Last week, a significant new peer-reviewed vaccine study published in the well-regarded journal BMC Infectious Diseases, titled, “Real world effectiveness of antipneumococcal vaccination against pneumonia in adults: a population-based cohort study, Catalonia, 2019.” 

> https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-025-11596-w

Teaser: they found negative efficacy of minus eighty percent, meaning older adults given pneumonia jabs were 80% more likely to get pneumonia.

 

The study researchers reviewed the 2019 health records of over 2.23 million ‘senior’ (50+) patients in Catalonia.

...

The study’s scientists work for the Catalonian Health Institute, one of Spain’s largest healthcare systems.

The study was pretty simple and hard to argue with. They compared electronic vaccination records (jabbed versus unjabbed) against subsequent admissions for pneumonia as well as death records. They found: (1) people given the jabs were +80% more likely to wind up hospitalized for pneumonia, and (2) there was no measurable improvement in risk of either hospitalization or death among the vaccinated group, which you would hope to see if the stupid shots worked.

 

Source: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/oh-snap-wednesday-october-29-2025

The above is part of the last topic addressed by Jeff Childers in yesterday's October 29 daily CoffeeandCovid Newsletter 

There'll be a fact check along soon

to claim that the study was flawed,the researchers antivaxers

and quacks..

And anyway even if the vaccine in this study was of negative effectiveness....all others are

"safe and effective" and have saved millions of lives   so carry on jabbing regardless.

2 minutes ago, johng said:

There'll be a fact check along soon

to claim that the study was flawed,the researchers antivaxers

and quacks..

And anyway even if the vaccine in this study was of negative effectiveness....all others are

"safe and effective" and have saved millions of lives   so carry on jabbing regardless.

 

Discredited researchers

The study concerns  the use of a 23 Valent vaccine PCV 13 which has now been replaced by a 20 valent vaccine - PCV 20.

 

It shows the unsuccessful use of  one vaccine, not "the flu vaccine'

 

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe an even more important finding than the minus 80% effectiveness that the study revealed, is the reason why the researchers conducted this study.  

They looked for it but to their astonishment found that there were NO studies looking at real-world effectiveness of the flu-shots.  All the studies claiming effectiveness of the shots only looked at anti-bodies response, and presumed that such response meant that the shot was effective in preventing the flu and its adverse effects. 

Hence the need for REAL world effectiveness studies, of which this study is the FIRST of its kind. 

 

Referred to in the quoted study: 

"We underline the importance of RCT data assessing vaccine’s efficacy, but also note the absence of relevant RCT data (i.e., clinical effectiveness, not simply immunogenicity data) during the last ten years in relation with pneumococcal vaccines in adults [16,17,18]. Indeed, since the CAPITA RCT (that evaluated PCV13 vs. placebo among elderly people in the Netherlands across 2008–2012) [7], no RCT has been published evaluating clinical efficacy/effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccines in adults. Thus, considering documented changes in pneumococcal disease epidemiology across this time [13, 37, 38], large cohort studies conducted in the real-world practice conditions (as the present study) are necessary to inform about clinical effectiveness and real impact of current antipneumococcal vaccination programmes in adults [39]." 

CBS news  found a similar study back in 2006...swept under the carpet.

 

 

 

Still grasping at anti-vaxer straws, going back to a 2019-based study from Spain that doesn't at all accurately represent what happens globally with the flu vaccine and its effectiveness:

 

Interim Effectiveness Estimates of 2025 Southern Hemisphere Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Influenza-Associated Outpatient and Hospitalized Illness — Eight Southern Hemisphere Countries, March–September 2025

 

September 25, 2025

 

"During the 2025 Southern Hemisphere influenza season, seasonal influenza vaccination reduced influenza-associated outpatient visits by 50.4% and hospitalization by 49.7%.

 

Seasonal influenza vaccination provides important protection from influenza illness and associated potential complications. ...Using data from influenza-like illness (ILI) and severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) sentinel surveillance networks in eight Southern Hemisphere countries, investigators estimated interim VE against influenza-associated outpatient visits and hospitalization using a test-negative case-control study design.

