Richard

Studies have shown that the Flu Vaccine actually increases your chances of getting flu.

If you've had COVID... you don't need a booster.  You're just suppressing your immune system increasing your chances of catching something else.

Shingles.... I don't know enough about this one.

-Raymond

Raymond Sorry, but no. Flu vaccine does not increase your chances of getting the flu. Similarly COVID vaccine boosters do not suppress your immune response to COVID. Please leave medicine to the medical folks. I've had my MD for over 30 years and will gladly put up peer-reviewed studies to back these points.

Michael

Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season

Why would anyone need a Vaccine Booster if they've already had the virus?  That is NOT science.

Please share the studies you are referring to.

-Raymond

Michael

In case you didn't want to read it:

Conclusions This study found that influenza vaccination of working-aged adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season, suggesting that the vaccine has not been effective in preventing influenza this season.

Summary Among 53402 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, we were unable to find that the influenza vaccine has been effective in preventing infection during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season.

-Raymond

Richard, you're a glutton for punishment.  I received the 2 original COVID-19 shots when they were first being offered because I work around Health Care Facilities.  I was fine until I received the first booster which resulted in some strange side-effects, almost like hallucinations.  I have never received another COVID-19 vaccination.  Added to that, I never tested COVID-19 until June 2024 and it was a mild strain.  

I have been getting flu shots every year since 1978 and normally don't have an issue with them.  I just try not to receive more than 1 type of vaccine at a time, as I don't react well to multiple vaccines.  

Live long and perspire.

Raymond thanks for sharing the study. I took a look at it, and I want to approach this calmly and from the science side, not the internet argument side.

First, I am not aware of any reputable evidence showing that flu vaccines increase your chance of getting the flu. The way these vaccines work is by showing your immune system a dead or extremely weakened version of the virus. You cannot catch the flu from the flu shot. What sometimes happens is that people get the shot during peak season and then catch whatever strain is actually circulating, which may not be the exact one the shot was designed for that year. That is a mismatch issue, not the vaccine causing the flu.

Regarding that specific Cleveland Clinic paper: it is on medRxiv, which means it is a preprint. Preprints are not peer reviewed, and the authors themselves caution that their conclusions should not be taken as final. The very top of the article says:

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Also, as with many observational studies, and this is important: correlation does not necessarily show causation. For example, people who get vaccinated are often in jobs or environments where they are exposed to more sick people, which can skew results. That kind of bias is well documented in immunology research. See the False Cause fallacy.

On boosters: yes, you can still benefit from a booster even if you have had the virus. Immunity fades over time. That is normal. Viruses mutate. That is normal. This is evolution at work. This is the same reason we get a new flu shot every year. The immune system is not a light switch that stays locked in forever. It is more like learning a foreign language. If you use it often, you stay sharp. If you go a long time without practice, you forget a bit and sometimes need a refresher.

As for shingles, the reason I am getting that one is pretty simple. If you ever had chicken pox, the virus hides in your nerve cells and can reactivate decades later. I have seen family members go through it and it is brutal. I would much rather take my chances with a sore arm than with a nerve rash that feels like fire.

I appreciate the discussion, and I know your heart is in the right place. I also know we all read things online and try to make sense of them. That is why I like to stick with long-term, peer-reviewed research and immunology fundamentals. I am not trying to convince anyone to do what I do. I am only explaining why I personally choose the vaccines I choose.

Live long and stay healthy.

I can handle just about any shot, but the COVID shots ALWAYS give me a migraine and make me dizzy/disoriented for about 2-days after

Raymond I read that article again, and here are a few points after going through it carefully.

The lines you quoted are accurate, but they do not mean what they are being interpreted to mean. The study says the vaccinated group had a higher rate of flu cases in that specific workplace during that specific season, but that is an association, not proof that the vaccine increases your risk. There is a big difference between correlation and causation. If people carrying umbrellas get wetter on rainy days, the umbrella is not the cause of the rain. In the same way, vaccinated employees often work in higher exposure jobs, and that alone can shift the numbers. This study was not designed to prove causation, and the authors never claim that the vaccine makes people more likely to get the flu.

