Here I present three recent studies for your consideration (truth is, all available vaccines injure the recipient, at varying levels depending on the person and situation. They weaken you, making you more vulnerable to all disease and degeneration).
Positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide
“The results showed a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and IVR of people ≥65 years-old. There is a significant increase in COVID-19 deaths from eastern to western regions in the world. Further exploration is needed to explain these findings, and additional work on this line of research may lead to prevention of deaths associated with COVID-19.”
Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season
…36% increase in coronavirus infection in group who receive flu vaccine vs. group who did not receive it.
CDC Uses Flawed Science to Discredit Pentagon Flu Study
Widespread citation of the Pentagon study by health freedom advocates has prompted government and industry to discredit it — but the CDC is using a study that more resembles propaganda than sound science to make its case, by Brian Hooker, Ph.D, P.E.0, December 18, 2020
Skeptics of flu shot mandates have widely cited a January 2020. Pentagon study, by Greg. G. Wolff, which found that soldiers who received the flu shot were 36% more at risk from coronavirus.
That study found support in at least five previous published studies finding that influenza vaccines raise subsequent risks for non-flu infections, including coronavirus.
The widespread citation of the study by advocates for health freedom has prompted government and industry to publish critiques and rebuttals intended to discredit the Wolff study.
The latest study cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to discredit the Pentagon study is an analysis of influenza incidence and non-influenza respiratory virus incidence in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons in the 2010-11 through 2016-17 “flu seasons” in Canada.
In this study, all test subjects were sick — they were diagnosed with “influenza-like illness” and tested within seven days of diagnosis. Therefore, this analysis cannot be relied upon for incidence of these specific diseases among the general population. Instead, this is just a statistical treatment of the various illnesses around diagnosed sick people in Canada and whether they got the flu shot.
However, there was a group of individuals in that who, although sick, tested negative for all the laboratory-diagnosed illnesses — perhaps that would be the most relevant group of results to investigate.
This control group was termed “pan-negative controls” but unfortunately still represented groups of symptomatic individuals (fever and cough plus one additional related symptom among arthralgia, myalgia, prostration or sore throat).
Interestingly, when compared to this control group, influenza vaccination was significantly higher among those who were diagnosed with coronavirus, within the unadjusted analysis (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 – 1.47). Only in the adjusted analysis (modified for age group, Province of residence, testing interval, etc.) was the relationship abolished.
Among all patients diagnosed with any non-influenza respiratory virus, a significant portion of those diagnosed were vaccinated for influenza — which alone is a cause for concern. The unadjusted odds ratio of 1.16 (95% CI 1.04 – 1.30) means essentially that the flu shot rate among these individuals was 16% higher than the controls.
In the adjusted analysis (as described earlier), the relationship was at least marginally significant (contrary to the claims of the study authors), with an odds ratio of 1.11 (95% CI 0.99 – 1.26).
Strictly speaking, statistical significance is determined by the lower confidence interval, in this case, if this value drops below 1.0, the relationship is judged insignificant. Since the lower confidence interval is 0.99, there is still cause for concern and the overall result should never be dismissed as “insignificant.”
In summary, the study cited by the CDC is at best meaningless regarding the incidence of coronavirus among flu shot recipients versus unvaccinated individuals.
This voids the study authors’ lofty claims (i.e., negating the previous Wolff 2020 study that showed a relationship between coronavirus and flu shot uptake, among others), as the paper appears more to be a propaganda piece for the promotion of vaccination.
Brian S. Hooker, PhD, PE, is an Associate Professor of Biology at Simpson University in Redding California where he specializes…
Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine
..4 times rate of respiratory among those who got the flu shot, and there was no decrease in flu.
Children’s Health Defense asks Frontiers in Public Health to Retract Study Saying Flu Vaccines Protect Against COVID: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/retract-study-flu-vaccines-protect-against-covid/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a4251516-11d6-4d50-91e8-fecb09381b0b