 

Adjusted VE against influenza-associated outpatient visits and hospitalization was 50.4% and 49.7%, respectively, for any influenza virus, and 45.4% and 46.1%, respectively, for influenza A viruses. Adjusted VE against hospitalization with the predominant influenza subtype, A(H1N1)pdm09, was 41.6%.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/mm7436a3.htm

 

11 minutes ago, johng said:

CBS news  found a similar study back in 2006...swept under the carpet.

 

 

 

 

Still reposting the same old 19-year-old video that involved flu vaccine types that haven't been used in MANY years, and is IRRELEVANT to modern flu vaccines.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    Still not addressing the elephant in the room

 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

no RCT has been published evaluating clinical efficacy/effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccines in adults. Thus, considering documented changes in pneumococcal disease epidemiology across this time [13, 37, 38], large cohort studies conducted in the real-world practice conditions (as the present study) are necessary to inform about clinical effectiveness and real impact of current antipneumococcal vaccination programmes in adults [39]." 

 

Per the World Health Organization:

 

Influenza vaccines

 

Seasonal influenza vaccines are the most effective way to prevent influenza disease, with safe and effective vaccines available and used for more than 60 years. As influenza constantly evolves and changes over time and our immunity to influenza wanes, annual vaccination is recommended to protect against influenza.

...

To better understand the efficacy, the pooled efficacy of TIV formulations against clinical disease in adults aged 18–65 years across 12 seasons in randomized controlled trials was 59% (95% CI: 51–67%) (1). For other recommended groups (i.e. older adults (>65years), pregnant women, people with chronic illnesses and children), while influenza vaccines have evidence of being efficacious and effective, the range can vary greatly. 

 

https://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/influenza/influenza-vaccines.html

 

 

Influenza Viruses and Vaccines: The Role of Vaccine Effectiveness Studies for Evaluation of the Benefits of Influenza Vaccines

 

2022 May 1

 

"Influenza is a vaccine preventable disease and vaccination remains the most effective method of controlling the morbidity and mortality of seasonal influenza, especially with respect to risk groups.

...

Effectiveness studies allow an assessment of the positive effects of influenza vaccines in the field. The effectiveness of current influenza is suboptimal, being estimated as 40% to 60% when the vaccines strains are antigenically well-matched with the circulating viruses.

 

Overall, influenza vaccines are effective against morbidity and mortality in all age and risk groups, especially in young children and older adults. However, the effectiveness is dependent on several factors such as the age of vaccinees, the match between the strain included in the vaccine composition and the circulating virus, egg-adaptations occurring during the production process, and the subject’s history of previous vaccination."

...

A meta-analysis of 28 suitable published studies in children between 6 months and 17 years of age showed that influenza vaccination offered higher protection in children who were fully vaccinated (VE of 61.79%; 95% CI: 54.45; 69.13), compared to those who were partially vaccinated (33.91%; 95% CI: 21.12; 46.69) against any influenza type [94] and of 53% (95% CI: 45; 60) in 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 influenza seasons [95]. Overall, both studies [94,95] concluded that influenza vaccination provided substantial protection in children, even in seasons characterized by a high disease burden and the predominant circulation of mismatched viruses, such as H3N2.

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9143275/#

 

 

 

Protection from flu vaccine around 50% for Southern Hemisphere, data reveal

October 17, 2025

 

"In a precursor to what we might expect in the coming flu season in the United States and across the Northern Hemisphere, a new study shows flu vaccine effectiveness (VE) to be around 50% for both clinic visits and hospital stays for influenza during the 2025 Southern Hemisphere flu season.

 

The findings, which demonstrate that the vaccine cuts the rate of medical care for flu in half, were published recently in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by researchers with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Pan American Health Organization, and their collaborators in Southern Hemisphere nations.

...

Among patients with ILI, adjusted VE against influenza-associated outpatient illness with any influenza virus was 50.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.2% to 63.2%). VE against any influenza A was 45.4%, against the H1N1 strain it was 53.3%, and against any influenza B virus it was 62.3%. Among patients in the priority vaccination groups, VE against influenza-associated outpatient illness with any influenza virus was 51.8% (95% CI, 27.9% to 67.7%).

 

VE was 51.3% against hospitalization in young children, 51.9% among people with underlying conditions, and 37.7% in older adults (60 and older or 65 and older, depending on the country)."

