FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Negative vaccine efficacy
Negative vaccine efficacy
Jump to: Newest in thread
The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?"
Love these sorts of posts without any actual evidence.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I’ve read the study.
Here’s a good cross examination of its strengths and weaknesses, it contains a link to the study: GreenMedInfo Bombshell Study Reveals 27% Negative Efficacy of 2024-2025 Influenza Vaccine Among Working-Age Adults |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve read the study.
Here’s a good cross examination of its strengths and weaknesses, it contains a link to the study: GreenMedInfo Bombshell Study Reveals 27% Negative Efficacy of 2024-2025 Influenza Vaccine Among Working-Age Adults"
Ah, bless
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve read the study.
Here’s a good cross examination of its strengths and weaknesses, it contains a link to the study: GreenMedInfo Bombshell Study Reveals 27% Negative Efficacy of 2024-2025 Influenza Vaccine Among Working-Age Adults
Ah, bless
"
Why are you afraid to openly discuss a piece of scientific work? You wanted evidence, I provided it. Are you here in good faith? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Active links get blocked on here. I’ve tried to post them to the BMJ before and it won’t post. The page can be searched for using the info I shared. As a highly qualified health professional I would value your opinion. This is precisely why I started the post in the first place. To discuss the value of the paper. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?"
Well perhaps those 26.% are in the vulnerable category or work in jobs that involves far more contact with people than say those who may work from home.
Like all these things studied can be manipulated by ensuring that you survey people in certain areas or categories.
I can only speak from personal experience but getting the flu jab every year is one of the best things I've ever done.
I have a weakened immune system and the jab has this far prevented bad flu infection.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?"
There are two types of people in this world.
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
J
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
Well perhaps those 26.% are in the vulnerable category or work in jobs that involves far more contact with people than say those who may work from home.
Like all these things studied can be manipulated by ensuring that you survey people in certain areas or categories.
I can only speak from personal experience but getting the flu jab every year is one of the best things I've ever done.
I have a weakened immune system and the jab has this far prevented bad flu infection.
"
The cohort had unhealthy or vulnerable people removed so that can be ruled out. No idea about the environmental factor you mentioned. The conclusion made in the paper suggests the most likely cause is vaccine induced immune modulation combined with vaccine/seasonal strain mismatch. Other studies have shown flu vaccines can reduce your resistance to other respiratory diseases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
Well perhaps those 26.% are in the vulnerable category or work in jobs that involves far more contact with people than say those who may work from home.
Like all these things studied can be manipulated by ensuring that you survey people in certain areas or categories.
I can only speak from personal experience but getting the flu jab every year is one of the best things I've ever done.
I have a weakened immune system and the jab has this far prevented bad flu infection.
The cohort had unhealthy or vulnerable people removed so that can be ruled out. No idea about the environmental factor you mentioned. The conclusion made in the paper suggests the most likely cause is vaccine induced immune modulation combined with vaccine/seasonal strain mismatch. Other studies have shown flu vaccines can reduce your resistance to other respiratory diseases. "
In layman's terms, what is a "vaccine induced immune modulation"?
J |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *bi HaiveMan 10 weeks ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
I stopped reading at this bit....
"The website also presents unreliable health and nutrition information, as well as common conspiracy theories, as facts, notably about the efficacy of vaccination.[5] It has been noted for a lack of neutrality and curated toward those papers that confirm his pronouncements and away from those that undermine his pronouncements. "A colossal exercise in cherry picking."[15]" 🤦♂️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
There are two types of people in this world.
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
J
"
The Cleveland Clinic is well respected, they should be considered a reliable source, they are quite capable of extrapolating. It’s worth adding that this wasn’t funded so there was no axe to grind. The study design has been described as “robust and transparent” Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.27, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07–1.51
P-value: 0.007. In other words, the results should be taken seriously. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan 10 weeks ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
There are two types of people in this world.
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
J
The Cleveland Clinic is well respected, they should be considered a reliable source, they are quite capable of extrapolating. It’s worth adding that this wasn’t funded so there was no axe to grind. The study design has been described as “robust and transparent” Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.27, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07–1.51
P-value: 0.007. In other words, the results should be taken seriously."
When you make money promoting alternative medicines there's always an axe grinding. 😉 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
There are two types of people in this world.
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
J
The Cleveland Clinic is well respected, they should be considered a reliable source, they are quite capable of extrapolating. It’s worth adding that this wasn’t funded so there was no axe to grind. The study design has been described as “robust and transparent” Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.27, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07–1.51
P-value: 0.007. In other words, the results should be taken seriously."
You "might" want to read up ^^^^
J |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
There are two types of people in this world.
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
J
The Cleveland Clinic is well respected, they should be considered a reliable source, they are quite capable of extrapolating. It’s worth adding that this wasn’t funded so there was no axe to grind. The study design has been described as “robust and transparent” Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.27, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07–1.51
P-value: 0.007. In other words, the results should be taken seriously."
