Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season: A Prospective Cohort Study

By Nabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, Steven M. Gordon

Source: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421

= = = 

Well, well, well, what do we have here...

A large study of +53000 Cleveland Clinic employees showed that the researchers were unable to find a protective influence of influenza vaccination during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season. 

And not only that they found a significantly higher risk (+27%) of influenza with vaccination when influenza activity was high.

 

Below a shortened version of the study abstract:

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 33 weeks. ...

Results Among 53402 employees, 43920 (82.2%) were vaccinated by the end of the study. Influenza occurred in 1130 (2.12%) during the study. ...

Conclusions This study was unable to find a protective influence of influenza vaccination among working-aged adults during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season and found that influenza vaccination was associated with a higher risk of influenza when influenza activity was high.

Summary Among 53402 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, we were unable to find a protective influence of influenza vaccination during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season and found a significantly higher risk of influenza with vaccination when influenza activity was high.

 

You can access both the full abstract and the full text of this preprint study here > https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421

BIG label on the preprint study cited here:

 

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." [emphasis added]

 

Beyond that, first as stated, the document above is a pre-print, so it hasn't been peer reviewed. And second, it's a limited study solely on the employees of a health center, which is a different population that the populace at large.

 

Also, the CDC's data for the U.S. population at large says otherwise:

 

 

--AI assisted

 

AND direct from the CDC:

 

 

Preliminary estimate for the 2024-25 vaccine effectiveness

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu-vaccines-work/php/effectiveness-studies/index.html

 

Influenza is not a disease. So!!?? What good is a vaxx?

 

Just to put things into line. I'm not specifically against vaccines alone. I'm against anything that it anti-science and more importantly anti-nature.

 

IMO, reports, such as presented by Red, might people think. And consider having any future vaxxes for themselves and their loved ones. So rock on Sir.

 

However the fundamental truth is that we don't need this junk put into our bodies. None of us.

 

Nature has the answers.

 

Mod's note: off-topic trolling comment removed.

9 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The CDC's data says otherwise:

 

 

--AI assisted

More CDC tripe on a plate.

 

What utter nonsense. When is Kennedy gonna get a web-master in to sort out the falsehoods on their www?

 

-- nowt assisted

Negative effect of almost all vaccines ...

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1482074656241313

 

11 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

More CDC tripe on a plate.

 

What utter nonsense. When is Kennedy gonna get a web-me=aster in to sort out the falsehood on their www?

 

-- nowt assisted

If you search the CDC site, for stats of past years, 39-60% is actually good.   As the average for can be as low as 10%, and way before Trump & RFK.

 

Remember ... 'trust the science' 

 

not the selective science that agrees with your hate

 

 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/flu-vaccines-work/php/effectiveness-studies/index.html

 

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

If you search the CDC site, for stats of past years, 34-60% is actually good.   As the average for one 10-15 yrs span was only 39%, way before Trump & RFK.

The CDC is, IMO, one of the major reasons why Americans are in such poor health. 

 

I don't go onto the site, as it goes against everything I believe a health system should be. However, I do know they have falsified data and I've got me eye on the cookoo as far as William Thompson is concerned.

 

It, along with the WHO, must be dumped for the good of mankind's health.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The CDC is, IMO, one of the major reasons why Americans are in such poor health. 

 

I don't go onto the site, as it goes against everything I believe a health system should be. However, I do know they have falsified data and I've got me eye on the cookoo as far as William Thompson is concerned.

 

It, along with the WHO, must be dumped for the good of mankind's health.

 

 

I did an edit, with link to pre Trump & RFK stats

 

I agree, but sometimes they get it right, before big pharma has a chance to scrub or more like bury it.

 

You have to as the right question.   

 

Don't ask how many people died from covid vaccine, as you'll get ... 9 ... 

 

Seach their (CDC's) VAERS site, and you'll get 25k+ reported

Also, the preprint cited here has gone thru several revisions, this is the FOURTH, since originally being posted as a preprint in February. And it's STILL in preprint form after all that time, which should tell you something about its methods. Others have previously pointed out flaws / limitations on the validity of its findings, including:

 

"Here are the problems with this study: 

• It has not been evaluated through peer review, a process which often calls methods and conclusions into question. 
• There are many confounding factors that weren’t considered—selection bias (vaccinated healthcare workers more likely to be tested than unvaccinated, only counted tests done at Cleveland Clinic locations, the vaccinated group was 4.5 times larger than the unvaccinated group, etc.) One researcher found that vaccinated people are 27% more likely to be tested than unvaccinated people. 
• The study did not look at morbidity or mortality from influenza, the avoidance of which is the primary reason for recommending seasonal influenza vaccination. 
  ...

There are many confounding variables in this study that raise questions about the validity of the conclusions that were made."

