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

[Red Phoenix]

Pre-print of a study by world-renowned Cleveland Clinic concludes 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."

Source: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421v3

 

= = = 

ABSTRACT

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season.

Methods Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment in Ohio on October 1, 2024, were included. The cumulative incidence of influenza among those in the vaccinated and unvaccinated states was compared over the following 25 weeks. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results Among 53402 employees, 43857 (82.1%) had received the influenza vaccine by the end of the study. Influenza occurred in 1079 (2.02%) during the study. The cumulative incidence of influenza was similar for the vaccinated and unvaccinated states early, but over the course of the study the cumulative incidence of influenza increased more rapidly among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing job, and employment location, the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated state (HR, 1.27; 95% C.I., 1.07 – 1.51; P = 0.007), yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of −26.9% (95% C.I., −55.0 to −6.6%).

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.

 

[johng]

25 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

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.

 

Ohh  dear  " trust the science ™ "  ?   "safe and effective ™ "  ?  🤣

[impulse]

Color me cynical, but I doubt we'll be seeing refunds or apologies from Big Pharma. 

 

And they're immune from lawsuits.

 

[Patong2021]

8 minutes ago, impulse said:

Color me cynical, but I doubt we'll be seeing refunds or apologies from Big Pharma. 

 

And they're immune from lawsuits.

 

 

For a self proclaimed expert who has been reviewing papers for 40 years, why did you not read the document?

Why did you miss; 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.

 

 

[impulse]

14 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

For a self proclaimed expert who has been reviewing papers for 40 years, why did you not read the document?

Why did you miss; 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.

 

The fact that I have reviewed papers for 40+ years is why I recognize standard boilerplate language and weasel words like "not peer reviewed".  That study wouldn't have seen the light of day if it weren't true.  That's something else you learn when you get paid to do studies. 

 

[Patong2021]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The fact that I have reviewed papers for 40+ years is why I recognize standard boilerplate language and weasel words like "not peer reviewed".  That study wouldn't have seen the light of day if it weren't true.  That's something else you learn when you get paid to do studies. 

 

Why then raise the issue of refunds from "big pharma"? If you understand that  information presented, then you will know that the information presented does not  say that the  vaccine  was not effective.

[impulse]

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

Why then raise the issue of refunds from "big pharma"? If you understand that  information presented, then you will know that the information presented does not  say that the  vaccine  was not effective.

 

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.

 

You must be living in upside down Bizzaro World.

 

[Patong2021]

Another misleading claim presented as  valid information. As usual, no one bothered to read the document. And as usual, the   study is taken out of context.  The  Study being cited here has yet to be  reviewed.  The study was not designed to compare the risk of influenza-associated hospitalization or mortality, or to examine if the vaccine decreased severity of illness. The Cleveland  study  excluded children and elderly subjects and primarily consisted of individuals who were healthy enough to be employed. It is unlikely  it included any significant number of severely immunocompromised subjects.  This is the opposite of the general population. High risk groups are recommended to be vaccinated, the elderly, children and the immunocompromised.

Nor does the study address the fact that the vaccines intent is to  primarily reduce the risk of death or severe disease

 

The misinterpretation and stupid claims arising from  the idiots who are using the  review to denounce flu vaccines prompted one of the authors to  put the review in context and to denounce those who are misapplying the study.

Nabin Shrestha, a physician and coauthor of the study, said although the results found an increased risk of influenza among vaccinated participants, the authors understood that the increased risk “could have been from an unrecognised factor” and, therefore, did not conclude that the vaccine increases infection risk.

Shrestha also said the study did not suggest that the influenza vaccine should be pulled from the market because it makes people more likely to get the flu. “Overall, the flu vaccine is an important public health tool,” he said.

 

 

The Cleveland study conclusion is contrary to the  CDC data,  which is national and based upon a significantly larger population size. The CDC data supports the conclusion;  Vaccination with the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine reduced the risk for influenza-associated outpatient visits and hospitalization. These findings support recommendations that all eligible persons aged ≥6 months should receive an annual influenza vaccination. Vaccination should be offered as long as influenza viruses are circulating.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/pdfs/mm7406a2-H.pdf

 

- The flu vaccine  is not always effective because it is based in part on what  previous year flu virus experience was and  what is seen as it occurs in its seasonal waves. This is no  surprise and is  an acknowledged reality.

- The  vaccine efficacy was  public knowledge going back to October 2024.

Oct. 4, 2024 – The CDC says the influenza vaccine being used this flu season might be less effective than the one used last flu season, based on reports of how well the vaccine is working in five South American countries.

The seasonal flu vaccine cut the risk of hospitalization for high-risk groups by 35% in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay, the CDC said. Last flu season, the vaccine had a 51.9% effectiveness in those countries.

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

The published study concludes that: 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.

And for that +50.000 working-age Cleveland Clinic employees the calculated vaccine effectiveness was negative > −26.9% (95% C.I., −55.0 to −6.6%).

 

What's misleading or confusing about that? 

- Yes, the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, but the chances that a peer-review would lead to a different conclusion are basically zero, as the authors would have been very cautious not to misrepresent the conclusions as it relates to their own employer.  

- The study clearly indicates that the population were working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees.  

 

It's truly pathetic how @Patong2021 tries to obfuscate the clear factual data from this study with non-relevant objections about its outcome.

Of course when you are of working age and generally healthy, it could make you start wondering whether it was really needed that you  got the flu-shot this season, when the data from +50.000 people in same category, show that it had NEGATIVE effectiveness.  