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/influenza-vaccines/protection-flu-vaccine-around-50-southern-hemisphere-data-reveal

 

Meta-analysis of COVID, RSV, flu vaccines for fall provides 'sea of data' showing efficacy, safety

October 2025

 

A meta-analysis of 511 studies on US COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and influenza vaccines find meaningful protection against severe disease and hospitalization, evidence that can help fill the void in vaccine guidance formerly provided by independent federal review.

 

The large-scale project, conducted by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy's (CIDRAP's) Vaccine Integrity Project (VIP), was published today in the New England Journal of Medicine. CIDRAP, which publishes CIDRAP News, started the VIP to provide science-based information to help people, communities, policymakers, and clinicians make informed vaccine choices.

 

[leaving out the data on COVID and RSV vaccination effectiveness because that's off topic here]

 

The pooled VE of the flu vaccine against hospitalization was 48% in adults and 67% in children across networks and countries.

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/meta-analysis-covid-rsv-flu-vaccines-fall-provides-sea-data-showing-efficacy-safety

 

35 minutes ago, johng said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    Still not addressing the elephant in the room

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

no RCT has been published evaluating clinical efficacy/effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccines in adults. Thus, considering documented changes in pneumococcal disease epidemiology across this time [13, 37, 38], large cohort studies conducted in the real-world practice conditions (as the present study) are necessary to inform about clinical effectiveness and real impact of current antipneumococcal vaccination programmes in adults [39]." 

 

@TallGuyJohninBKK > The quote comes from the BMC published peer-reviewed large cohort study

> No RCT has been published evaluating clinical efficacy/effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccines in adults.

 

So you are refuting the conclusions of the study (negative effectiveness) by flooding the thread again with clippings showing vaccine effectiveness studies, that have NOT evaluated real-world clinical efficacy/effectiveness of flu-shots in adults.  

 

A well-deserved ThumbsDown on all those gas-lighting posts of yours!

 

30 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

@TallGuyJohninBKK > The quote comes from the BMC published peer-reviewed large cohort study

> No RCT has been published evaluating clinical efficacy/effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccines in adults.

 

So you are refuting the conclusions of the study (negative effectiveness) by flooding the thread again with clippings showing vaccine effectiveness studies, that have NOT evaluated real-world clinical efficacy/effectiveness of flu-shots in adults.  

 

 

 

Pulling out the same old anti-vaxer ploy on RCTs for vaccines:

 

"Although randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials are considered the “the gold standard” for measuring vaccine efficacy, they are expensive, and often pose ethical challenges. In addition, efficacy studies with influenza vaccines have a high risk of failure based on differences in attack rates and vaccine matches, resp. mismatches in different seasons. Therefore, the evaluation of VE by performing observational studies is increasingly considered to be a more appropriate approach than efficacy studies. Since 2004–2005, the most widely used method of estimating the VE of seasonal influenza vaccines has been the test-negative design (TND)."

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9143275/#

 

 

Fool’s-gold science

The ethical and scientific perils of testing most vaccines using placebo-controlled randomized trials

 

"The US Department of Health and Human Services’ proposed imposition of placebo-controlled trials for testing most new and existing vaccines jeopardizes public health and puts trial participants at unnecessary and easily avoidable risks—a violation of both scientific and ethical standards."

...

the proposed imposition of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as the gold standard is nothing but pyrite—”fool’s gold”. ... Placebo testing is therefore not appropriate for already approved vaccines and should only be done when no other options exist and a fatal epidemic is looming against which only a novel vaccine would be available."

...

The suggestion by Kennedy Jr. and some of his supporters that the only valid method for producing credible evidence is a placebo-controlled RCT is false (Vogel, 2025). There are a variety of well-established methods that researchers in medicine regularly use to reliably test a scientific question. They form the basis of what scientific experts consider to be the rightful “gold standard” of science."

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12373718/

 

In layman's terms, the ethical issue with running trials where one group gets a vaccine and the other group gets nothing is you needlessly expose the second group to potential illness and death -- when other study methods are available that would NOT needlessly jeopardize participants' health.

 

 

13 hours ago, johng said:

There'll be a fact check along soon

to claim that the study was flawed,the researchers antivaxers

and quacks..