 

What To Know About the Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season Study

Association of Immunization Managers

 

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

What vaccine skeptics are getting wrong about a new Cleveland Clinic study on the flu vaccine

April 11, 2025

[based on an earlier version of this preprint]

 

• A Cleveland Clinic spokesperson told PolitiFact the study’s data, not yet peer-reviewed, "came from a relatively healthy population of about 50,000 healthcare workers and did not represent the general population." 

• The spokesperson said the study doesn’t suggest that "vaccination increases the risk of flu."

• Although the study shows vaccinated participants had an increased risk of getting the flu, it did not measure the vaccine’s primary benefit — how it reduces risk for severe illness, hospitalization and death." [emphasis added]
  
  "a Cleveland Clinic spokesperson said it’s misleading to use the study to draw broader conclusions about vaccines and susceptibility to infection."

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/apr/11/cleveland-clinic-study-flu-vaccine-infection/

 

 

More dangerous anti-vax nonsense from team Red/Stiddle.

 

Efficacy of flu vaccines varies from year to tear depending on which strains were selected in January for the vaccine and which strains are dominant in November to make you sick. Some years are better than others, but the vaccines do not make people sick, so there is little downside.

 

I will take my chances with science because there is zero benefit in not getting the vaccine.

26 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I did an edit, with link to pre Trump & RFK stats

Thanks for the edit Sir.

 

I see things differently to the white-coats in the CDC. But I'm not getting regular $$$s from Big Pharma.

 

I said to my daughter. Do you know why it rains? She started to give me some explanation, but I interjected, and said; no! You are wrong. I'll tell you the reason it rains. And proceeded to tell her. And I'll tell you Sir.

 

"There are flying elephants in the sky and sometimes they get the urge to play. They charge into each other and pee themselves with laughter. Their pee is the rain.

Then I asked her; Do you believe that? No!!

OK. If was was to give you a thousand Bhat, could you believe it. Maybe I could a little. But I'll still say no!

Right then, If I paid you a million Bhat every year, guaranteed for life, to believe the story, and tell everyone you know that the reason it rains is because of those elephants; could you? Yes!"

 

This is the CDC in a nutshell. Not talking the tea/coffee lady here. I'm talking white-coats, and revolving-door management, who people rely on to tell them the truth.

 

Nature is crying at the destruction man is causing to himself.

52 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

However the fundamental truth is that we don't need this junk put into our bodies. None of us.

 

Nature has the answers.

Yeah, tell that to the folks residing in iron lungs, because they didn't get vaccinated against polio. 

15 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

More dangerous anti-vax nonsense from team Red/Stiddle.

 

Efficacy of flu vaccines varies from year to tear depending on which strains were selected in January for the vaccine and which strains are dominant in November to make you sick. Some years are better than others, but the vaccines do not make people sick, so there is little downside.

 

I will take my chances with science because there is zero benefit in not getting the vaccine.

Top level for you Sir. Monumental humbug.

 

These computer 'scientists' are messing with people's brains, health and lives.

 

Forecasting a future virus strain. Dear me. Viruses have never bee shown to exist. And yet these 'predictors' have credibility? Can't you see that it's all utter nonsense?

15 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature is crying at the destruction man is causing to himself.

So true, but I'm 'laughing' at the destruction of man's & women's total ignorance of themselves and all things.

2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Top level for you Sir. Monumental humbug.

 

These computer 'scientists' are messing with people's brains, health and lives.

 

Forecasting a future virus strain. Dear me. Viruses have never bee shown to exist. And yet these 'predictors' have credibility? Can't you see that it's all utter nonsense?

That would be incorrect.

1 minute ago, JimGant said:

Yeah, tell that to the folks residing in iron lungs, because they didn't get vaccinated against polio. 

I say you have read it wrong somewhere Sir. 

 

Polio is caused by toxicity. Nowt to do with any mythical entity. Vaccines for polio have a bad track record. They arrived on the scene after DDT use was discouraged, and the incidence of polio had diminished severely.

 

Read all about it here:

 

https://www.dissolvingillusions.com/

The CDC and the Cleveland Clinic Flu-Shot Effectiveness studies come to different conclusions, which is quite obvious and expected as the set-up, population and methodology used are different. 

The main factors being

1. Disparate Populations

• CDC networks capture high-risk groups (hospitalized children, elderly patients, outpatients at clinics).
• Cleveland Clinic’s cohort are younger, working-adult healthcare employees — typically with fewer comorbidities but more frequent exposure to circulating pathogens.
• Vaccine effectiveness often looks higher in elderly and sicker populations, partly because of “healthy vaccinee bias”: vaccinated people are more likely to seek care and be tested, but less likely to be counted as unvaccinated when sick.

---

 

	Source: AI-generated
	Mod's Note: AI content shortened to comply with forum policy.

