What They'll NEVER Tell You About mFLUSIVA
A closer look reveals a disturbing truth...
It’s quite mellifluous.
mFlusiva mFlusiva mFlusiiiiva, like a novel solution flowing smoothly through your veins as the influenza pathogen is gently washed away…
But beyond the typical marketing gimmicks, there’s a darker truth. This latest in “mRNA technology,” which the newly confirmed CDC director assures is “safe & effective,” gives us more than reason for concern.
Not only will it sicken and kill people aged 50 and above, especially those 65 and older, for whom it received “accelerated approval,” but the injections will also serve as potential transmission factories.
How did this injectable receive “accelerated approval” for the most elderly and immunocompromised, you ask?
Well, first, we need to understand what this convenient term means.
Because if it reminds you of a seemingly similar two words - warp speed - then you’re on the right track.
Basically, we have another ‘emergency use’ type situation, but in this case, to purportedly fill what the FDA calls “an unmet medical need,” which is evidently the need for those 65 years and older to receive an “mRNA” injection against influenza.
Which would, of course, fundamentally assume that such an injection confers some kind of clinical benefit, when ~20 years ago it was shown that elderly deaths go up, not down, after the flu injection.
Even the recent 2024-2025 traditional flu jab made you 27% more likely to catch the flu than if you didn’t get it.
Clearly, however, that hasn’t stopped the FDA approval process. They’ve allowed mFLUSIVA to flow right on through with approval and “accelerated approval,” the latter for which it supposedly met some “surrogate endpoint,” that is “reasonably likely… to predict clinical benefit.”
The FDA’s explanation for fast-tracking the drug for those 65 and older goes even further.
In a June 2026 briefing document, the FDA claims that because there is no “formal correlate of protection (CoP)” for the product, the FDA must instead rely on “immunogenicity data” to provide the “primary evidence to support effectiveness of mRNA-1010.”
In other words, there is no proven immune-response measurement for mFlusiva that the FDA can use as a reliable indicator that the injection actually protects people from influenza.
It doesn’t end there. Another aspect of the mFLUSIVA pipeline that is interesting is the fact that the FDA is requiring a somewhat unprecedented large-scale confirmatory study.
This is what is known as a “Phase 4 pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial,” which is essentially a real-world experiment deployed among hundreds of thousands of older Americans in ordinary healthcare.
And herein lies an important point.
Many people could receive mFLUSIVA before the confirmatory study is even started. An ongoing, mass experiment, it would appear.
But then again, this is an inherent part of the “accelerated approval” mechanism, a feature in which a product is permitted into the market as additional postmarketing evidence is aggregated.
In the case of mFLUSIVA, it’s the first-of-its-kind, and the FDA appears to be responding in a first-of-its-kind way.
Because in many ways, it doesn’t make any sense…
In fact, the FDA Briefing Document shows that in one study, 75.7% of people who received the mFLUSIVA injection suffered a “solicited adverse reaction,” compared to just 46.7% of the comparator group.
“Solicited” meaning the reaction was actively ascertained by the researchers through questioning, questionnaires, and/or surveys. “Unsolicited adverse events” - those participants reported on their own - comprised 5.9% of the mFLUSIVA group and 5.7% of the comparator group.
In terms of severe adverse reactions, the findings from Study P304 become even more alarming.
In the mFLUSIVA group, 5.5% of participants suffered a “Grade 3 or above solicited systemic adverse reaction,” compared to just 0.9% in the comparator group.
FDA guidance defines a “systemic” reaction at “Grade 3” level as any “severe” reaction that, depending on the illness, is “significant,” “prevents daily activity,” “requires outpatient IV hydration,” requires “any use of narcotic pain reliever,” and/or “requires medical intervention.”
However, some of these reactions were even above the “Grade 3” level, meaning they were “Grade 4 (Potentially Life Threatening).”
When pooling the various studies, the numbers are still quite telling:
As for deaths?
In the calculation of deaths over the full study period, the FDA identified “a numerical imbalance,” one that was specifically found under the category of “death (unspecified cause).”
The FDA found that this type of death occurred in 23 participants in the mRNA-1010 group versus just 9 in the comparator group.
The imbalance grew once other death categories were added:
“When pooling related death categories (sudden death, sudden cardiac death, and unspecified fatal events), the imbalance widened to 29 mRNA-1010 recipients versus 12 comparator recipients”
The FDA, however, determined that this disparity was not linked to the “mRNA” injection.
Due to an “absence of autopsy data” in the mRNA1010 group, the FDA concluded that any “definitive cause-of-death ascertainment” was limited.
