A scientific reckoning: Major study questions the efficacy of common pneumonia vaccines

• A landmark study of over 2.2 million adults found pneumococcal vaccines were associated with a significantly increased risk of hospitalization and death from pneumonia.
• The research, published in BMC Infectious Diseases, contradicts decades of public health guidance promoting these vaccines for older and at-risk adults.
• Even after adjusting for age and comorbidities, recipients of the PCV13 and PPSV23 vaccines had a 55 percent to 83 percent higher risk of being hospitalized for pneumonia.
• The study raises urgent questions about the scientific rationale and public health impact of longstanding adult pneumococcal vaccination programs.
• These findings challenge the foundation of vaccine mandates and recommendations that affect tens of millions of Americans annually.

In a finding that challenges a cornerstone of modern preventive medicine, a massive new study has concluded that widely used pneumococcal vaccines do not protect older adults from hospitalization or death due to pneumonia—and may in fact increase the risks. The research, published on October 21, 2025, in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases, analyzed the real-world outcomes of over 2.2 million adults in Catalonia, Spain. Its results directly contradict the public health narrative that has driven vaccine recommendations for decades, forcing a difficult conversation about the evidence base for one of the world’s most common medical interventions.

The stakes of a public health pillar

For years, health authorities like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have strongly recommended pneumococcal vaccination for all adults over 65 and those with certain risk conditions. The vaccines, PCV13 (a conjugate vaccine) and PPSV23 (a polysaccharide vaccine), are promoted as essential shields against serious illnesses like pneumococcal pneumonia, meningitis and bloodstream infections. They are administered to tens of millions of people annually, forming a ubiquitous part of geriatric and well-patient care. The rationale for school vaccine mandates for children has often been partially rooted in creating herd immunity to protect these vulnerable adult populations from pneumococcal disease.

A landmark study’s unsettling conclusions

The Catalonian study, one of the largest of its kind, followed 2,234,003 adults aged 50 and older throughout 2019. Researchers tracked hospitalizations for both pneumococcal pneumonia and all-cause pneumonia, meticulously adjusting for factors like age, influenza vaccination status and underlying health conditions. The results were starkly negative. Instead of showing protection, the data revealed that vaccinated individuals were significantly more likely to be hospitalized.

The adjusted hazard ratios told a clear story:

• Recipients of PCV13 had an 83 percent higher risk of pneumococcal pneumonia and a 55 percent higher risk of all-cause pneumonia.
• Recipients of PPSV23 had a 21 percent higher risk of pneumococcal pneumonia and a 24 percent higher risk of all-cause pneumonia.
• Critically, PCV13 vaccination was associated with a 91% increased risk of death from all-cause pneumonia.

The authors noted that “pneumococcal vaccination did not prove effective… in preventing hospitalised pneumococcal pneumonia, all-cause pneumonia or death,” and that their data “raise serious concerns about effectiveness and public health impact.”

Historical context and a shifting scientific basis

This is not the first time the scientific foundation for these vaccines has been questioned. A 2025 analysis by Steve Kirsch of a separate CDC vaccine safety datalink study pointed out a lack of mortality benefit for routine childhood vaccinations. The new Catalonian study adds a heavy, population-level weight to these long-skeptical perspectives. Historically, vaccine recommendations were often based on their ability to prevent specific, vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease—a relatively rare event. Their effectiveness against the much more common outcome of all-cause pneumonia has always been far less certain, a gap that this large-scale, real-world study now fills with alarming data.

Broader implications for vaccine policy and trust

The implications of this research extend beyond a single class of vaccines. It strikes at the heart of the mandate debate. If the vaccines recommended for the most vulnerable populations show no measurable benefit on critical outcomes like hospitalization and death—and may even cause harm—what is the ethical and scientific justification for their compulsory use? The study forces a re-examination of the complex interplay between public health policy, pharmaceutical promotion and the actual evidence of clinical benefit. It underscores the critical importance of continuous, independent post-market surveillance, free from commercial or institutional bias, to ensure that public health interventions are doing more good than harm.

An urgent call for transparency and review

The findings from Catalonia represent a serious and credible challenge to established global health policy. When a study of millions of people concludes that a standard medical intervention is associated with increased harm, it cannot be ignored. This news matters today because it demands immediate and transparent review by health authorities like the CDC and the World Health Organization. For the millions who have received these vaccines in good faith, and for doctors who have administered them, this research is a call to prioritize robust, unbiased data over entrenched dogma. The path forward requires a rigorous re-evaluation of the risk-benefit profile of pneumococcal vaccines and a renewed commitment to a public health model where policy is dictated by evidence, not inertia.

Sources for this article include:

Substack.com

BMCinfectdis.BiomedCentral.com

TheFocalPoints.com