The more accurate interpretation is that this appears to be a mismatch year. Flu vaccines are reformulated annually based on which strains are predicted to circulate. Some years the prediction is spot on, and some years it misses. A mismatch lowers the overall effectiveness of the vaccine. That is all this study found. Nothing in the paper suggests that the vaccine biologically increases infection risk or weakens immunity.

It is also worth noting that this is workplace observational data from Cleveland Clinic employees, not a controlled clinical trial. That means there are many variables that cannot be fully controlled, such as job roles, patient exposure, department clusters, and timing. Observational studies are useful for spotting patterns, but they cannot establish cause and effect the way controlled trials can. That is why the authors include a major disclaimer right at the top: this is a preprint, not peer reviewed, and should not be used to guide clinical practice. In scientific terms, that means the results are preliminary. They may change after review, or the analysis may need revision.

Finally, when the authors say they were unable to find that the vaccine was effective, that does not mean they proved it was ineffective. It only means their dataset did not show protection in that group during that season. In research language, that is not the same as saying the vaccine does nothing or increases risk. It is simply a report that this particular year did not show the benefit we normally see, most likely due to a strain mismatch.

Richard

I am familiar with Logical Fallacies.  Like the argument from authority posted by Michael.

And yes... I understand the backlash that comes form any criticisms of "Vaccines".

I do post from a position of caring, even if that does not come across the internet.

If in a completely separate discussion, we brought up how corrupt the pharmaceutical companies are... we would probably all be in agreement.  (ie. Pfizer's criminal lawsuit settlement of $2.3 billion in 2009 for  illegal promotion of products)  

If in a completely separate discussion again, we brought up how the majority of politicians are bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies... again... we would probably all be in agreement.

Again... if we brought up how pharmaceutical companies fund research thru colleges and Universities which rely on those funds, we would agree there is a conflict of interest.

As soon as someone brings up any criticism of "Vaccines"... people act like it's sacrosanct.  The unquestionable "science".  The truth is that there is no "settled science".  

We can all remember when:
Doctors promoted smoking cigarettes.  "9 of 10 doctors recommend Camels"
Psychiatrists prescribed anti-depressant drugs, which turned out to increase suicidal tenancies. (after 20 years of research)
Gardasil was going to cure certain types of cancer.

There are doctors who never formally studied vaccines, yet gave them for years overlooking side effects because Big Pharma told them it was ok.  (The US government pays out billions in Vaccine adverse events every year).  These same doctors were giving COVID "Vaccines" and boosters with blank inserts with no "peer reviewed safety studies".

Despite all the negative comments I will receive for this post... I highly recommend reading the following books:
- Dissolving Illusions
- Turtles all the way down
- Vax Facts
- Vaccines (Mythology, Idealogy and Reality)

All of these are written by Doctors with peer reviewed studies and also talk about how the industry works to prevent any negative science of vaccines from being published.  And how the pharmaceutical companies have advertisement contracts which prevent main stream media sources from reporting negatively on their products.

-Raymond

Richard I completely understand your decision to get a flu shot. On July 4th, 1976—our nation’s bicentennial—I came down with a brutal case of the infamous H1N1 swine flu. For four days I battled fever, chills, body aches, and respiratory misery. I’ve never felt worse in my life. If I caught that same strain today, it might just finish me off. That’s why, like you, I never skip my annual flu shot at the VA clinic.

Out of all the immunizations I received during my military service, only one ever gave me trouble. Before deploying to Southeast Asia, I was scheduled for a Black Plague vaccine. Within days, my left arm turned black and purple and started oozing a foul yellow substance. It looked like something out of a horror movie. Thankfully, that was a one-time ordeal—every other shot since has gone off without a hitch.