And anyway even if the vaccine in this study was of negative effectiveness....all others are

"safe and effective" and have saved millions of lives   so carry on jabbing regardless.

 

But what you people are advocating -- getting rid of all vaccines -- doesn't solve all problems.

 

The flu itself has been associated with cognitive decline. 

 

On that general point:

The burden of Influenza

30 March 2024

 

"Every year, mainly during the winter season, seasonal influenza infects as many as 1 billion people. ...The flu vaccine is the best way to prevent infection and may reduce symptoms if you do get the flu. For those who are more vulnerable to flu, what we call ‘high risk groups’, the vaccine can save your life.

...

WHO estimates that there are 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness and between 290 000 to 650 000 respiratory deaths annually."

 

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-burden-of-influenza

 

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

But what you people are advocating -- getting rid of all vaccines -- doesn't solve all problems.

 

The flu itself has been associated with cognitive decline. 

 

 

Nobody claims that 'getting rid of all vaccines would solve all problems'. 

But it would be a giant step forward if vaccination would become the rare exception and only applied after careful risk-benefit analysis, rather than the routine practice it has become.  

When looking at the market for the flu-shots, here is what Jeff Childers wrote in the article addressing the current topic:

"The global market for pneumococcal vaccines is valued between $8 - $10 billion in 2024–2025. And it’s growing fast. Over the next ten years, forecasters project the market will nearly double, expecting a total market of $15–$17 billion. Unsurprisingly, Pfizer is the big gorilla, hogging nearly all of the pneumonia jab market (80%)"  

> https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/oh-snap-wednesday-october-29-2025

 

 

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Meta-analysis of COVID, RSV, flu vaccines for fall provides 'sea of data' showing efficacy, safety

October 2025

 

A meta-analysis of 511 studies on US COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and influenza vaccines find meaningful protection against severe disease and hospitalization, evidence that can help fill the void in vaccine guidance formerly provided by independent federal review.

 

 

 

More detail and the original source on the above study as it pertains to flu vaccines:

 

Influenza

Adults 18 to 64 Years Years of Age

"Three case–control studies showed a pooled influenza vaccine effectiveness of 48% (95% CI, 39 to 55) against hospitalization in this age group. ... Among 19 case–control studies, the pooled influenza vaccine effectiveness against medically attended infection was 49%.

...

Adults 65 Years of Age or Older

 

In adults who were 65 years of age or older, one case–control study showed an effectiveness for inactivated influenza vaccines of 53% (95% CI, 35 to 66) for the high-dose vaccine, 47% (95% CI, 41 to 53) for the adjuvanted vaccine, and 36% (95% CI, 23 to 47) for the standard-dose vaccine.⁵⁹

 

Ten case–control studies of varied standard-dose vaccine formulations showed a pooled effectiveness of 42% (95% CI, 36 to 47) against hospitalization (Figure 3).^{29,48–51,55–59} Twenty case–control studies had a pooled influenza vaccine effectiveness of 41% (95% CI, 36 to 44) against medically attended infection (Table S6 and Fig. S6).^{49–51,55,56,59,63–67,69,71–73,76–78,80,81}

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa2514268

 

It is a standard and common anti-vaxer ploy to seek out ONE or few cherry picked study results that supports their stance, even though those findings are contrary to what the vast and overwhelming scientific evidence and research shows on the same point. Such is the case here with the OP in this thread.

 

"Cherry-picking is a central tactic used in vaccine misinformation to deliberately select and emphasize specific pieces of data that support a pre-determined anti-vaccine position while ignoring the vast body of contradictory evidence.  This strategy manipulates information to create a misleading narrative that can sway public opinion and reinforce existing biases."

 

--AI assist

 

"Understanding the Cherry Picking Fallacy: How Selective Evidence Can Skew Your Argument"

Updated Apr 14, 2024

 

"In the realm of critical thinking and persuasive argumentation, cherry picking is a term that describes a common error in logic and reasoning. It occurs when someone selectively presents evidence that supports their claim while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts it. This fallacy can distort arguments, mislead audiences, and create a skewed perception of reality. In this article, we’ll explore the cherry picking fallacy in depth, providing examples, implications, and strategies for identifying and avoiding it in your own arguments."