This "reliable source" you speak of...
Ji's website, GreenMedInfo, was started in 2008.
It purports to allow users to search articles from the research portal PubMed on alternative medicine topics.
However, tests made in 2019 by the McGill Organization for Science and Society showed only articles appearing to indicate positive results for alternative medicine treatments are displayed as search results through GreenMedInfo, ignoring the large number of research papers denying the effectiveness of alternative medicine.
Reliable source my arse.
J |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The flu vaccine doesn't necessarily stop you from getting the flu. It also means you're less likely to get seriously ill if you do get it, hence why it's offered to vulnerable populations to reduce risk of death.
Here's a quote on the study itself (which is not final and has not yet been peer reviewed) from an Al Jazeera article:
Hopkins Jr, the medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, said the Cleveland Clinic study does not evaluate the primary benefit for getting vaccinated against influenza: reducing one’s risk for severe illness, hospitalisation and death.
“People should be aware that the effectiveness of flu vaccines vary from year to year, but even when flu vaccination does not prevent infection completely, it can make the illness milder and prevent serious complications, including hospitalisation and death,” Hopkins said.
Hopkins said he “completely” disagrees with the social media post calling for flu vaccines’ removal from the market. “That action would result in more disease and death from flu,” he said.
There's lots more analysis from healthcare professionals in the article, but it's important to note that the most logical conclusion from the study is that this year's vaccine was ineffective, not that flu vaccines are ineffective in general. Remember the vaccine changes every year, so it's certainly possible it will be less effective some years than others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
There are two types of people in this world.
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
J
The Cleveland Clinic is well respected, they should be considered a reliable source, they are quite capable of extrapolating. It’s worth adding that this wasn’t funded so there was no axe to grind. The study design has been described as “robust and transparent” Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.27, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07–1.51
P-value: 0.007. In other words, the results should be taken seriously.
This "reliable source" you speak of...
Ji's website, GreenMedInfo, was started in 2008.
It purports to allow users to search articles from the research portal PubMed on alternative medicine topics.
However, tests made in 2019 by the McGill Organization for Science and Society showed only articles appearing to indicate positive results for alternative medicine treatments are displayed as search results through GreenMedInfo, ignoring the large number of research papers denying the effectiveness of alternative medicine.
Reliable source my arse.
J"
Read what I wrote. The reliable source I spoke of was the Cleveland Clinic not GreenMedInfo. You are tilting at windmills. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The flu vaccine doesn't necessarily stop you from getting the flu. It also means you're less likely to get seriously ill if you do get it, hence why it's offered to vulnerable populations to reduce risk of death.
Here's a quote on the study itself (which is not final and has not yet been peer reviewed) from an Al Jazeera article:
Hopkins Jr, the medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, said the Cleveland Clinic study does not evaluate the primary benefit for getting vaccinated against influenza: reducing one’s risk for severe illness, hospitalisation and death.
“People should be aware that the effectiveness of flu vaccines vary from year to year, but even when flu vaccination does not prevent infection completely, it can make the illness milder and prevent serious complications, including hospitalisation and death,” Hopkins said.
Hopkins said he “completely” disagrees with the social media post calling for flu vaccines’ removal from the market. “That action would result in more disease and death from flu,” he said.
There's lots more analysis from healthcare professionals in the article, but it's important to note that the most logical conclusion from the study is that this year's vaccine was ineffective, not that flu vaccines are ineffective in general. Remember the vaccine changes every year, so it's certainly possible it will be less effective some years than others."
Thank you for bringing something to the debate in good faith. What you say makes sense and clears up my concerns, to some degree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's worth looking into the background of Greenmedinfo founder Sayer Ji. 🤷♀️
This guy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayer_Ji
The very same"
Cheers, his choice of publication is very narrow. It must be said though that the paper we re discussing is not pseudoscience by any stretch of the imagination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
Well perhaps those 26.% are in the vulnerable category or work in jobs that involves far more contact with people than say those who may work from home.
Like all these things studied can be manipulated by ensuring that you survey people in certain areas or categories.
I can only speak from personal experience but getting the flu jab every year is one of the best things I've ever done.
I have a weakened immune system and the jab has this far prevented bad flu infection.
"
You make an important and valid point about the manipulation of studies to achieve a desired outcome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Active links get blocked on here. I’ve tried to post them to the BMJ before and it won’t post. The page can be searched for using the info I shared. As a highly qualified health professional I would value your opinion. This is precisely why I started the post in the first place. To discuss the value of the paper."
Fab only permits posting of links to renowned media sites and government sites. Posting of others can result in us receiving forum bans 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
There are two types of people in this world.
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
J
The Cleveland Clinic is well respected, they should be considered a reliable source, they are quite capable of extrapolating. It’s worth adding that this wasn’t funded so there was no axe to grind. The study design has been described as “robust and transparent” Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.27, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07–1.51
P-value: 0.007. In other words, the results should be taken seriously.