And here an AI-generated Summary of how both studies relate 

Synthesizing the Evidence

Aspect	CDC MMWR Study	Cleveland Clinic Study
Population	Mixed; elderly, hospitalized, children	Working-age healthcare adults
Design	Test-negative, case-control	Time-dependent Cox regression, real-life incidence
Bias Sensitivity	High (testing, behavioral confounders)	Lower (tracks within-person exposure over time)
Funding	CDC/government	None
Result	+36–60% VE	−27% VE
Likely Truth	Overestimates protection	Closer reflection of real-world effect for adults

Flawed Flu Vaccine Study Sparks Misinformation Storm

Jeremy Faust debunks viral claims of negative effectiveness in Cleveland Clinic report

"In a video originally published on Inside Medicine, MedPage Today editor-in-chief Jeremy Faust takes aim at a widely circulated Cleveland Clinic preprint on flu vaccine effectiveness... Faust explains why the study is methodologically unsound, highlights overlooked biases like susceptible depletion, and makes the case for better public understanding of basic epidemiology. [emphasis added]

...

It's a big paper about influenza vaccines out of an ostensibly good place -- Cleveland Clinic -- but the authors forgot how to do science and we don't know what the results are, but they should also say that they didn't know because they ought to know better.

...

Of course, people who are anti-vax, love to jump all over this. It's a "stunning Cleveland Clinic ... negative effectiveness study." What's stunning about it is how bad it is. So if you don't know that, you shouldn't be in this space. Go back to writing fiction."

 

(more)

 

MedPage Today

https://archive.ph/DP6PH

 

26 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I say you have read it wrong somewhere Sir. 

 

Polio is caused by toxicity. Nowt to do with any mythical entity. Vaccines for polio have a bad track record. They arrived on the scene after DDT use was discouraged, and the incidence of polio had diminished severely.

 

Read all about it here:

 

https://www.dissolvingillusions.com/

Wrong again. Polio has been isolated and has been killing kids from long before DDT.

 

https://assets.medpagetoday.net/media/images/100xxx/100223.jpg?width=0.8

48 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

And here an AI-generated Summary of how both studies relate 

Synthesizing the Evidence

Aspect	CDC MMWR Study	Cleveland Clinic Study
Population	Mixed; elderly, hospitalized, children	Working-age healthcare adults
Design	Test-negative, case-control	Time-dependent Cox regression, real-life incidence
Bias Sensitivity	High (testing, behavioral confounders)	Lower (tracks within-person exposure over time)
Funding	CDC/government	None
Result	+36–60% VE	−27% VE
Likely Truth	Overestimates protection	Closer reflection of real-world effect for adults

Closer reflection of real-world effect for adults, thank you for verifying the validity of the study.

 

Hospital workers have much higher pathogen exposure than the general population.

21 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Closer reflection of real-world effect for adults, thank you for verifying the validity of the study.

Hospital workers have much higher pathogen exposure than the general population.

 

In view of this Cleveland Clinic study showing 

- NO protective influence of influenza vaccination during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season, and

- a 27% higher risk of influenza when vaccinated

I doubt that the majority of the 43920 (82.2%) Cleveland Clinic staff that got the flu-shot, would be eager to roll up their sleeve again for next year's 'protective' flu-shot.

 

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Although the study shows vaccinated participants had an increased risk of getting the flu, it did not measure the vaccine’s primary benefit — how it reduces risk for severe illness, hospitalization and death." [emphasis added]

A non-randomized test population often creates selection biases.  In this case the study conducted amongst health workers could have the following bias:

- the group who voluntarily chose vaccination may have done so because they know that they would be subjected to much greater risk of infection.  Thus their motivation to be vaccinated is greater than some of the other test subjects that have jobs with less exposure and therefor choose to remain unvaccinated.   This selection bias would skew the study results towards the reported result.

 

Since the test subjects were not randomly chosen the study's results are less reliable.

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I say you have read it wrong somewhere Sir. 

 

Polio is caused by toxicity. Nowt to do with any mythical entity. Vaccines for polio have a bad track record. They arrived on the scene after DDT use was discouraged, and the incidence of polio had diminished severely.

 

Read all about it here:

 

https://www.dissolvingillusions.com/

Shirley you'll have some studies that show an increased rate of polio in areas where DDT was manufactured and stored..... wouldn't you?

 

Don't worry about us... nobody with >2 brain cells will be holding their breath in anticipation of your supporting evidence.

 

If by chance your research keeps you busy and you're unable to respond for an extended period, we'll truly appreciate that your obsession is deeply seated.

31 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

A non-randomized test population often creates selection biases.  In this case the study conducted amongst health workers could have the following bias:

- the group who voluntarily chose vaccination may have done so because they know that they would be subjected to much greater risk of infection.  Thus their motivation to be vaccinated is greater than some of the other test subjects that have jobs with less exposure and therefor choose to remain unvaccinated.   This selection bias would skew the study results towards the reported result.

 

Since the test subjects were not randomly chosen the study's results are less reliable.

When you actually read the study, you will find that the researchers did consider such bias as you suggest, and accounted for it in their analysis and conclusions.