Moderna’s ‘Fast-Tracked’ mRNA Flu Shot Is Flooding VAERS With Record Number of Serious Injury Reports

Moderna’s new mRNA flu shot is barely out the door, and the injury reports are already piling up. Paralysis. Blindness. Heart arrhythmias. Fainting. Hospitalisation. And Big Pharma is working overtime to convince you it’s all a coincidence.

You were told this was just a flu shot. A mild upgrade. Nothing to worry about. But the families of the people now filling out VAERS reports know better. And so should you.

What’s Already Coming In

Within weeks of Moderna’s mFLUSIVA rollout, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System logged dozens of reports naming this product specifically. The accounts read like a worst-case scenario list:

• A 71-year-old woman who can no longer walk
• A 71-year-old man who couldn’t stand 17 hours after the shot
• A 74-year-old woman with partial vision loss in both eyes
• A 72-year-old man with atrial fibrillation confirmed by ECG
• An 89-year-old woman who fainted and fell in the pharmacy and was rushed to the ER

These aren’t sore arms. These aren’t “a day of fatigue.” These are life-altering events happening to elderly people who were told this shot was for their protection.

And That’s Just What’s Being Reported

Here’s what they don’t want you to think about: VAERS captures a tiny fraction of what actually happens.

The commonly cited figure is that less than 1% of adverse reactions ever get reported. Doctors don’t do it. Patients don’t know they can. The system is passive by design—it waits for people to come forward, and most never do.

So do the math. If those 78 reports represent even 1% of actual events, we’re not talking about dozens of injuries. We’re talking about thousands.

And nobody is looking for them.

The Trial Data Already Told Us

This wasn’t a surprise. The clinical trial data was sitting there for anyone willing to read it.

In Moderna’s own phase 3 trial, the mRNA flu shot caused more than double the side effects of the traditional flu vaccine:

• Injection-site pain: 65.8% vs. 29.8%
• Fatigue: 45.1% vs. 20.3%
• Headache: 37.8% vs. 18.0%
• Muscle pain: 35.4% vs. 11.6%

Harvard Health itself admitted the side effects were “about twice as common” as a regular flu shot.

And serious adverse events? 2.2% of mRNA recipients versus 1.9% of the comparison group. They call that “similar.” We call that real people—real grandparents, real parents—whose bodies were damaged by a product that was supposed to help them.

The FDA Didn’t Even Want to Look at It

Here’s the part they really don’t want you to know.

The FDA’s own top vaccine reviewer, Vinay Prasad, refused to even file Moderna’s application in February 2026. His reason? The trial compared the mRNA shot to a standard-dose flu vaccine instead of the high-dose vaccine actually recommended for seniors—meaning the trial wasn’t even measuring against the real standard of care.

A week later, the FDA reversed itself. Politico reported that political pressure from the White House played a role. The White House denied it.

Either way, ask yourself: why did the scientists say no, and who overruled them?

They Fast-Tracked It for the Most Vulnerable

For adults 65 and older, mFLUSIVA was approved under accelerated approval—based on immune response markers, not on proven clinical benefit. The FDA’s own language says continued approval “may be contingent upon verification” in a confirmatory trial.

Translation: they don’t actually know yet whether it works for the people they’re pushing it on. But they’re giving it to them anyway.

This Technology Is Not “Just a Flu Shot”

mRNA is not a minor tweak on a familiar product. It is a fundamentally different platform that instructs your cells to manufacture a foreign protein. The long-term consequences of repeated exposure are unknown, because no one has been studying them long enough to know.

And now they want to inject it into America’s seniors every single flu season.

What They’ll Tell You

They’ll say VAERS reports don’t prove causation. They’ll say the events are “rare.” They’ll say the benefits outweigh the risks.

But here’s what they won’t do:

• They won’t publish the full VAERS dataset for independent review
• They won’t run active surveillance to actually count the injuries
• They won’t compare cardiac, neurological, and mobility event rates against matched controls
• They won’t explain why the FDA’s own reviewer tried to stop this

If the shot is safe, prove it. Show us the data. All of it. Not press releases. Not “safe and effective” talking points. Real, transparent, independent data.

Until then, the precautionary principle isn’t “anti-science.” It’s common sense.

Your Body, Your Choice—Remember?

There is a safe, conventional, high-dose flu vaccine available right now for seniors. You don’t have to be the first in line for an experimental mRNA product with a reactogenicity profile twice as bad as the alternative and a safety signal nobody in power wants to investigate.

The burden of proof belongs to the manufacturer—not to the people reporting harm.

Do your own research. Ask hard questions. And don’t let anyone tell you that the reports flooding into VAERS are just a coincidence.