Transcription
A brand new study finds that getting the flu thing that we shall not name was linked with a 27% increased risk of actually contracting the flu during this year's cold and flu season. Now, it's important to recognize that the study that we're about to talk about was not published by Quacks or Conspiracies or even RFK Jr. This was published by investigators at the second-ranked hospital in the world, known as Cleveland Clinic, involving 53,42 working-aged individuals. These are employees at Cleveland Clinic, and the conclusion here is: we were unable to find that the influenza thing had been effective in preventing infection during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season.
They go on to say that very few subjects developed influenza A during the first two months of the study, and the daily number of infections began to increase steadily about 70 days after the start of the study. The cumulative incidence of influenza did not appear to be significantly different between the vaxed and unvaxed states early on; however, over the course of the study, the cumulative incidence of infection increased more rapidly among the vaxed compared to the unvaxed. We're going to look at figure one, and this is the ratio of proportion of vaccinated tested versus unvaccinated tests. And as you can see here, the individuals who received the 2024 and 2025 influenza immunization actually had a higher probability of testing positive and getting sick from the flu.
Now, I think an important follow-up here would be: why? I would love to know from you in the comments below. Please let me know why you suspect this is the case. I have a few different suspicions, uh, and we can talk about that momentarily, but I do want to get to this figure right here showing the cumulative incidence of influenza as a percentage of the number of participants over the course of 196 days. Now, what you're seeing here is: during the first 70 days, there's not really much of a difference, actually, between day 56 and 70. The unvaccinated had a slightly higher incidence of influenza if you look at the scale. At the inflection point around day 100, that's when you start to see a bifurcation where you start to see a greater incidence in the prevalence of influenza in the vaccinated versus the non-vaxed. We're talking about a .5% difference here, which is statistically significant.
So again, why might that be? Well, some people might say, "Well, there's so many more people that had received the immunization uh at start compared to those who didn't." But actually, when you look at this, it says the numbers at risk. So there were 40,000 at the start of the study of the unvaccinated versus just 12,000 in the vaccinated. Now, towards the end, you know, there were 41,000 that received the immunization compared to just say 8,000 that did not, over the course of the time, the numbers at risk. But I think the important point here is that number one, clearly the protective effect of this immunization tends to wane over time.
Now, it's important to understand: when you take any supplement, drug, or intervention, what are the risk versus benefits? Right? So if the benefit is short-term immunity but long-term risk of having an increased chance of getting an infection, that should be considered, should it not? Because potentially, if you're exposing your immune system to these antigens early on and they get over-excited, over-exuberated, there's an immunologic response in the postimmunization window that fades over time and leaves you more vulnerable down the road. What's the net benefit there? How many people need to be immunized in order to prevent one case of influenza? This is the number needed to treat, and this is often used by my friends in all sorts of realms of pharmacology and uh various interventions that are prescribed medically. So we should know that, and we shouldn't just look at the, you know, 30-day window after immunization. We should look at over the long haul of this because, you know, they roll these out usually. The CDC and so forth starts to recommend, the health experts recommend starting in, you know, when it's back to school around September, "Get your flu shot." Well, some 100 days later, so by the time January kicks in and low vitamin D, everyone's indoors, uh, not exercising as much, gained a little weight over the holiday season, well, you might be even more likely to get sick at that point of time. So I think that's an important point to remember.
And I just want to pause and thank this video's show sponsor, the folks over at bondcharts.com, the makers of the best atome infrared sauna blanket. My friends, this is one of the lowest EMFs on a blanket on the market, so one of the best ways to improve circulation, especially if you are feeling down. I've had a lot of friends recently who actually have gotten cold and flu-like symptoms, and I always recommend people go in the sauna, go in a steam room, go in a hot tub, get hot on purpose. But you can do this in the convenience of your home, condo, or apartment by going to bondcharge.com/h and check out their infrared sauna blanket. It's really great because it's a small form factor; you can just roll it out in your bedroom or your condo or your studio in your living room, and you can start to sweat and improve blood flow, circulation, heat shock proteins, and more. So check it out in the description below. Again, that URL to save on the best sauna blanket money can buy is bondcharge.com/hih.
Now, what I want to do is go back to the study. The investigators say these results are generalizable to relatively healthy adults in the USA, which is a major target of adult influenza vaccination efforts. Although the study was done in northern Ohio, there's little reason to assume that the effectiveness of the immunization would have been any different in a different geographical region within the continental US. Given all the variables that can influence the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in any given year and our current processes for developing the vaccine, it may be asking far too much to expect the vaccine to be highly effective year after year. Oh, okay, so they're saying, "Well, there are so many variables here; we try our best to hit it as optimal as we can, but you know, we missed the target this year." Okay, well, that's fair. But then why are we encouraging it so much if it's really just sort of a, "We hope that this will actually be effective"? Like you would think that, I don't know. And then, of course, we need to look at what are the downsides potentially. And when it comes to the influenza vaccine, I mean, maybe the study shows that one downside is: over time, you might be more likely to get an infection. That's one potential downside, and we don't know about the others that should be studied. What about the glycemic profiles, white blood cell counts, uh, insulin resistance scores? I mean, who, who really knows?
They go on to say, "It therefore becomes important to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccine every year." This study found that the influenza vaccination was associated with a higher risk of influenza among adults in the healthcare workforce in Northern Ohio, USA, during the 2024-2025 winter season, suggesting that the vaccine has not been effective in preventing influenza this season. Okay, well, that's that's a pretty humble, you know, conclusion. They're just saying, "Look, we tried to make this thing work; it actually this year it didn't really work," uh, you know. I think there would be less controversy about this category of interventions as a whole if more people were just given honest information like this: like, "Hey, look, we tried it; it didn't really work, right?" Um, we didn't hear that with the COVID rollout. It was like, "No, no, no, everyone has to get it, and if you don't get this, you cannot participate in society." Then Omicron came around, and everyone got it, right, uh, after receiving the thing. So I think it would be nice if there was, you know, less hubris and a little bit more modesty when it comes to these uh interventions because no intervention is 100% effective. Because I think it's important to recognize that the host immune system is responsible for inducing and and impacting the immune immunologic response and therefore the protectiveness in the postimmunization window, and in my opinion, that should be studied as well: like people who exercise, people who have optimal metabolic health. And then it should be tacitly implied that in order for this thing to be effective, you should really improve your lifestyle because it will make the make the thing more effective. I think that would be a much better public health message because it would encourage people to actually make the necessary lifestyle changes that not only help prevent acute illness but also chronic diseases, which, as you know, are running rampant. Okay, so I would like to know what you think in the comments section below, my friends. What do you think about this study? If you found this helpful, please share this with a friend or family member. I will link this uh preprint in the link in the description below. As I mentioned, this is not from the desk of RFK Jr., right? This is right from investigators at Cleveland Clinic.