A newly peer-reviewed analysis of clinical data used in the approval of Moderna’s mRNA influenza vaccine, mFLUSIVA, has raised serious concerns about its risk-benefit profile, according to prominent US epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher.
Hulscher told alexjoneslive.com the analysis examined US Food and Drug Administration clinical and regulatory data for mFLUSIVA and compared outcomes with those recorded among recipients of a conventional influenza vaccine.
Researchers calculated that for every influenza-related hospitalisation theoretically prevented, the data corresponded to 3,798 adverse events, 278 disabling reactions and two unexplained deaths, said Hulscher.
The analysis also reported an imbalance in unexplained deaths between the two groups. Hulscher said 23 unexplained deaths occurred among mFLUSIVA recipients compared with nine among conventional influenza vaccine recipients, which the researchers calculated as a 155% higher relative risk.
The researchers also examined Grade 3 systemic reactions — reactions sufficiently severe to prevent normal daily activities. According to Hulscher, these occurred in 5.5% of mFLUSIVA recipients compared with 0.9% of those receiving the comparator vaccine, which the study characterised as a 515% increase in relative risk.
“When putting benefits and harms on the same scale, we found that it’s a form of human sacrifice to administer mFLUSIVA,” Hulscher said.
Hulscher said the analysis had been sent directly to US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other senior federal health officials, with the authors calling for mFLUSIVA to be removed from the market.
The vaccine was approved by the FDA in August for the prevention of influenza caused by covered influenza A and B strains in people aged 50 and older.
The researchers argue that the adverse-event and mortality figures warrant urgent regulatory reconsideration of that approval and have called on federal health authorities to act on their findings.
The FDA, however, concluded during its regulatory assessment that deaths reviewed in the clinical programme were unlikely to have been related to the vaccine, while serious adverse events occurred at broadly similar rates between mFLUSIVA and comparator groups.
Hulscher and his co-authors dispute the overall interpretation of the clinical evidence, maintaining that their reanalysis reveals what they consider an unacceptable imbalance between the vaccine’s potential benefits and harms.
DISTURBING: Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Moderna’s New mRNA Flu Shot Is a Tool of HUMAN SACRIFICE
3,798 ADVERSE EVENTS, 278 DISABLING REACTIONS, and 2 DEATHS are required to “prevent” ONE flu hospitalization, according to the FDA’s OWN data used to approve mFLUSIVA.
Compared with… pic.twitter.com/6WctD4kOSS
— Nicolas Hulscher, MPH (@NicHulscher) September 29, 2026