Raymond One of the first lines of this study acknowledges it is not peer-reviewed. A good scientist would question its findings right there, but for fun, let's continue.
In the introduction, they run through the known facts of flu vaccination: acknowledgement that flu is vaccine-preventable (!), that the effectiveness of a vaccine only lasts 1 year (hence the repeat shots), and the effectiveness of the vaccine varies depending on the educated guess used to pick strains. Yes, all scientists acknowledge that the flu vaccine does not work for everyone.
Then we start seeing the issues that peer review would have identified: the study tossed 1700 subjects "for whom age or gender were missing." [Was that really the reason?] Compare this to the number of subjects on which their ultimate conclusions were based: 1079 subjects who tested positive for flu. 2740 were tossed because they lost employment. Considering Cleveland Clinic mandates flu shots, it is highly likely these folks got the flu.
Thank you for the opportunity to walk through a crap science article.
Here's an overview of the influenza vaccine: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/rmv.2243. It's a dense read even for those of us in the medical field.
As to your question about booster shots-- sometimes the immunity from a vaccine goes away over time. Tetanus and measles are good examples. You should get a tetanus booster every 10 years. Measles, we don't know enough about to have a distinct recommendation. The measles outbreaks in the south last year exemplified that. As an ER doc I saw most of the vaccine-preventable illnesses-- measles, mumps, tetanus, chicken pox, pertussis (whooping cough). ALL of those patients were unvaccinated. In other words, in over 30 years I never saw someone with one of those diseases who had been vaccinated. Yes, I saw flu in people who'd been vaccinated. I think most clinicians would agree that the flu vaccine is our least successful. However, I'll take that 60% chance of not getting the flu in exchange for a sore arm for a day.

Raymond  As others have said, the paper you cited has not been peer-reviewed.  End of Story.  No need to go on about how doctors are evil.  You just need to bring reliable info into a discussion next time.

Michael

Every study that is first published is not "peer reviewed".  This study was concluded in April of 2025... no one will perform a peer review for the reasons I mentioned in my prior post.  What's revealing, is there is not a study that contradicts this one, which is probably why it's still published and not retracted.

Additionally, the criticisms you have for this article are present in all studies, including "peer reviewed".  If you read studies that support vaccines with this same level of criticism, you'll find yourself in the same place as many doctors who look deeper into vaccine studies.  

For boosters... no one should need a booster every year.  That's not a vaccine!

I would also argue, that in an ER... you don't know a patients vaccine status.  As for the "measles outbreaks"... the data collected for these fall into the same criticisms you just gave against the study I posted.  People who did not provide all the survey data, or who could "not remember" if they were "vaccinated" were classified as "unvaccinated".  

The same is true for Covid "vaccines" and boosters.  You're not considered "vaccinated" until 3 weeks after you take the latest shot, so any data for people who get the shot and get sick, are considered "unvaccinated".  

If someone wants to get a flu shot and feel sick for 2-3 days... that's their prerogative.  Getting a flu shot and feeling sick for 2-3 days, then having a 40-60% chance of still getting sick seems ridiculous to me.  

More focus should be on improving health and strengthening your immune system so that IF you do get sick, it will have minimal impact.

-Raymond

Raymond

>> What's revealing, is there is not a study that contradicts this one, which is probably why it's still published and not retracted. <<

An absence of contradiction is not proof of veracity.  Otherwise, anyone can say anything and immediately makes it true.  This statement alone shows you are simply ready to believe anything you want to believe.  Science doesn't work that way.  Empirical scientific truths are true whether you believe them or not.  Conversely, scientific falsehoods will never be true no matter how many people believe them.

Raymond We could go back and forth all day, so this will be my last post in this topic and you can have the last word(s).

A peer-reviewed journal such as the New England Journal of Medicine has the articles reviewed by peers BEFORE the study is published. This is common knowledge among physicians. I'm not "arguing from authority." Doctors know more about medicine just like software engineers know more about coding.

In the State of Michigan, where I practiced, there is a vaccine registry, so, yes, I know my patients' vaccine status. Beyond that, most people are quite honest and will admit if they did not vaccinate their child. For the record, I did not scold/reprimand the anti-vaxxers. I invited them to look at the scientific evidence out there and made sure they knew I would answer any questions they had, without judgement. I even had one anti-vaxxer thank me for being the first doctor who ever treated her with respect. Which brings me to my next point...

