{"id":10899,"date":"2026-08-20T15:35:09","date_gmt":"2026-08-20T15:35:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.truthforhealth.org\/?p=10899"},"modified":"2026-08-20T15:39:31","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T15:39:31","slug":"dr-vliets-health-tip-the-mrna-flu-shot-from-refusal-to-rubber-stamp-real-risks-you-dont-need","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.truthforhealth.org\/es\/2026\/08\/dr-vliets-health-tip-the-mrna-flu-shot-from-refusal-to-rubber-stamp-real-risks-you-dont-need\/","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Vliet\u2019s Health Tip: The mRNA Flu Shot: From Refusal to Rubber Stamp\u2026 & Real Risks You Don\u2019t Need!"},"content":{"rendered":"

After all the devastating damage from the experimental mRNA COVID shots, I was actually shocked to see the FDA\u2019s sudden reversal and now approval of Moderna\u2019s mRNA flu shot, mFlusiva<\/strong>, the first-ever mRNA influenza vaccine in the United States, based on extremely limited safety and effectiveness data.\u00a0 We have outcome studies from medical databases around the world confirming the increased deaths and extensive multi-organ system damage from the mRNA COVID shots, so I am appalled that mRNA strikes again with this latest FDA action to approve the mRNA flu shot.\u00a0 It\u2019s just one more mRNA gene therapy experiment being deceptively foisted on the public as a \u201cvaccine.\u201d\u00a0 Even traditional flu shots are using a highly profitable, minimally beneficial vaccine for an illness that is readily treatable with existing Rx medicines, natural medicines and supplements that boost our natural immune function!\u00a0 So why are we being exposed to another round of new risks from an mRNA shot for influenza?<\/p>\n

To make matters worse, in my view, this new mRNA flu shot is authorized for adults 50 and older, with full approval for ages 50\u201364 and \u201caccelerated approval\u201d for those 65 and up.\u00a0\u00a0 Elderly people were hardest hit<\/em> with the complications of the mRNA gene therapy COVID shots! They are also the ones hit hardest with the ongoing damage <\/em>from those original COVID shots AND the group most likely to be heavily pressured to take every shot and every booster that comes out.\u00a0 So why are the FDA and \u201cBig Medicine\/Big Pharma\u201d and \u201cPublic Health\u201d bureaucrats pushing another risky mRNA shot for the elderly?<\/p>\n

A bigger question I think we should be asking is why do we need ANOTHER mRNA experiment on the American people at all? <\/strong><\/h3>\n

Of course, once again, we will see mainstream media and the usual \u201cvaccines fix everything\u201d crowd celebrating this latest mRNA \u201cvaccine\u201d as a technological milestone, emphasizing faster manufacturing, potentially better strain matching, and a reported 27% higher \u201crelative\u201d efficacy compared with a standard-dose flu vaccine. Their marketing message is simple: this is a new, advanced option to protect vulnerable older adults before flu season.<\/em><\/p>\n

In this Health Tip, I want to help you look past the headlines and marketing language, and consider the real risks you are not being told.\u00a0 <\/strong>I want to help you think about the serious questions you need to look into on your own to help you make informed decisions before you just jump on the bandwagon of yet another gene therapy agent deceptively labeled a \u201cvaccine\u201d with limited safety data.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s also look at what happened behind the scenes that led to this reversal and approval.\u00a0 The FDA initially refused even to review Moderna\u2019s application, citing trial design problems and concern that older adults did not receive the best available standard of care during the study<\/em><\/strong>. Only months later\u2014after public pressure from Moderna and a change in key FDA leadership\u2014the agency reversed course, convened its advisory committee, and moved the product through.<\/p>\n

Those steps matter because they reveal a pattern: the approval of mFlusiva rests on modest benefits, higher rates of side effects, missing data in high-risk groups, and unresolved safety questions from the mRNA platform itself.<\/strong><\/p>\n

