Following a major study, the world-renowned Cleveland Clinic has confirmed that influenza vaccines are ineffective at preventing flu cases and only increase the risk of harm.
The verdict on the flu vaccine from the Cleveland Clinic’s large-scale prospective cohort study has delivered a shocking blow to the mass vaccination agenda.
The study found that not only was the vaccine ineffective, but it was also associated with a significantly increased risk of infection.
The findings of the study led by Dr. Nabin Shrestha, the head of Cleveland Clinic’s Departments of Infectious Diseases, were published in the MedRvix journal.
The study tracked over 53,000 employees during the 2024–2025 respiratory viral season.
The researchers sought to assess whether the influenza vaccine offered protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza infections.
The results raise serious questions about this season’s flu vaccine and the broader assumptions behind annual mandates.
The study aimed to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine among relatively healthy, working-aged adults in a healthcare setting.
All employees of Cleveland Clinic’s Ohio facilities as of October 1, 2024—the start of vaccine rollout—were included.
Vaccination status was treated as a time-dependent covariate.
This allowed the rigorous tracking of flu incidence over a 25-week period.
Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, job type, and location, were used to calculate risk.
The primary endpoint: Time to confirmed influenza infection (via nucleic acid amplification testing for influenza A or B).
Of the 53,402 employees analyzed, 82.1% received the flu vaccine.
However, the cumulative incidence of influenza climbed faster in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated cohort.
A total of 1,079 flu infections occurred.
These infections were overwhelmingly influenza A.
After multivariable adjustment, the vaccinated had a 27% higher risk of influenza infection (HR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.07–1.51, P = 0.007).
Alarmingly, this translates to a negative vaccine effectiveness of -26.9%.
These results are not due to testing bias, however.
While vaccinated individuals were more likely to get tested, their test positivity rate was nearly identical to the unvaccinated.
This even balance indicates a true excess of infections.
The Cleveland Clinic’s findings are deeply concerning.
The negative vaccine effectiveness (VE) figure revealed that the shots cause harm rather than provide protection.
This finding directly contradicts public health messaging and raises serious questions about strain mismatch, immune interference, or potential vaccine-related susceptibility.
This was not a marginal statistical fluke, either.
The signal was held in both unadjusted and adjusted models.
It was detected early using time-dependent methods.
No protective effect from the vaccines emerged at any point.
Moreover, this wasn’t a flawed population.
The cohort was skewed young (mean age 42), mostly healthy, with high occupational compliance.
The data was robust enough to reject the common defense that odds ratios from “test-negative” studies exaggerate protection because the study measured direct risk.
This hard-hitting real-world analysis suggests the 2024–2025 flu vaccine not only failed to protect working-age adults but may have increased their risk of infection.
In an era of mounting skepticism and vaccine fatigue, public health authorities must reckon with data like this, not dismiss it.
Annual flu vaccine strategies need to come under immediate investigation.
At minimum, real-time effectiveness tracking should become a national imperative, not an afterthought.
READ MORE – Cleveland Clinic: Millions of Covid-Vaxxed Will Die Within ‘5 Years’
