Cal88 said:

---

Vaccines linked to higher risk of dementia and alzheimers.

Flu shots are a COMPLETE FAILURE — they increase your risk of dementia (+38%), Alzheimer's (+50%), AND the flu (+27%).

The single LARGEST vaccine–dementia study ever conducted (n=13.3 million) finds common vaccines dose-dependently increase risk of dementia and Alzheimer's for a… https://t.co/of9vF4CATi pic.twitter.com/4IzQ7y4CKQ

— Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (@NicHulscher) December 8, 2025

---

Zippergate said:

---

If your study data shows that a medical intervention dramatically reduces accidental deaths, it's garbage. Any medical professional who puts their name behind such a study or who amplifies such a study is either a fool or is intentionally trying to mislead.

---

Zippergate said:

---

Instead of linking a tweet to someone that is consistently lying, why don't you post the paper that links the flu shot with dementia and Alzheimers.

If you followed Hulscher, you would know that he posts endless peer-reviewed papers; everything is backed up by data. Meanwhile your tribe just posted a study showing the Covid shots reduce death from traffic accidents.

---

Cal88 said:

---

Also, Cleveland Clinic study shows that flu vaccines increased the risk of getting the flu by 27%

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/new-study-flu-vaccination-linked

This study analyzed over 53,000 Cleveland Clinic employees and found that those who received the influenza vaccine during the 20242025 season were statistically more likely to contract influenza compared to those who remained unvaccinated. After adjusting for key factors like age, sex, job role, and location, the data showed a 27% higher risk of influenza among the vaccinated group (Hazard Ratio = 1.27). This led to a negative vaccine effectiveness estimate of 26.9%.

---

Cal88 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Instead of linking a tweet to someone that is consistently lying, why don't you post the paper that links the flu shot with dementia and Alzheimers.

If you followed Hulscher, you would know that he posts endless peer-reviewed papers; everything is backed up by data. Meanwhile your tribe just posted a study showing the Covid shots reduce death from traffic accidents.

---

I do not follow anti-vaccination influencers and I did not know that being a scientist makes me part of a tribe. I just wanted to see the paper that shows the link between the flu show and dementia and Alzheimers.

---

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/study-common-vaccines-linked-to-38

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36542511/

Abstract
Background: Observational studies suggesting that immunizations strongly decrease the risk of dementia had several methodological limitations. We assessed whether common vaccines are associated with the risk of dementia.
Methods: We assembled a population-based cohort of dementia-free individuals aged 50 years in the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1988 and 2018. Using a nested case-control approach, we matched each patient with dementia with 4 controls. Conditional logistic regression yielded confounder-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of dementia associated with common vaccines >2 years before the index date compared with no exposure during the study period. Moreover, we applied a 10-year lag period and used active comparators (participation in breast or prostate cancer screening) to account for detection bias.
Results: Common vaccines were associated with an increased risk of dementia (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.36-1.40]), compared with no exposure. Applying a 10-year lag period (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.18-1.23]) and comparing versus prostate cancer screening (1.19 [ 1.11-1.27]) but not breast cancer screening (1.37 [1.30-1.45]) attenuated the risk increase.

---

Zippergate said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

If your study data shows that a medical intervention dramatically reduces accidental deaths, it's garbage. Any medical professional who puts their name behind such a study or who amplifies such a study is either a fool or is intentionally trying to mislead.

---

That's one part of the data. It could just be an indicator that people who took the vaccine were less risky drivers or something.

But I'm sure that your Substack randos have more credibility than this study, good point.

---

Did the authors or the people reporting on it note that it is hopelessly confounded? No. What does that say about their intent and their credibility?

As for your comment about substack randos, that you don't know who these doctors and scientists are doesn't make them randos. Go back and compare what they have been saying about Covid for the past five years versus any of your so-called experts.

---

Cal88 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Instead of linking a tweet to someone that is consistently lying, why don't you post the paper that links the flu shot with dementia and Alzheimers.

If you followed Hulscher, you would know that he posts endless peer-reviewed papers; everything is backed up by data. Meanwhile your tribe just posted a study showing the Covid shots reduce death from traffic accidents.

---

I do not follow anti-vaccination influencers and I did not know that being a scientist makes me part of a tribe. I just wanted to see the paper that shows the link between the flu show and dementia and Alzheimers.

---

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/study-common-vaccines-linked-to-38

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36542511/

Abstract
Background: Observational studies suggesting that immunizations strongly decrease the risk of dementia had several methodological limitations. We assessed whether common vaccines are associated with the risk of dementia.
Methods: We assembled a population-based cohort of dementia-free individuals aged 50 years in the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1988 and 2018. Using a nested case-control approach, we matched each patient with dementia with 4 controls. Conditional logistic regression yielded confounder-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of dementia associated with common vaccines >2 years before the index date compared with no exposure during the study period. Moreover, we applied a 10-year lag period and used active comparators (participation in breast or prostate cancer screening) to account for detection bias.
Results: Common vaccines were associated with an increased risk of dementia (OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.36-1.40]), compared with no exposure. Applying a 10-year lag period (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.18-1.23]) and comparing versus prostate cancer screening (1.19 [ 1.11-1.27]) but not breast cancer screening (1.37 [1.30-1.45]) attenuated the risk increase.