 

Key Characteristics of Cherry Picking

1. Single Data Point vs. Broader Trends: Relying on isolated instances rather than larger trends or data sets.
2. Ignoring Counterarguments: Failing to acknowledge evidence that contradicts one's position.
3. Misleading Statistics: Presenting data in a way that gives a false impression of the overall situation, often through selective reporting.

 

https://rephrasely.com/usage/cherry-picking-fallacy

 

Message by the Director of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals at WHO - September 2025

 

"The tactics of anti-vaccine narratives are disturbingly familiar: they often promote conspiracies that portray governments, scientists, or pharmaceutical companies as corrupt; rely on spokespeople who claim to have expertise, who discredit legitimate science; cite cherry-picked studies that ignore the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence and consensus; misrepresent safety data especially from passive surveillance systems; set impossible targets that vaccines be 100% effective and have no risks no matter how rare; and use misrepresentations or flawed analogies designed to provoke emotional reactions rather than informed understanding."

 

https://www.who.int/news/item/22-09-2025-message-by-the-director-of-the-department-of-immunization--vaccines-and-biologicals-at-who---september-2025

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Last week, a significant new peer-reviewed vaccine study published in the well-regarded journal BMC Infectious Diseases, titled, “Real world effectiveness of antipneumococcal vaccination against pneumonia in adults: a population-based cohort study, Catalonia, 2019.” 

> https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-025-11596-w

Teaser: they found negative efficacy of minus eighty percent, meaning older adults given pneumonia jabs were 80% more likely to get pneumonia.

 

The study researchers reviewed the 2019 health records of over 2.23 million ‘senior’ (50+) patients in Catalonia.

...

The study’s scientists work for the Catalonian Health Institute, one of Spain’s largest healthcare systems.

The study was pretty simple and hard to argue with. They compared electronic vaccination records (jabbed versus unjabbed) against subsequent admissions for pneumonia as well as death records. They found: (1) people given the jabs were +80% more likely to wind up hospitalized for pneumonia, and (2) there was no measurable improvement in risk of either hospitalization or death among the vaccinated group, which you would hope to see if the stupid shots worked.

 

Source: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/oh-snap-wednesday-october-29-2025

The above is part of the last topic addressed by Jeff Childers in yesterday's October 29 daily CoffeeandCovid Newsletter 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNCERTAIN.

 

The results of that particular study remains:

 

UNCERTAIN

 

 

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Per the World Health Organization:

 

Influenza vaccines

 

Seasonal influenza vaccines are the most effective way to prevent influenza disease, with safe and effective vaccines available and used for more than 60 years. As influenza constantly evolves and changes over time and our immunity to influenza wanes, annual vaccination is recommended to protect against influenza.

...

To better understand the efficacy, the pooled efficacy of TIV formulations against clinical disease in adults aged 18–65 years across 12 seasons in randomized controlled trials was 59% (95% CI: 51–67%) (1). For other recommended groups (i.e. older adults (>65years), pregnant women, people with chronic illnesses and children), while influenza vaccines have evidence of being efficacious and effective, the range can vary greatly. 

 

https://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/influenza/influenza-vaccines.html

 

"Seasonal influenza vaccines are the most effective way to prevent influenza disease, with safe and effective vaccines available and used for more than 60 years. As influenza constantly evolves and changes over time and our immunity to influenza wanes, annual vaccination is recommended to protect against influenza."

 

IMO, but a measured, researched one, this paragraph is not only nonsense, it is anti-science rubbish. It is anti-science quackery.

 

Where is there evidence that shows 'influenza' is a 'disease'? What is this disease caused by? A virus - no doubt - that has never been shown to exist; let alone cause illness.

 

 

Influenza is a set of perfectly natural body mechanisms to rid itself of built up junk, that it has tucked away, in earlier times, to protect the body and keep it in good order.

 

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

In layman's terms, the ethical issue with running trials where one group gets a vaccine and the other group gets nothing is you needlessly expose the second group to potential illness and death -- when other study methods are available that would NOT needlessly jeopardize participants' health.

 

In laymans terms  they have never done the gold standard placebo controlled trials

just went ahead and declared the concoction as "safe and effective"  and now say that gold standard trials are unethical   so we can only compare  the safety and efficacy of new concoctions against the old concoctions   a bit like comparing the drunkenness after  a shot of vodka and a shot of whiskey.

