MASSIVE Cleveland Clinic study finds those flu shots DO NOT work — and actually INCREASE your risk of flu by 27%. I’ve interviewed RFK on this and it is fact. Health officials have to admit how wrong they were. 💉💉😬😬

Never had a flu shot. Never had the flu.

I’ve rejected the flu shot since 2012. I was able to get an exemption for my faith when working in clinical jobs and my dietetic internship. I also declined the Covid-19 vaccine. I’m not anti-vax but I do wish people would use more critical thinking and judgment when it comes to vaccines. Not all vaccines are safe and effective. I love the work @MaryBowdenMD is doing to protect the health and safety of families and children.

Erin, get Bobby on a conference call with me and let’s shame him into pulling these useless shots. His new CDC director had the audacity to say she believed mRNA vaccines are safe and effective. Pfizer’s Janine Small admitted under oath the shots never stopped the spread. Separately, 1,200+ known side effects. An RFK Jr. advisory committee member, in a study with your SG @FLSurgeonGen, estimated over 500K deaths from mRNA shots, not COVID.

Increase in flu infections due to damaged immune systems. Obviously true.

Flu shot effectiveness runs between 20-30% only. This year it’s 24%. Anyone in the medical field pushing vaccines is only for profit, not health.

The post recycles a real Cleveland Clinic employee cohort from the 2024–2025 season and treats a single observational association as proof that flu shots “do not work” and raise infection risk. The underlying paper is more limited than the caption. Shrestha et al. followed 53,402 working-age Cleveland Clinic staff in Ohio. About 82% received that season’s mostly trivalent inactivated vaccine. Over 33 weeks, there were 1,130 PCR-confirmed flu cases (2.12%), almost all of which were influenza A. In the most-cited online version, a Cox model treating vaccination as a time-dependent covariate yielded an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.27 (VE −26.9%). A later revision of the same preprint found no significant difference during low or medium flu activity and an HR of 1.33 only when activity was high. The authors concluded they could not demonstrate protection against infection that season and that vaccination was associated with higher recorded infection during peak circulation. They did not conclude the shot itself caused flu. That distinction matters. The outcome is any lab-confirmed infection among a relatively healthy workforce, not hospitalization or death. Healthcare workers who get vaccinated are often in higher-exposure roles and are more likely to be tested under workplace protocols; unvaccinated staff may be less likely to seek testing for mild illness. Those biases can produce a higher recorded incidence in the vaccinated group without the vaccine increasing true susceptibility. Cleveland Clinic itself stated the results do not show vaccination increases flu risk and should not be generalized beyond this population. In the same 2024–2025 season, CDC vaccine-effectiveness networks using test-negative designs reported 36–54% effectiveness against adult outpatient visits and 41–55% against hospitalization. Those designs measure medically attended disease, which is the outcome public-health recommendations actually target. The video attached to the post is a HighWire/McCullough Foundation clip featuring Nicolas Hulscher. It displays the study’s cumulative-incidence graph, overlays hospital footage, and presents the 27% figure as settled evidence that the shots fail and raise risk. The poster, Erin Elizabeth (unhealthytruth), has a long record of flu-vaccine skepticism, has interviewed RFK Jr. on the topic, and was previously grouped with the “disinformation dozen.” Posting the 2024–2025 preprint in late September 2026, just as the next flu season begins, is a matter of timing, not new data. The study serves as a cautionary note that infection-blocking effectiveness can be poor in a mismatch or high-circulation year among healthy adults. It does not overturn the larger body of evidence that influenza vaccination more consistently reduces severe outcomes than it prevents every infection.

Hi Chris. I appreciate that you follow me and your bio but it sounds like you’re a fan of the flu shot and Covid shots. I appreciate all the copy paste which defames me and you don’t s even give the source of where you copy pasting from. Can you supply that? RFK and I would love to add that source or AI to the lawsuits we’ve filed together already. We’re always ready for another.

Use Grok; it has more references than any of your posts.

You would think a hospital or Dr office would read some of these studies...but it is money driven apparently.

Why would they put cocker spaniel cell line in at least one major flu shot brand? Because that cell line is the "most easily infected animal cell line in all of nature". Think about that for a minute.

They do not, no physiological mechanism for increasing risk of flu.

This has been known for years…

The only time that I got the flu was after the flu shot. That was 3 decades ago. After that I researched vaccines & found that all vaccines are poison.

