The research did not specifically examine why getting immunized against the flu significantly lowered the risk of stroke across ages and health histories, but the working hypothesis is that fewer flu cases means less stroke risk.
The crude incidence of stroke was higher among individuals who had ever received an influenza vaccination (1·25%) compared with those who had not (0·52%; table).
Ever-flu-jabbed actually had 140% (1.25%/0.52% =2.4 times) more odds of getting a stroke than never-flu-jabbed! What’s more, the flu-jabbed come out as clear losers in every stroke category (the red rectangles above)!
However, this crude observation was confounded. Adjusted for age, sex, comorbid illness, and socioeconomic status, recent vaccination (within 182 days) was associated with a reduced hazard of stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 0·775 [95% CI 0·757–0·793]).
Crude observation, a.k.a. don’t believe your lying eyes? So they massaged, and massaged, and massaged the data, and sliced and diced, and stirred and shook, and twisted, and bent, until they finally found a way to turn the abject failure, to show the ordered-upfront (by the “study” sponsors) result, into a semblance of success.
Coincidentally, another study on the subject from Spain, just published in Sep. 2022 in “Neurology” found a similarly unspiring result as well:
The finding that a reduced risk was also observed in pre-epidemic periods suggests that either the “protection” is not totally linked to prevention of influenza infection, or it may be partly explained by unmeasured confounding factors.
So, basically, nothing to see in Spain.
Based on the comment from Steve River below, we need to go in a bit more detail as to how the Calgary study accounted for comorbidities. It seems like they adjusted for the comorbidities, and that allowed them to pull off the “study”. Although the appendix is mum on what went on behind the curtain. So, let’s have a look at this table of theirs where they illustrate the interplay between the comorbidity, vaccination status (within 1/2 year) and stroke:
In their own words, if you didn’t have hypertension, you are way better off by NOT getting a flu jab than otherwise, as receiving the jab clearly increases your chances of a stroke. As for other comorbidities, they posit that if you have any, having the jab is more beneficial than when you didn’t have it, but beneficial regardless.
This is a bit of a head scratcher for me. According to the “study” then, healthy individuals are better off getting the jab. EXCEPT when you are too healthy and do not have hypertension to boot - then stay away (Fig.5D below)???
It just doesn’t add up! WHAT IF having those comorbidities has been the direct result of getting repeated flu shots? Then instead of being an exculpatory circumstance, it would be the incriminating one. I.e., “the more you jab, the more sick you become, the higher your chances of stroke”. And not “if you are that sick, you should get more jabs so you don’t get the stroke on top”. We can clearly see that in the first table above - the more sick you are, the more jabbed you are. Correlation across all variables! But what if there is a causal relationship in there: the more jabbed you are, the higher your chances to acquire one of the aforementioned conditions?
“Of course not, are you stupid or something! Or anti-vaxx?!” will be the immediate reaction of the flu jab enthusiasts. “We know that these jabs are safe and effective, with no adverse long-term effects!”
“Well, do you?” If Covid jabs taught us anything at all, we know that this statement cannot be postulated. As well, they somehow say that having a jab within half a year bestows the said health benefits, but somehow your health benefits improve with every flu jab you receive, up to 10 of those! So what is it, 1/2 year or the lifetime? Make up your minds, scientists! Or may I suggest, this 10-shot cumulative health benefit is also the artifact of their assumption-based adjustments?
Be as it may, we do observe a concerted effort around the globe to entice people to accept more “vaccination” shots, for good health as it were, through multiple dubious “studies”, funded by none other than the “vaccine” purveyors. Just in time for the release of the combined flu&Covid jab:
Candidate combines Pfizer’s quadrivalent modRNA-based influenza vaccine candidate with the companies’ Omicron-adapted bivalent COVID-19 vaccine based on BA.4/BA.5, each of which is based on BioNTech’s proprietary mRNA platform technology
Get it? modRNA-based influenza vaccine? Not your grandfather’s influenza jab, by any measure!
And, the year being 2022, one never knows what secret magic ingredients will go into the next jab against whatever ailment.
To help with climate change - a noble goal indeed! All that is required of you is to roll over and die.
the magical, pretzel logic that my jabbed loved ones use..... they think (with regard to toxicity of medicines and vaccines): it's just a "tiny" little pill or "tiny" bit of injection fluid.... how harmful can that be?
yet at the same time, they think great benefit from such miniscule amounts of whatever poison.
Great benefit with tiny or no harm. This is the mindset that says, "everything in moderation."
What? Even poisons in moderation? Really?
Yet, either there is something powerful in those pills and injections, which works on the body (else why take it?) or not. I say there IS something powerful in miniscule amounts of things, so we had better be sure it is powerful "good" rather than bad. We had better be fully informed.
I used to think these mad scientists simply didn't "know" the harms or dismissed them as being tiny or inconsequential. Now, though, I believe that some of the mad scientists know full well the harms, and that is why they are pushing this poison.
Compare the two groups regarding other conditions on that table: atrial fibrillation, COPD, diabetes and hypertension. The "never received" fare better there, too.
the magical, pretzel logic that my jabbed loved ones use..... they think (with regard to toxicity of medicines and vaccines): it's just a "tiny" little pill or "tiny" bit of injection fluid.... how harmful can that be?
yet at the same time, they think great benefit from such miniscule amounts of whatever poison.
Great benefit with tiny or no harm. This is the mindset that says, "everything in moderation."
What? Even poisons in moderation? Really?
Yet, either there is something powerful in those pills and injections, which works on the body (else why take it?) or not. I say there IS something powerful in miniscule amounts of things, so we had better be sure it is powerful "good" rather than bad. We had better be fully informed.
I used to think these mad scientists simply didn't "know" the harms or dismissed them as being tiny or inconsequential. Now, though, I believe that some of the mad scientists know full well the harms, and that is why they are pushing this poison.
Compare the two groups regarding other conditions on that table: atrial fibrillation, COPD, diabetes and hypertension. The "never received" fare better there, too.