 

[impulse]

56 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The misinterpretation and stupid claims arising from  the idiots who are using the  review to denounce flu vaccines prompted one of the authors to  put the review in context and to denounce those who are misapplying the study.

 

I can think of a dozen reasons the CDC data may not match.  But if I was a working age adult (like in the Cleveland study), I'd forgo this year's batch. 

 

And If I were RFK, Jr, that would be the official recommendation based on the science.  Maybe the old farts need it, but not working age adults.  It just makes things worse for them.  And that sounds familiar...

 

That's always been a point of contention when the CDC recommends one size fits all.  It doesn't.

 

 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, johng said:

 

Ohh  dear  " trust the science ™ "  ?   "safe and effective ™ "  ?  🤣

Yes, the science that researches. Science came with this conclusion.

[Patong2021]

11 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

The published study concludes that: 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.

And for that +50.000 working-age Cleveland Clinic employees the calculated vaccine effectiveness was negative > −26.9% (95% C.I., −55.0 to −6.6%).

 

What's misleading or confusing about that? 

- Yes, the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, but the chances that a peer-review would lead to a different conclusion are basically zero, as the authors would have been very cautious not to misrepresent the conclusions as it relates to their own employer.  

- The study clearly indicates that the population were working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees.  

 

It's truly pathetic how @Patong2021 tries to obfuscate the clear factual data from this study with non-relevant objections about its outcome.

Of course when you are of working age and generally healthy, it could make you start wondering whether it was really needed that you  got the flu-shot this season, when the data from +50.000 people in same category, show that it had NEGATIVE effectiveness.  

 

 

Come back and crow when the  report is reviewed and published and is not challenged.

[johng]

It's been known for years,but still they do it.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 5/29/2025 at 9:52 AM, Patong2021 said:

The misinterpretation and stupid claims arising from  the idiots who are using the  review to denounce flu vaccines prompted one of the authors to  put the review in context and to denounce those who are misapplying the study.

Nabin Shrestha, a physician and coauthor of the study, said although the results found an increased risk of influenza among vaccinated participants, the authors understood that the increased risk “could have been from an unrecognised factor” and, therefore, did not conclude that the vaccine increases infection risk.

Shrestha also said the study did not suggest that the influenza vaccine should be pulled from the market because it makes people more likely to get the flu. “Overall, the flu vaccine is an important public health tool,” he said.

 

Thank you for reciting the above info. What you posted is entirely correct, and the author of this pre-preprint, as well as the Cleveland Clinic, have indeed rejected and rebutted the anti-vaxer claims being made about the conclusions of the study.

 

As usual, anti-vaxers here and elsewhere presenting misleading versions of what research actually concludes. The OP post tries to extrapolate the preprint study's findings to the vaccine's effectiveness for the general public, when in fact there's no basis for making that kind of claim.

 

One important detail about this study is that it involved exclusively health care workers -- not the general public. Health care workers potential exposure to the flu virus and various other illnesses could well be greater than the public at large, because they're working in a setting where they're regularly in close contact with people who are ill.

 

Fact Check: Cleveland Clinic Study Did NOT 'Reveal' That The 2024/2025 Flu Shot Increases Flu Risk -- Vaccine Ineffective, But Not Cause Of Infections

Fact Check

• Apr 15, 2025

 

Does a draft paper by scientists at The Cleveland Clinic "reveal" that the 2024/2025 flu shot increased the risk of flu, as social media posts claim? No, that's not true: This study's finding that vaccination was "associated with" a higher risk isn't the same as showing the vaccine is what caused increased risk. The authors of the study found that vaccinated health care workers had a 27% higher incidence of flu than those who were not vaccinated.The researchers said their paper did not identify what factors caused the higher infection rate, only that the shot was relatively ineffective.

...

The Cleveland Clinic study collected data on about 40,000 adult health care workers. In its draft form, the paper reports vaccinated health care workers were significantly more likely to catch the flu than the non-vaccinated. The authors' conclusion was that the shot was not very effective against flu. What they did not conclude was what factor specific to the vaccinated portion of the 40,000 made them more likely to get infected.

 

 

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2025/04/fact-check-cleveland-clinic-study-did-not-find-flu-shot-increased-risk-of-adult-flu.html

 

 

The U.S. CDC in February of this year reported on the effectiveness of the 2024-2025 flu vaccine in the general public, based on a sampling of selected U.S. health networks, as follows:

 

Interim Estimates of 2024–2025 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness — Four Vaccine Effectiveness Networks, United States, October 2024–February 2025

 

"Among adults, VE [vaccine effectiveness] was 36% and 54% in outpatient settings (two networks) and 41% and 55% against influenza-associated hospitalization (two networks)." [emphasis added]

 

"Among children and adolescents, VE was 32%, 59%, and 60% in outpatient settings (three networks) and 63% and 78% against influenza-associated hospitalization (two networks)."

 

"Influenza vaccination prevents hundreds of thousands of outpatient medical visits, tens of thousands of hospitalizations, and thousands of deaths from influenza every year."

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/mm7406a2.htm

 

So the CDC's findings among the general public clearly are at odds with the claims being made about the Cleveland Clinic preprint.

 

Lastly, if folks here read the comments on the preprint posted along with the preprint, you'll find several commenters pointing out what they say are design flaws with how the study was conducted and how it's findings were calculated, arguing that the findings likely aren't supported by legitimate numbers.
 

 

 

[metisdead]

Moving to the Covid/Vaccine forum.