12 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Nobody claims that 'getting rid of all vaccines would solve all problems'. 

But it would be a giant step forward if vaccination would become the rare exception and only applied after careful risk-benefit analysis, rather than the routine practice it has become.  

 

I'm not sure the resources or even the technology is there for risk-benefit analysis.

 

Let's say you're 65. You take good care of your health. It probably won't make much difference either way if you get the flu shot or not. You are not likely to get the flu, or if you do, you will fight if off easily. And any potential adverse effects of the flu shot will likely not affect you because your immunity is high.

 

Another 65 year old who does not take care of his health: Yes, you are probably correct. The flu vaccine itself may cause problems for this person. But if they don't take a flu shot, they may also get a flu / pneumonia during winter months and not be able to fight it off. 

 

So you're saying that there is a way to determine which is safer for this 2nd case? Not sure they are able to predict who might get a flu, who might get a severe flu/pneumonia and not be able to fight it off. Or who might react negatively to the vaccine shot. I really think there is no way for them to know. Maybe with advanced AI in the future, it will get more refined and the AI can scan you and see what your best options are?

 

Or maybe the flu vaccine is completely useless. I personally have no intention of ever taking the flu vaccine. It's not the same as measles, etc.. 

 

Maybe if there is one vaccine we really should get rid of, it might be the flu vaccine. But again, no one is forcing anyone to take it. 

 

At the end of the day, if you don't do your part to stay healthy, then you are at the mercy of either medical intervention or illnesses that occur naturally anyway. 

 

I know a woman back home who died of pneumonia in her 60s. No idea if she was taking flu shots annually. 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Influenza is a set of perfectly natural body mechanisms to rid itself of built up junk, that it has tucked away, in earlier times, to protect the body and keep it in good order.

 

Makes no difference if it's "perfectly natural".

For people with compromised immunity, it may be too much of a shock to the system for the body to handle it properly.

 

 

 

•  Vaccination was targeted at high-risk individuals — older adults, those with chronic illnesses, immunocompromised status.

•  The comparison group (unvaccinated) were statistically younger and healthier, with fewer comorbidities.

•  Even after adjustment, residual confounding likely remained — meaning the higher pneumonia rates in Group A may reflect underlying vulnerability, not vaccine failure.

10 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

•  Vaccination was targeted at high-risk individuals — older adults, those with chronic illnesses, immunocompromised status.

•  The comparison group (unvaccinated) were statistically younger and healthier, with fewer comorbidities.

•  Even after adjustment, residual confounding likely remained — meaning the higher pneumonia rates in Group A may reflect underlying vulnerability, not vaccine failure.

 

Just saying but I'd rather trust the clear and meticulous methodology used by the study-researchers to reach their conclusions than your off-hand guesswork to discredit it.  

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Just saying but I'd rather trust the clear and meticulous methodology used by the study-researchers to reach their conclusions than your off-hand guesswork to discredit it.  

 

What if I dance to it on Tik Tok....would that convince you?

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

What if I dance to it on Tik Tok....would that convince you?

 

Your choreography would have to be world-class to convince me in taking my first ever Flu-shot in 68 years.

 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

 

Makes no difference if it's "perfectly natural".

For people with compromised immunity, it may be too much of a shock to the system for the body to handle it properly.

 

What is compromised immunity?

 

For me it is the inability to deal with toxic entities. So! What causes the immune system - although I prefer the terms defence and maintenance - to not be as effective as it should be? Far too involved to go into fully here, but in a nutshell; lack of essential nutrients we get mostly from our food. We are the earth. What we eat from earth's bountiful larder is what we consist of. And some of the things are nutrients in the for of vitamins and minerals. We need them in different amounts, at different times, and if we are deficient, the body cannot efficiently defend and maintain us as it would do if it had all the tools at its disposal.

 

Back to Influenza. It varies from person to person, although there is a common thread of symptoms. Being lacking in nutrients is one of the reasons we get influenza symptoms. Because a malnourished and compromised body, cannot deal with the incoming undesirables as it should, in real time, and stores them away. The symptoms of The Flu arrive. Depending on the toxins taken in during the preceding days/weeks/months, the symptoms will vary.