutates too fast and their whole approach is flawed. the numbers are never favorable for flu jabs (or any vaccines for that matter, when you start really pulling the numbers apart)
@meowski The devil is in the details.
Here's the study:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421v3
The test group are clinic employees.
This is very important, as they almost certainly took the COVID-19 "vaccine" that lowers resistance to the flu-like infections in the long term.
"your point is unfounded" - You.
"they simply do not work" - Also you, unfounded.
You're making this claim without evidence, against decades of evidence to the contrary.
"The flu mutates too fast" - correct, that is why the vaccine's efficacy is 20~40% ON AVERAGE.
Some years they get it wrong, so a single year study, in a single region, is largely pointless, on top of the afore mentioned vaxx issues.
here's another one
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/54/12/1778/455098
if there's one thing covid taught us it's that pharma companies will use blatant fraud, like publishing the "relative risk reduction" to claim their product is 90% effective when actually it's around -3% effective at "reducing serious disease" a totally subjective metric.
and this isn't the only vaccine they've been caught cooking the numbers for
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6961264/
read between the lines. a marginally effective vaccine is basically useless when you take into account the long term side effects.
any vaccine that isn't highly effective with low risk isn't worth taking.
this isn't something that magically is not applicable to 60-80 year olds. by the time you're that old you have acquired immunity to most stuff like cold and flu so there's really never an argument for weakening your immune system
@meowski "by the time you're that old you have acquired immunity to most stuff like cold and flu" - If it worked that way, old people wouldn't be getting sick.
It's not magic, just the risk vs reward being different for certain age groups.
Risk of death from flu increases sharply, so the 20~40% is worth the risk (provided there is still an immune system to prepare, which after that age group there is not), and long-term downsides don't matter when there is no long-term to consider.
Same reason the elderly are often given stronger pain medication and even addictive substance, because it doesn't matter at that point.
the numbers are crap and most government and industry funded vaccine studies should be taken as a grain of salt.
the risk/benefit assessment is based on bad data until you understand how widespread the fraud is and account for conflict of interest.
being at higher risk for flu still doesn't justify weakening your immune system and increasing your chance of catching flu and other respiratory infections. that's definitely a non-sequitur.
but knock yourself out, go ahead and take it between the age of 60-80 if you want. then if you reach age 80 what happens? your immune system suddenly gets better again? i'm still not seeing any rational explanation for this claim
@meowski Past 80 your immune system just can't be helped, there's not much there to train, so vaccines might as well be placebo.
Quarantine is the only reliable way to keep most people alive past that point.
That's what nursing homes are for, and why you don't go into a nursing home if you know you're sick.
As for fraud, I'm well aware of the scale, I worked in the field as a programmer for a clinical research center.
I would estimate that about 80% of studies are a mess.
Not entirely useless, but not to be considered on their own, and taken with a heap of salt.
Some are fraud, most have methodological flaws.
Turns out that isolating any given factor out of all of creation is not a simple task.
As for the standard vaccines.
From flu shots, to Tetanus.
They passed the test of time long ago.
New variations of those however, are a different story.
The Americans and their vaccines are a special case, no one else gives flu shots to kids on a yearly basis.
That's just insane, and can't be anything other than massive corruption that other nations just don't seem to have (besides maybe China).
@meowski Refusing all modern vaccines, is definitely the right way to go, I can't argue with that.
The industry, like most other industries, rushes products to market, so if it's not a decade old, I'm not touching it.
(Ozempic is a good example)
You're right about comorbidities, infectious diseases are more of a tipping point, not the exclusive cause.
They do however burn through nursing homes like a wild fire, which is why procedures there are very strict, and why average life expectancy is 75 to 84 throughout Europe.
Human biology didn't change that much in a few hundred years, but life expectancy rose dramatically.
And with few exceptions, it's hygiene, nutrition, heart stents, exercise, and finally isolation, that contributed to that change.
More or less in that order.
Past a certain age, we just don't have effective treatments (that don't cost an arm and a leg) to push life expectancy further.
If you're crazy rich though... you might notice that many ultra wealthy and well connected people tend to live to 100 on the regular.
They have access to procedures that we don't.
fresh stem cells and young blood transfusions
@bronze @meowski That, and some medication that is just incredibly expensive or unknown to most.
I found that out 1st hand.
My grandfather was suffering from cancer, and my mother, being a nurse, went researching recent literature and patents to find something that could help him.
It was $11K (USD) per box, that lasts for 6 months.
Burned through savings, as it was only partially covered by insurance, and only because my mother got a doctor at her hospital to sign off on it (another thing most of us can't do).
Gave him 5 years of good living, worth it.
99% of people couldn't have found it, let alone afford it.
it's more of an issue of co-morbidities than age. older people just happen to have more co-morbid diseases, not or anything inherently wrong with their immune systems.
i'm not entirely willing to dismiss all vaccines outright. some like tetanus and rabies have been around for a long time and i'm just assuming they're effective since i lack evidence to the contrary, but the majority of them look like garbage to me, so i just blanket refuse all of them until the pharma companies get their act together.