I am quite aware how broken our medical system is. Rather than establishing a baseline "bar" of intelligence needed and then looking at other factors (i.e. empathy), most medical schools just pick medical students based on grades and test scores. I watched helplessly as the technologic promise of an electronic medical record was quickly overtaken as a way to make more money. Like many physicians, I am dismayed at the lack of attention to prevention of health issues. However, I can tell you that's because the government, insurers, and proceduralist physicians made treatment of illness/disease to be where the money goes.

Raymond I appreciate that you are coming at this from a place of concern. I really do. You and I have talked enough over the years that I know you are not trying to stir anything up. You are looking at a complicated topic through the lens of your own research and experience, and you are raising questions you feel are important. That part is fine. I only want to make sure we separate the valid questions from the conclusions that do not follow from the evidence.

First, on the logical fallacies point: yes, arguments from authority are fallacies when someone says you must accept a claim only because an expert said so. But expert knowledge itself is not a fallacy. It is simply one type of evidence. When Michael speaks as an ER doctor, he is not saying you must believe him because he is an MD. He is saying his experience and training give him context for interpreting studies and identifying weak methodology. That is not a fallacy. That is domain knowledge. I do the same thing when someone misunderstands a database concept. I do not win the argument because I am the teacher. I win it because I understand how Access works internally.

As for corruption in pharma, industry influence, and historical medical mistakes, I agree with you. Those things are real. There have been bad actors, bad incentives, and flat-out bad decisions throughout medical history. But the existence of past failures does not mean all current science is automatically invalid. Tobacco companies lied for decades, but that does not mean penicillin or anesthesia or insulin are suspect. The right approach is to evaluate each claim on its evidence, not on the sins of the industry.

On the books you listed: some of them raise genuine historical issues, but many of them have been strongly criticized for cherry-picking data or misrepresenting early vaccine history. Peer review is not a guarantee of perfection, but it is the scientific version of code review. Without it, we miss errors and biases that even well-intentioned authors overlook. That is why the disclaimer on the study you posted matters. When a paper tells you upfront that it is not peer reviewed and should not be used to guide clinical practice, that is the authors themselves saying their findings are preliminary.

Regarding the point about the flu vaccine study not being contradicted: absence of a contradicting paper does not mean a study is correct. Lots of weak or flawed studies sit in preprint servers simply because nobody bothers to rebut them. That is common across all fields. What carries weight are controlled trials, long term data, and multiple independent replications. One observational workplace study cannot override decades of immunology research.

On the question about boosters: you said no one should need a booster every year, and that means it is not a vaccine. But that is actually how immunology works. Some pathogens mutate quickly, so immunity fades or becomes less specific. The flu changes its outer proteins every season. That is why we need a new shot every year. It is not a failure of the vaccine. It is a property of the virus. The immune system is amazing, but it is not magic. It needs refreshers for certain pathogens.

As for the idea that measles or COVID data misclassifies people as unvaccinated: that is a complicated claim, and it is often based on misunderstandings of case definition windows. You are correct that some datasets classify people as unvaccinated until a certain window has passed. That is not meant to hide cases. It is because the immune response takes time to develop, and studies want to measure effectiveness only after the immune system has actually had a chance to respond. That is not deception. It is methodology.

Finally, on the point that lifestyle and strong immune systems are important: absolutely. I agree with you completely. Diet, sleep, exercise, stress reduction, all of that matters a lot. I do all of that too. But vaccines and healthy living are not mutually exclusive. They are layers of protection. I eat well, lift weights, and take my supplements. But if a respiratory virus is circulating, I am still better off with an immune system that has a head start.

I know this topic gets heated fast, which is why I want to keep it grounded in things we can actually verify. You and I can disagree on interpretation without assuming bad intent from either side. My only goal is to base my own choices on the strongest, most reproducible scientific evidence available. I respect that you are looking for answers, and I appreciate the conversation.

Side note: my insurance does not cover any of these vaccines, so I paid over $500 out of pocket. If anything should spark controversy here, it should probably be that.

Kevin

My argument is not just that there is "lack of contradiction" to suggest "therefore it's scientific truth".  That's why I only said that it's "revealing".  Studies that have proven contradictions will be retracted.

Your followup statements are also quite insulting, as if I'm completely uninformed, which is not true.  

