| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Get the Flu Shot - Get the Flu |
| 2025-04-10 |
| [MedRxIV] Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed ABSTRACT Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season.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. |
| Posted by:Mercutio |
| #10 Yes, it all rhymes with a certain analysis from five years ago, and Confirmation Bias is a must have tool in the Bullshit Filter. And yes, my tiny data points don't take into effect my lifestyle, such cutting out as much sugar as possible, avoiding highly processed food like fast food, exercise, exposure to contagious environment such as handling money and have sick customers coughing and snotting all over me, etc. I mean, I did eat at a 3rd world corner street food until I got through my second portion and saw the shrimp still had shells on them, and to my surprise they dumped my remaining dip sauce back into the pot and didn't get sick, so what that's worth. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2025-04-10 19:51 |
| #9 Methods Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment in Ohio on October 1, 2024, were included. The clinical subjects were employees, not patients. the cumulative incidence of influenza increased more rapidly among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated /devil's advocate mode The study controlled for the usual age, sex, job, etc. I wonder if there was a behavioral component. Did the vaccinated subjects feel more protected and hence went out socializing, drinking and whoring more than the unvaxxed subjects? Is it possible that year's vaccine was a miss for providing effective protection against that season's strain of the flu? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2025-04-10 17:35 |
| #8 TW, if they had real results they would've given (percentage) numbers for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated - instead of a total. The statistical analysis is b*llshit. None of bio-"scientists" know any statistics - they use (incompetently) statistical software. |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-04-10 17:06 |
| #7 #3,4. There is an obligatory place on an article where the authors detail funding. It has nothing to do with it being true or false. However, the research detailed in the article cost money - not lots (by med research statement) but not negligible (unless they stole somebody else's data). |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-04-10 16:52 |
| #6 This study did not receive any funding Either they added a question about getting sick to the usual follow-up satisfaction survey done on their patients or they just did a data analysis of their patients during the period, noting who did and did not get the shot, and then in each set how many came back for treatment for the flu. Either way the effort and expense could be absorbed within the ordinary cost of doing business. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2025-04-10 16:48 |
| #5 take Vitamins D3 & K2 to up immune system. |
| Posted by: Vinegar Johnson2357 2025-04-10 16:40 |
| #4 Bullshit. I have to get one every year as I work for a hospital. Only get the flu every 4-5 years like clockwork, always the N5 version. Otherwise I'm fine. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2025-04-10 16:03 |
| #3 Of course it received funding. The last time I got a flu shot, I got sick anyways, and suspiciously soon after the shot. I no longer get one. The rest of the family does, and always end up suffering through flue season anyways. If I've been sick in the last 10 years, I haven't noticed. So, as at least a premise to a study, I'm going to agree, after the Covid response, have earned the skepticism. *as always, make your own medical decisions based on your situation. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2025-04-10 15:55 |
| #2 ^This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed In short I call bull. |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-04-10 10:47 |
| #1 Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding ??????????????????????????? |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-04-10 10:44 |