Cleveland Clinic Study: This Year’s Flu Vaccine Linked to Higher Infections

By Tracy Beanz & Michelle Edwards

Guess what? Instead of preventing influenza among working-aged adults, this year’s flu vaccine has actually increased the risk of developing influenza by 27 percent. That’s right—this year’s flu shot raises the odds of getting the flu. This discovery, the result of a new study by the Cleveland Clinic, is extremely troubling, especially since the flu vaccine is widely advertised and administered every year to Americans 6 months and older as the best way to prevent the spread of the disease. The study, which is still in the pre-print stage, suggests what many who routinely avoid the flu shot inherently acknowledge—the annual injections don’t have the protective effects people are led to believe. The study researchers wrote:

“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.

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.”

The study notes that influenza is a significant and common seasonal respiratory illness responsible for an estimated 145,000 deaths a year globally in 2017 and up to 50 million during the 1918 pandemic. With most infections occurring during the winter months, the study mentions that the “vaccine-preventable” illness evolves over time. As this happens, an increasingly larger proportion of the population becomes susceptible to the newly developed strains. The study authors state that annual vaccination with the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV), targeting two influenza A and one influenza B strains, is recommended due to short-lived antibody protection and the need to match circulating strains.

Like clockwork, a new influenza vaccine is developed each year to align its strains with those predicted to dominate the upcoming season. Because vaccine production takes several months, the choice of strains must be decided well in advance. The vaccine is expected to be highly effective when it closely matches the circulating strains. Conversely, when the match between vaccine and infecting strains is poor, the vaccine’s effectiveness is anticipated to be low. Thus, vaccine effectiveness varies yearly based on how well the vaccine matches the infecting strains.

To conduct its study, the Cleveland Clinic analyzed 53,402 employees, with 43,857 receiving the trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine by the end of the 25-week study (82.1%). However, despite the high vaccination rate, the cumulative incidence of influenza climbed faster in the vaccinated employees than in unvaccinated ones, with influenza occurring in 1,079 employees during the study. The cumulative incidence of influenza was similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated participants early on. Still, 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, delivering a vaccine effectiveness of 26.9%.

The study pointed out that, given all the variables that can influence the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in any given year, along with “our current processes for developing the vaccine,” it may be asking too much to expect the vaccine to be highly effective year after year. Then why heavily promote it year after year? That is a fair question. And while the study authors didn’t suggest an alternative, a shift toward mRNA influenza injections is undoubtedly in the cards. Research published in Nature last October highlighted improved influenza vaccine response after the expression of multiple viral glycoproteins from a single mRNA. The study, which underscored the “significant economic burden” of influenza, estimated to be $25 billion in a typical flu season, declared:

“Influenza viruses cause substantial morbidity and mortality every year despite seasonal vaccination. mRNA-based vaccines have the potential to elicit more protective immune responses, but for maximal breadth and durability, it is desirable to deliver both the viral hemagglutinin and neuraminidase glycoproteins. Delivering multiple antigens individually, however, complicates manufacturing and increases cost, thus it would be beneficial to express both proteins from a single mRNA.”

Interestingly, while the Cleveland Clinic study reported 145,000 deaths worldwide annually from influenza, the study in Nature reported that there could be between 250,000 and 500,000 deaths from flu in a given season. With a combined influenza and COVID-19 mRNA vaccine currently being developed to prevent both illnesses, Pfizer takes its fear-mongering a step higher, declaring that influenza causes approximately five million cases of severe illness and 290,000 to 650,000 deaths worldwide each year. Of course, individuals with chronic disease are at increased risk for flu complications.

Indeed, change is on the horizon. With agreement across the lucrative pharmaceutical industry that “the world needs more effective flu vaccines,” and promotion by the Cleveland Clinic that the current flu shots are a disaster, an article in MSM titled “Is the Flu Shot Market a Slam Dunk for mRNA Vaccines?” framed perfectly the current scheme at play, remarking:

“With the heydays of Covid vaccine sales in the rearview mirror, the flu vaccine market, with its antiquated production process that mainly relies on growing viruses in hen’s eggs, seems an obvious candidate for a shake-up.”