A Growing Unease: When Even Traditional Vaccines Raise Questions –
Why did our last flu shot give us a 27% HIGHER RISK OF GETTING THE FLU?
A study from the Cleveland Clinic followed 53,000 employees, and the results showed it had a negative effectiveness rate.
Not good. Actually, bad.
Something happened, and the American public deserves an explanation. Now.
Like many, I’ve long had concerns about mRNA vaccines—concerns rooted in how rapidly they were developed and now how aggressively they are being applied to broader vaccine platforms. I won’t be taking any mRNA shots. But lately, a more profound unease has begun to grow: What if even the traditional vaccines-the kind built on attenuated or inactivated viruses—are being quietly altered in ways that compromise safety or effectiveness?
The new Cleveland Clinic study has only deepened those doubts.
This isn’t fringe science. The Cleveland Clinic is a globally respected academic medical center. Their new preprint study followed over 53,000 employees during the 2024–2025 flu season. Strikingly, those who received the flu shot had a 27% higher risk of getting the flu than those who didn’t. The study concluded a negative effectiveness rate of 26.9%—suggesting not just failure, but possible harm.
While the cause remains unclear—was it poor strain prediction, contamination during production, or something else?—the results are disturbing. Over time, the vaccinated group had higher infection rates than the unvaccinated group. That’s not a protective outcome; that’s an inversion of intent.
This raises questions not just about the mRNA shift, but about whether even conventional vaccines are being quietly modified—through things like nanoparticle carriers or new adjuvants—without public discussion or long-term safety data.
There’s no published science yet that answers my next thought, but an enquiring mind wonders: after decades of flu shots, does my immune system hold a broad enough arsenal of antibodies and T-cells to handle future strains naturally? Could over-prepping the immune system year after year create a feedback loop that weakens innate response? (Actually, I have now found a study supporting this, as reported by Dr. Bowden, which I found on Substack. I will write a separate blog post or series of Facebook posts breaking it up into digestible bites.)
For now, I’m focusing on what I can control: my daily immune support, which includes Quercetin, D3, Zinc, Magnesium, and Vitamin C. And a few other measures I have reported on my Facebook pages).
Let’s stay alert.
We’ve entered a new phase in public health where even old assumptions deserve renewed scrutiny for safety, effectiveness, and respect.