Guest Post by Jenna McCarthy

This post sponsored by the Department of Irony and Uninformed Consent

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse than “yeah, these jabs don’t really work all that well,” along comes the Cleveland Clinic with a new study on last season’s flu shot that sounds more like satire than science.

From the conclusion: “The study found that influenza vaccination was associated with higher risk of influenza.”

Negative. Twenty-six. Point. Nine. Percent.

That’s not a typo. That’s the “efficacy” rating for the 2024–25 flu shot. In plain English? If you got the jab, you were 26.9% more likely to get the flu than if you hadn’t rolled up your sleeve. Which, if we’re being honest, feels less like “public health” and more like losing a really stupid dare.

Imagine a sunscreen that increases your risk of sunburn by a third.

A life jacket that sinks when it gets wet.

A security system that automatically unlocks the front door when you leave the house.

A beer that makes you 27% more sober.

If Clown World needed an origin story, it would be this one. Because on any rational planet in any sane universe, discovering—for instance—that your birth control pill made you more likely to get pregnant would be the end of the discussion. Case closed. Game over. Thanks for playing. No need for a sequel. Oh, and here’s your refund.

While NEGATIVE EFFICACY should be the headline screaming across every health desk in the country, the real plot twist is this: It’s still being recommended, sweepingly, across the board, for every American who knows that toes are not food.

From MedPage Today, written yesterday:

“The backdated notice appeared this week on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP) recommendations page without fanfare—a contrast to Kennedy’s July announcement endorsing the removal of thimerosal from flu vaccines despite the preservative’s long safety record.”

That’s right. A negative-efficacy shot is the current recommendation for everyone. Even (all but the freshest of) babies. Pregnant ladies. The people who still get hives from the term “universal health recommendation.” According to the backdated ACIP notice *posted like someone trying not to wake the baby*, the recommendation was formally adopted by Kennedy on July 22nd, in his role as acting endorser-in-chief while we waited for the new CDC Director to take her seat.

(We knew this happened, but the backdating? Super sketchy.)

So what-the-heck actually went down? One popular theory is that with no CDC director at the time, the recommendation sat in limbo, and Kennedy—who, to be fair, is fighting approximately 74 fires at any given moment—may have signed off on it the way most of us click “Agree” on software updates.

I’m not buying that one, FWIW.

And of course there’s the usual chorus of he’s-being-bribed, he’s-being-threatened, he’s-corrupt-and-always-has-been, they’re-all-genocidal-lizard-people, don’t you know it’s a big club and you ain’t in it? All hard to prove—but also hard to ignore entirely.

My guess is that it was part of political negotiations; the price of playing nice. “We’ll let you make the shot cleaner, but then you have to say, ‘it’s probably not a bad idea if everyone gets this thing.’ You’re not forcing anyone to do anything. It’s a win/win.” That one at least makes the sort of sense I can wrap my brain around.

In case anyone’s unclear about how The Science works, let me break it down for you: Flu vaccines, which can increase your odds of getting the flu, rake in $8 billion-and-growing for pharma annually, so let’s make them mandatory for daycare!

The real question isn’t even why Kennedy put his name on a failed product endorsement. It’s why is no one even talking about this?

Think about it: a therapeutic that literally makes you more likely to get the disease it’s supposed to prevent gets the full blessing of public health agencies, and it still gets press releases calling it “safe and effective”? At what point do we call this what it is—a pharmaceutical participation trophy, at the very, most generous best?

It’s shocking, frankly. Not that the shot is pure garbage—that part tracks—but that Kennedy hasn’t backpedaled on the recommendation yet. Sir, with all due respect, you called for the full removal of mercury from the flu shots. You pulled the plug on a half billion dollars in mRNA vaccine contracts. Surely there were plenty of people not pleased with you for those two moves already. Why not shoot for a trifecta and say, “You know what? While I have your attention, I’m going to make the audacious recommendation that Americans not take a flu shot that will increase their odds of getting the flu.” Better yet, go for a grand slam and admit what we already know you know: “Covid shots are as useful, safe, and necessary as a giant waterslide made of barbed wire and lemon juice.”

In Kennedy’s defense, ACIP has long recommended annual flu shots for everyone over six months of age. And technically, he didn’t write the policy; he just rubber-stamped it. But context matters, and this context is disturbing. We’re living in a moment where half the country is side-eyeing public health like it’s their ex who just texted “u up?” and the other half is hoarding expired at-home Covid tests in case of another toilet paper shortage. So yeah, I was hoping for a bit more daylight between “removing mercury because it’s undeniably toxic” and “pushing flu shots on toddlers.”

I guess this is what passes for bipartisan appeal these days: angering everyone just enough that no one knows what to believe or who to be mad at.

Here’s what I do know for sure: we’re living in strange times. A health secretary known for challenging vaccine orthodoxy is now being asked to endorse those same vaccines—sometimes quietly, sometimes loudly—and the public is left trying to read the tea leaves in a hurricane.

At this rate, the next vaccine will come with a free fever and a coupon for Kleenex. Welcome to public health in 2025: where up is down, wrong is right, and getting sick is a sure sign your shot worked.