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Also, Cleveland Clinic study shows that flu vaccines increased the risk of getting the flu by 27%

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/new-study-flu-vaccination-linked

This study analyzed over 53,000 Cleveland Clinic employees and found that those who received the influenza vaccine during the 20242025 season were statistically more likely to contract influenza compared to those who remained unvaccinated. After adjusting for key factors like age, sex, job role, and location, the data showed a 27% higher risk of influenza among the vaccinated group (Hazard Ratio = 1.27). This led to a negative vaccine effectiveness estimate of 26.9%.

---

Rebuttal:

https://www.health.com/flu-shot-effectiveness-11714687

---

Not very convincing.

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Also, Cleveland Clinic study shows that flu vaccines increased the risk of getting the flu by 27%

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/new-study-flu-vaccination-linked

This study analyzed over 53,000 Cleveland Clinic employees and found that those who received the influenza vaccine during the 20242025 season were statistically more likely to contract influenza compared to those who remained unvaccinated. After adjusting for key factors like age, sex, job role, and location, the data showed a 27% higher risk of influenza among the vaccinated group (Hazard Ratio = 1.27). This led to a negative vaccine effectiveness estimate of 26.9%.

---

Rebuttal:

https://www.health.com/flu-shot-effectiveness-11714687

---

Not very convincing.

---

Of course not.

https://www.immunizationmanagers.org/what-to-know-about-the-effectiveness-of-the-influenza-vaccine-during-the-2024-2025-respiratory-viral-season-study/

---

• The study only involved healthcare workers from northern Ohio, most of whom were young and female. Although the authors suggest the study's findings are generalizable to relatively healthy adults in the U.S., it is difficult to make that case.

• Bright spot! Only 2.2% of healthcare workers were infected with flu! That's amazing!

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Also, Cleveland Clinic study shows that flu vaccines increased the risk of getting the flu by 27%

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/new-study-flu-vaccination-linked

This study analyzed over 53,000 Cleveland Clinic employees and found that those who received the influenza vaccine during the 20242025 season were statistically more likely to contract influenza compared to those who remained unvaccinated. After adjusting for key factors like age, sex, job role, and location, the data showed a 27% higher risk of influenza among the vaccinated group (Hazard Ratio = 1.27). This led to a negative vaccine effectiveness estimate of 26.9%.

---

Rebuttal:

https://www.health.com/flu-shot-effectiveness-11714687

---

Not very convincing.

---

Of course not.

https://www.immunizationmanagers.org/what-to-know-about-the-effectiveness-of-the-influenza-vaccine-during-the-2024-2025-respiratory-viral-season-study/

---

Still not convincing, they claim for example that

• The study only involved healthcare workers from northern Ohio, most of whom were young and female. Although the authors suggest the study's findings are generalizable to relatively healthy adults in the U.S., it is difficult to make that case.

while the study itself states that the data has been adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing job.

The explanations come across like grasping straws and copium, for instance they state that

• Bright spot! Only 2.2% of healthcare workers were infected with flu! That's amazing!

when the infection rate of unvaccinated HC workers was 27% lower. Well that means that not taking the vaccine is 27% even more amazing...

---

Zippergate said:

---

Every time there is a movement against the vaccine complex, you see these stories about outbreaks. It's uncanny; you can set your watch by them. That's the answer to the "Why am I reading this now?" question.

MMR vaccination rates in the 1980s were far lower than they are at today's reduced levels. Measles was not a major health threat then and it isn't one now. Show me the safety data on MMR shots (or ANY of the vaccines on the schedule) tested against an inert placebo over a meaningful period of time and we can begin to talk about risk-benefit. I'm not necessarily against MMR in particular. I am against the current system which carte blanche protects manufacturers from any liability and incentivizes everyone in the system including the conflicted regulators to jam as many jabs into every child as early as possible while not even considering whether it is doing more harm than good. Refusing to ask hard questions for fear of stirring up "vaccine hesistancy" is THE problem.

---

Zippergate said:

---

Every time there is a movement against the vaccine complex, you see these stories about outbreaks. It's uncanny; you can set your watch by them. That's the answer to the "Why am I reading this now?" question.

---

Zippergate said:

---

The irony is, vaccine hesitancy has almost nothing to do with RFK, substack writers, or wingnuts on Twitter. The public is beginning to recognize the disconnect between what they are told--the propaganda--and what they observe in the real world.

---