-Raymond

Michael

I also do not wish to argue.  I do appreciate everyone that has worked in the medical field and any "first responders" type positions.

-Raymond

Richard

I do appreciate your tone on this conversation.  I also do not mean to make it "heated".  Regarding the article I posted... yes I posted it too quickly without thinking thru the arguments I would be up against.  Over the years, there have been many studies stating the negative efficacy of multi-year influenza vaccines.  They have reported this in the news... but if you look at each of the studies, they are all "not peer reviewed".  There are researchers that have documented why there won't be "peer reviews" for them as I've previously pointed out.  (that is a fact, not my opinion)

I know people that have gone in for "vaccines" and been permanently damaged.  Yet know one is allowed to talk about adverse events because of a new term coined by the pharmaceutical companies... "vaccine hesitancy".  

Every time you get a "vaccine" you are injecting all kinds of chemicals, medals and other things that do not belong in your body.  I think most people would be disgusted if they knew how many of these "vaccines" are made.

One of the things you bring up on your site often, is the value of science, and I agree with you to a point.  One area that is not discussed enough though is bad science, or corrupt science.  This is not just in the medical field, but in all fields.  There is a lot of science that only represents viewpoints that profit certain establishments.  We all know this on a certain level, but when it's in an area we support, we tend to overlook it.

I used to fully support vaccines, especially since I thought of them as modern science and believed all the narratives associated with them.  I will tell you, the more you look into the actual science, you will find that the science is bad or corrupt.  This was apparent during COVID.

-Raymond

Raymond  Your quickness to draw conclusion from unreliable scientific info and pass it off as truth was quite insulting too.  Next time you want to conclude that "studies have shown that the Flu Vaccine actually increases your chances of getting flu" (the very first thing you posted above), make sure it's fully backed up with tons of other info.  A scientific discovery is not made by one paper or a person, or even 100 people.  It can only be made after multiple disciplines, methodologies, environments, etc., are involved and all discrepancies and disagreements reconciled.

Raymond  What do you think of the believers of flat Earth, Moon hoax, and things of that nature?  

[Moderator edit: personal insult removed. Please keep criticism focused on ideas, not people.]

You've got to respect science and the scientific methods, which are never about cherry-picking "evidence" to fit what you want to believe.

Having never caught Covid, although the majority of those in our Warehouse did, I give credit to the Covid vaccines.  Sadly, I lost ten friends/family members during those first couple of years, none of whom were vaccinated.  As for the flu, the last bout I suffered was over fifteen years ago, and I have been getting the flu shot every year since, because a sore arm (the worst of the side effects) was definitely more preferable than five days in bed.  I trust the scientific method and medical practitioners for sound medical advice, not the internet, and certainly not someone (or group of people) that put something out there just because they could.  Had they felt strongly enough about their results, they would have lobbied for peer review to prove them, rather than adding a disclaimer to the top of a preprint.

I've got some comments coming later, but I just want to remind everyone that I absolutely LOVE these kinds of discussions and debates, but we all need to also remain polite here. It's ok to disagree, but this isn't Facebook. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard. Carry on. More from me tomorrow...

Kevin

I didn't base my opinion on one article, as stated in my other comments.  I posted one study as I don't have time to post every study I've read over the years.  

BTW, Not one person has posted any study to refute or support their position.  Instead you are being insulting and flat out rude, equating my position to flat earthers or moon hoaxes and implying that I'm a loser!

You have misstated my position multiple times and completely missed my point.

You want to talk about cherry picking data and false conclusions while ignoring hundreds of criminal and civil lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for doing just that.

Go read a vaccine inserts to see the hundreds or even thousands of possible adverse events you risk with every shot.   Read the ingredient list.  Look at the actual studies used to approve the vaccines with the same critical nature you want to have on the one study I posted.

I'm done with this discussion.  I don't appreciate the insults or logical fallacies being used.  

-Raymond

My wife is auto immune compromised. For me almost any upper respiratory virus that is nearby I will get. Had Covid two times. Before the Vacine came out and 28 days of hacking my lungs out and misplacing the ability to taste almost anything. Blood pressure the spiked.  Second time was after the Vacine came out. But I was only down for a very short period.