“Based on temporal distribution of events, overall mortality balance across the trial, and documented preexisting comorbidities, suggests that this imbalance is unlikely to represent a causal relationship with vaccination.”
Convenient excuse or legitimate reason?
No matter how one portrays the data, one thing’s inarguable: more people suffered adverse events in the mFLUSIVA group than in the comparator group. And let’s not forget, the product “has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility in animals.”
Although this is the standard for flu injectables, “mRNA” is not your standard injectable. Given its demonstrated mechanisms for causing infertility, and its association with what some have called a “global cancer phenomenon,” this is especially concerning…
But what about people who don’t take the injection? What about their very real concerns of transmission and shedding?
What about people in the real-world ‘comparator group’ who choose to either get a traditional flu injection or no injection at all? Will they still be exposed?
Given an established phenomenon of “mRNA” shedding, why weren’t there shedding studies with mFLUSIVA?
The official reason given is that there are no risks of shedding because mFLUSIVA is not a live or attenuated virus type. Researchers contend that the drug lacks biological pathways for infectious shedding or person-to-person transmission of material because it’s “mRNA.”
This, however, is inconsistent with many findings, particularly those of a potential “new blood-borne systemic amyloidosis” caused by the most widely distributed “mRNA” product to date, the COVID-19 injections.
So the question remains: how did mFLUSIVA get approved?
After all, the product had previously faced major headwinds, even including a formal rejection letter.
So what changed?
Around February 3, 2026, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), under then-Director Vinay Prasad, issued a rare Refusal-to-File (RTF) letter.
According to the letter, the sole stated reason for rejection was the so-called comparator used in Moderna’s Phase 3 trial. The comparator was a licensed standard-dose flu solution, which Prasad argued did not reflect the “best-available standard of care” in the U.S.
That said, the letter did not express any problems with the safety or efficacy of mFLUSIVA itself. Following Prasad’s decision, Moderna requested a Type A meeting, which was convened to “help an otherwise stalled product development program proceed.”
After the meeting, around February 17th or 18th, the FDA accepted Moderna’s amended application. This is when the pathway was revised, effectively splitting the approval processes by age: traditional approval sought for adults 50–64 years old, and accelerated approval sought for adults ≥65 years old.
The FDA would go on to approve mFLUSIVA for both groups on August 5th, the same day the new pro-“mRNA” CDC Director was confirmed.
What’s more head-scratching about the “accelerated approval” for those 65 years of age and older is the findings in this cohort.
If you look at Study P303 Part C, the results are glaring.
Even when compared to Fluzone High-Dose, which is a traditional injectable specifically approved and recommended for adults aged 65 and older, the frequencies of adverse events from mFLUSIVA are significantly higher.
This, despite the fact that Fluzone High-Dose “contains four times the antigen as standard dose inactivated flu vaccines.”
In fact, the “mRNA” injection led to solicited systemic adverse reactions in 61.3% of participants, compared to just 32.9% of those who received the Fluzone HD. Meanwhile, “Grade 3 or above solicited systemic adverse reaction[s]” occurred in 6.9% of mFLUSIVA recipients, whereas they occurred in only 1.7% of Fluzone HD recipients.
Again, however, the FDA did not conclude that any of this represented a major safety problem, but rather, simply revealed a reactogenicity difference.
To support the full approval and accelerated approval decisions, the FDA claims that it had significant clinical efficacy evidence from the Phase 3 study to greenlight mFLUSIVA for adults 50–64.
For adults ≥65, the FDA based its accelerated approval on hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody responses, considering it a “surrogate endpoint” that would likely predict clinical benefit.
Of course, how could we truly know any clinical benefit unless we inject the people en masse?
Given that mFLUSIVA is the world's first approved mRNA influenza injection, the FDA was basically in uncharted territory. So what did the agency do? Seemingly, it created a justification for approval with the true, meaningful testing coming more or less a posteriori.
Because, when you examine the granular data and view the regulatory landscape broadly and wholly, none of it seems to really add up.
But should we be surprised?
Should we be shocked?
Should it come as any surprise that after the events of the previous ~6 years, an “mRNA” product has been pushed so quickly, its approval just so happening to coincide with the same day the new CDC Director is confirmed?
Should anyone be stunned that this appears to be - by and large - a mass-scale experiment on the public?
If you are, if you find yourself furrowing your brows, narrowing your eyes, and scratching your head, just remember…
They’ve been telling us about their “mRNA” experiments to come for quite some time now.
And they’re absolutely titillated to do so…
Another democide being initiated. DO NOT COMPLY!
They have lied about EVERY vaccine and mRNA poison on the planet. Why change now?