Yet another dumb blonde: The lead author of this study, Dr. Nabin Shrestha, explicitly said that this study does not show that the vaccine causes flu or makes people more vulnerable. He noted that the statistical difference was likely driven by unrecognized confounding factors (such as testing behavior or occupational exposure) and affirmed that flu shots remain a critical public health tool.

Even more unbelievable is they still mandate the flu shot for all employees, even those who do not have any patient contact. 🤡🌎

NO VAX WORK. They are made to purposely make people ill and compromise their natural immunity!

Pubmed has 6300 studies showing efficacy. How about reporting on those. RFK doesn’t know science and regularly lies about vaccines.

There are thousands of studies showing efficacy of flu vaccines and yearly surveys by CDC showing efficacy. What planet are you living on?

Referencing Hulscher, like Makis, strip you of all credibility

Erin: The real issue - do flu shots prevent more severe outcomes (hospitalization, death) if you do get the flu?

@JohnBeaudoinSr My friend was disabled by the flu shot!

Did you ask him why they don’t pull this off the market?

Yes I have it’s 648 and I worked all night but @grok can explain why he can’t and why he can’t force FDA to do so. Bob Malone says we have to wait till after midterms but I think Bob is mad. RFK ghosted him a little bit so he’s been writing some main article articles

@grok Thank you for your response @unhealthytruth. I saw one of Bobs post. He appeared to be upset. It’s so frustrating because I’m a nurse in long term care and every time they give these damn shots mist get sick with it. I’m tired of working in healthcare. I hope you get some rest😊

✅

@IwnToday You don’t say🤔.

Now do mRNA jabs. They do not work and are lethal.

Oh and those of you who think Big Pharma lies to make money on vaccines, vaccines are the least profitable segment of the industry. Only 10% of profits. Chronic diseases are the cash cow. Think weight loss drugs.

This is the craziest thread I’ve seen yet on vaccination. You guys are making this all up. All the science shows flu shots work. Only in your alternate universe can you ignore 6300 studies that prove they work.

Erin, waiting for your evaluation of the 6300 studies that show flu vaccines work. Let me know when you have read some and evaluated them.

🎯🎯🎯 Flu shot efficacy stats. The truth: People think the flu shot works every year. It doesn’t. CDC data show wild swings in relative efficacy — sometimes barely above chance. The absolute benefit most years is only 1–3%, meaning 97–99% of people gain no direct protection. Here’s 20 years of relative vs absolute numbers 👇 2004–05: ~10% relative (≈0.5% absolute) — catastrophic H3N2 mismatch. 2005–06: ~20% relative (≈1% absolute) — mismatch again. 2006–07: ~52% relative (≈2–3% absolute) — good match at last. 2007–08: ~37% relative (≈2% absolute) — partial mismatch. 2008–09: ~41% relative (≈2% absolute) — moderate results. 2009-10 (H1N1): ~56% relative (≈3% absolute) — pandemic year. 2010–11: ~60% relative (≈3–4% absolute) — peak performance. 2011–12: ~47% relative (≈2% absolute). 2012–13: ~49% relative (≈2–3% absolute). 2013–14: ~52% relative (≈3% absolute). 4/ 2014–15: ~19% relative (≈0%–1% absolute) — total H3N2 failure. 2015–16: ~48% relative (≈2–3% absolute). 2016–17: ~40% relative (≈2% absolute). 2017–18: ~38% relative (≈1–2% absolute). 2018–19: ~29% relative (≈1% absolute). 5/ 2019–20: ~39% relative (≈2% absolute). 2020–21: no data — flu nearly vanished during lockdowns. 2021–22: ~35% relative (≈1–2% absolute). 2022–23: ~54% relative (≈3% absolute). 2023–24: ~44% relative (≈2% absolute). The 20‑year average is about 40% relative efficacy, but only ~2% absolute efficacy. That means for every 100 people who get the shot, only about 2 avoid getting the flu who otherwise would have. The real story: it’s all about strain prediction. When they guess right, absolute benefit touches 3–4%. When they guess wrong, it collapses to nearly zero. That’s not “anti‑vax.” Those are just the CDC’s own numbers, translated into absolute terms. True transparency means showing both — the relative and the absolute effect.

@SecKennedy duh. @PapiTrumpo something has to be done about the Lucy’s

A flu shot is a shot of the flu. One flu over the coocoo's nest.

And Erin hasn’t given any evidence to me that the 6300 studies are all wrong, because they aren’t. Phony “experts” like her can’t look at real data because they would have to admit their whole professional life is a lie.