When you make money promoting alternative medicines there's always an axe grinding. 😉"
"When you make money promoting medicines there's always an axe grinding" how very true this is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a difficult job, predicting months in advance - to allow sufficient production time - which of the different types yflu and their variants, will be dominant, in the following flu season. It's great that there are evaluations and research into the effectiveness of the various vaccines that are in use. . The UK has studied our own, for some years now and European research is active too. Obviously study cut-off periods may vary and different vaccines are used in different countries. As flu season dates vary, it can help if the whole of the winter period is studied, as immunity benefits should accrue.
We certainly would be wise to wait for the largest volume of people to be studied, for the longest period possible. And for all studies to be peer-reviewed, of course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
There are two types of people in this world.
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
J
The Cleveland Clinic is well respected, they should be considered a reliable source, they are quite capable of extrapolating. It’s worth adding that this wasn’t funded so there was no axe to grind. The study design has been described as “robust and transparent” Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.27, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07–1.51
P-value: 0.007. In other words, the results should be taken seriously.
This "reliable source" you speak of...
Ji's website, GreenMedInfo, was started in 2008.
It purports to allow users to search articles from the research portal PubMed on alternative medicine topics.
However, tests made in 2019 by the McGill Organization for Science and Society showed only articles appearing to indicate positive results for alternative medicine treatments are displayed as search results through GreenMedInfo, ignoring the large number of research papers denying the effectiveness of alternative medicine.
Reliable source my arse.
J
Read what I wrote. The reliable source I spoke of was the Cleveland Clinic not GreenMedInfo. You are tilting at windmills."
You quoted GreenMedInfo. 
"it contains a link to the study: GreenMedInfo Bombshell Study Reveals 27% Negative Efficacy of 2024-2025 Influenza Vaccine Among Working-Age Adults
You cited the Cleveland Ohio Clinc had used the GreenMedInfo piece.
I'm suggesting it's tainted due the inability of GreenMedInfo to publish anything other than false/biased reports and or studies.
Fruit of the poisonous tree, as they say.
J
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Cleveland Ohio health agency followed the health outcomes of 53,000 adult staff and compared those who were vaccinated and those who were not during the 2024-2025 flu season. The vaccinated were 26.9% more likely to get the flu. WTAF?
There are two types of people in this world.
1) those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
J
The Cleveland Clinic is well respected, they should be considered a reliable source, they are quite capable of extrapolating. It’s worth adding that this wasn’t funded so there was no axe to grind. The study design has been described as “robust and transparent” Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.27, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07–1.51
P-value: 0.007. In other words, the results should be taken seriously.
This "reliable source" you speak of...
Ji's website, GreenMedInfo, was started in 2008.
It purports to allow users to search articles from the research portal PubMed on alternative medicine topics.
However, tests made in 2019 by the McGill Organization for Science and Society showed only articles appearing to indicate positive results for alternative medicine treatments are displayed as search results through GreenMedInfo, ignoring the large number of research papers denying the effectiveness of alternative medicine.
Reliable source my arse.
J
Read what I wrote. The reliable source I spoke of was the Cleveland Clinic not GreenMedInfo. You are tilting at windmills.
You quoted GreenMedInfo.
"it contains a link to the study: GreenMedInfo Bombshell Study Reveals 27% Negative Efficacy of 2024-2025 Influenza Vaccine Among Working-Age Adults
You cited the Cleveland Ohio Clinc had used the GreenMedInfo piece.
I'm suggesting it's tainted due the inability of GreenMedInfo to publish anything other than false/biased reports and or studies.
Fruit of the poisonous tree, as they say.
J
"
GreenMedInfoInfo wrote an article about a paper the Cleveland Clinic Ohio published in PubMed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Active links get blocked on here. I’ve tried to post them to the BMJ before and it won’t post. The page can be searched for using the info I shared. As a highly qualified health professional I would value your opinion. This is precisely why I started the post in the first place. To discuss the value of the paper.
Fab only permits posting of links to renowned media sites and government sites. Posting of others can result in us receiving forum bans
"
The British Medical Journal is well renowned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I've read that and many other papers. But more than that, I have first-hand experience of several people close to me who became seriously ill immediately (or soon after) their COVID vax. Some are permanently injured. Add to that many friends who have lurched from one flu/cold to the next over last couple of years. I'm unvaxxed (for various reasons) and haven't been unwell in years. Just sayin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Active links get blocked on here. I’ve tried to post them to the BMJ before and it won’t post. The page can be searched for using the info I shared. As a highly qualified health professional I would value your opinion. This is precisely why I started the post in the first place. To discuss the value of the paper.
Fab only permits posting of links to renowned media sites and government sites. Posting of others can result in us receiving forum bans
The British Medical Journal is well renowned."
It certainly is. I wrote that, as it's best to be informed on Fab's policy, so that nobody gets a forum ban, from not being aware.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