Flu I almost never get but because wife is immune compromised I get the jab.  Shingles... somehow I haven't had to deal with it.

Raymond  You've conflated medical malpractice with actual, empirical, proven scientific facts and get upset OVER NOTHING because while the former is indeed deplorable, the latter is UNSHAKABLE objective scientific truths that have passed all tests and peer-reviews, passed verbal fights such as this, passed every human bias and mistake, etc., and emerged as a *global consensus*.  Essentially, the science of vaccination is an accepted truth, and it's not for you to be questioned like this.  To even faintly cast doubt on a globally accepted truth, you need better tools and methods than what you've shown.

OK folks, quick time out here, because this thread is starting to drift into territory I do not want on my site. I absolutely appreciate that people care deeply about their health, their families, and about science. That is good. Passion is not the problem. The problem is when the tone shifts from "let's compare ideas" to "let's attack each other." The ground rules here have always been the same: you can criticize ideas, you can criticize policies, you can criticize the quality of a study or the logic of an argument, but you may not attack people.

No personal insults, no name calling, no implying someone is a loser or an idiot because they hold a different view. This is exactly why I started the Captain's Log in the first place, because I was tired of the ad hominem nonsense on other social media sites. We are not going to have that here.

If you have contrary views, the best way to persuade anyone is to bring solid information to the table. Post links to reputable sources, quote actual studies, explain methods and data, and if you think someone's source is weak, explain why calmly and point to stronger evidence. Attack the argument, not the person making it. Assume good intent unless someone clearly proves otherwise.

I value everyone who participates here, even when I strongly disagree with their conclusions, and I want this to remain a safe place where we can talk about science, logic, and real world experience without it turning into the usual internet food fight. If we keep the discussion focused on evidence and ideas, and leave the personal shots out of it, then we can all actually learn something from each other, which is the whole point.

All right, now that I have asked everyone to cool the temperature a bit, I want to come back to the actual science that has been brought up since my last longer comment.

Raymond, you and I still disagree on a lot of this, but I do believe you are coming from a place of concern, not malice, and I respect that. So let me answer a few of the specific points you and others have raised, and give one solid, peer reviewed reference instead of a wall of links that nobody will read.

If you want one big, peer reviewed study that looks at both effectiveness and safety across a lot of data, this is a good starting point. It is a network meta analysis of 25 phase III randomized controlled trials of COVID vaccines, covering more than 900,000 participants: (1)

In plain English, what they found was that every vaccine studied reduced symptomatic COVID compared to placebo, and none of the vaccines had a higher rate of serious adverse events than placebo. Serious adverse events here means things like death, life threatening events, or permanent disability. That does not mean the vaccines are risk free. It means that in the best quality evidence we have (large randomized trials), serious problems are rare and not higher than in the people who got salt water.

There are similar multi study reviews for influenza vaccines. For example, systematic reviews of newer and enhanced flu vaccines for adults have consistently found that their safety profiles are what you would expect from the ingredients and that they are generally well tolerated, with most side effects being mild and short lived, even while their effectiveness varies from season to season. (2) The key point is that when you look at many trials together, you do not see evidence that flu shots are causing big waves of serious harm. You see the same pattern over and over: some protection against flu, especially against bad outcomes, and mainly minor, temporary side effects. I can personally attest to this as well.

On the topic of repeated flu vaccination and "negative efficacy" across multiple years, there actually is a whole literature on this too. Some observational studies suggest that if you get the shot every single year, the protection in any one year may be a little lower than if you were vaccinated for the first time that year. But lower protection is not the same as "the shot makes you more likely to get sick." The main signal is that some seasons are better than others, mostly because of how well the vaccine matches the strains that are actually circulating. None of that overturns the basic point that you cannot get flu from a flu shot, and there is no good evidence that the shot biologically increases your risk of influenza.

You also raised vaccine injuries and adverse events being swept under the rug. This is one place where I think people underestimate how much time and money has gone into tracking this stuff. In the U.S., for example, we have VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the V safe system for COVID, and even a federal compensation program (VICP) that pays out money for rare, genuine injuries. There is also a big Institute of Medicine report (now the National Academy of Medicine) that went through the evidence for a bunch of routine vaccines, looking specifically for causal links to serious harms, and concluded that the vaccines in use are safe and that true serious adverse events are very rare. (3) That is not the behavior of a system trying to pretend side effects do not exist. It is the behavior of a system that acknowledges the risks, measures them, and still finds that the benefits dwarf the harms.

About the "chemicals and metals" comment: yes, vaccines contain more than just the antigen. They have stabilizers, salts, sometimes a tiny amount of aluminum salt as an adjuvant to wake the immune system up, and so on. These ingredients sound scary if you just read the names, but dose matters. You take in more aluminum from food and water in a normal day than you get from most vaccines. These formulations are tested repeatedly in animals and humans long before they are licensed. Whole fields of toxicology and pharmacology exist to figure out where the danger thresholds actually are. The fact that an ingredient is unfamiliar does not automatically make it poison at the doses used.

On the "bad science" and "corrupt science" point, I am with you part of the way. There absolutely is bad science. There is biased science. There is science that is technically clean but funded and framed in ways that conveniently line up with what a particular company or political group wants to hear. That is real, and we should not be naive about it. But the way science corrects for that is by having multiple independent groups, in multiple countries, using different methods, all trying to answer related questions. When you zoom out and look at that big picture, you see a pattern: across decades, across different health systems, and across completely different research teams, vaccines repeatedly show the same things. They reduce the risk of getting certain infections. They dramatically reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death. And serious adverse events are rare enough that you have to pool huge datasets to even measure them reliably. (4)

So, bringing this back to my own personal position: I am well aware that pharma companies have done shady things. I am well aware that some doctors were too quick to prescribe things in the past that we later found out were not great ideas. But I am also looking at mountains of peer reviewed data that all point in the same direction on vaccines. When I decide to get a flu shot, a COVID booster, or the shingles vaccine, it is not because I think Big Pharma is full of saints. It is because, on balance, the evidence says I am trading a small, mostly short term risk for a significantly reduced chance of a long, miserable illness or something worse.

Everybody still has to make their own risk benefit decisions in consultation with their own doctor. I am not going to tell anyone here what they must do with their body. What I do ask, as the guy hosting this little community, is that if we are going to talk about science, we keep it anchored in the strongest available evidence, not just the most alarming anecdotes or the most distrustful assumptions. Skepticism is healthy. Cynicism that throws out all the data because some of it is imperfect is not.

At the end of the day, my job here, whether we are talking about computers or anything else, is to educate and to help people think more clearly. Just like I say in my videos, if I am wrong, show me better evidence. I will always adjust my worldview when presented with new facts. That is what learning really is. I am not married to being right. I am married to following the best evidence I can find, wherever it leads.

And just like I say in my Fitness database series, I am not a fitness professional and I am not a nutritionist. Any advice I give in that area comes from my own experience and from the research I have done. I have a whole bookshelf full of books on weightlifting, nutrition, and diet, and I read all of it because I want to understand things for myself. It has been the same with immunology. When COVID hit, I spent a lot of time reading books, digging into actual science sites, and watching videos from real doctors and immunologists, not TikTok influencers. So while I am not a health professional and I want to make that clear, I like to think I am reasonably educated on the basics. I follow the science and the strongest evidence I can find. That has always been my compass in life.

And one more time for everybody. There will be no more attacks on people. I do not want to see anyone criticizing individuals. If you want to talk about policies, science, studies, logic, methods, or ideas, that is fine. But do not point fingers at each other and say things like "you are stupid" or "you do not know this" or things like that. That is not going to stand here. If it continues, I will just delete those comments.

There is a subtle but important difference here. You can say something like "sticking your finger in a light socket is dumb." That is fine, because you are attacking the idea, not the person. What you cannot say is "you are dumb for thinking of putting your finger in a light socket."

People deserve respect. Ideas do not. Ideas are open to criticism. People are not targets. I expect everyone here to understand that difference and keep the discussion focused on concepts, not personal shots.