How the FDA First Said No \u2013 Then Switched to A Rubber-Stamped Yes<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The path to approval for mFlusiva was unusually contentious and political. In February 2026, the FDA issued a \u201crefusal-to-file\u201d letter to Moderna, essentially saying the agency would not even start a full review. The reason was straightforward: Moderna had not followed prior FDA guidance requiring comparison to the best available standard of care for older adults\u2014namely, a high-dose flu shot recommended by the CDC for seniors.<\/p>\n

Instead, Moderna compared its mRNA vaccine against a standard-dose flu vaccine, which is known to be less effective in older populations. Federal health officials later stated that this choice exposed participants 65 and older to \u201cincreased risk of severe illness\u201d by giving them a substandard vaccine. The refusal-to-file decision came from the FDA\u2019s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), led by Dr. Vinayak Prasad, who signed the letter in early February 2026.\u00a0 Dr. David Kaslow, Director of Office of Vaccines Research and Review objected to Dr. Prasad\u2019s refusal-to-file letter, but as his boss, Dr. Prasad\u2019s decision stood until… several things happened:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. After the refusal, Moderna pushed back very publicly. The company challenged the decision in the media, there were media \u201chit\u201d pieces on Dr. Prasad, and the dispute became high profile.<\/li>\n
  2. Two months later, Dr. Prasad inexplicably left his position at the FDA\u2019s CBER, and returned to academia.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Following Dr. Prasad\u2019s departure, Dr. David Kaslow quickly moved to reverse course and approve mFlusiva.\u00a0 Kaslow joined the FDA in 2022 under the Biden Administration, and played a key role in the approval of the COVID booster shots.\u00a0 His past connections to vaccine development and Big Pharma raise troubling concerns, in my view.<\/p>\n

    Kaslow granted full approval of mFlusiva for adults 50\u201364 and accelerated approval <\/em><\/strong>for those 65 and older, meaning the company only submitted preliminary, short-term data. Patients are not being told that the full study doesn’t even end until 2030. As a condition, Moderna had to promise a new confirmatory study using an appropriate high-dose flu shot comparator.<\/p>\n

    Now let\u2019s pause right here and take a closer at exactly WHAT that last section REALLY means<\/strong>.\u00a0 \u201cThe indication for persons 65 years of age and older is approved under accelerated approval<\/strong>\u2026\u201d. <\/em>To the public this may sound like a good thing. But actually, accelerated approval means very little safety information is available.<\/p>\n

    What accelerated approval really means is that inadequate testing has been done in the age group over 65 and basically the FDA is going to let this slide as long as Moderna promises to do additional testing. FDA practically said, \u201ctake your time, we\u2019ll give you four years to get a final report to us\u201d. The final report is not due until May 31, 2030. <\/strong>This point is not being reported and only available if you read the actual approval documents that follow below.<\/p>\n

    A key point few are even asking: What is the rationale to justify accelerated approval? <\/em>\u00a0We already have ELEVEN traditional flu vaccines. \u00a0We\u2019ve been living with influenza forever.\u00a0 If the existing flu vaccines work as they claim, what has changed to make it necessary for accelerated approval<\/em> of an experimental new technology on limited safety data? In my view as a practicing physician, there\u2019s simply no rationale for taking this risky step. \u00a0None.<\/p>\n

    \"\"\"\"<\/p>\n

    From my perspective as a practicing physician, and to many others even more knowledgeable about usual procedural steps than I am, both the approval process sequence and the type of approval raise serious questions and the public deserves honest answers. The same FDA agency that initially critiqued the trial as not \u201cadequate and well controlled\u201d later (after removing the three top Directors) accepted that same data as sufficient for approval\u2014even using the uncommon option of accelerated approval for those over 65\u2014despite <\/em>the same underlying issues that were rejected at first, and only a vague promise of \u201cfuture studies\u201d \u2013\u00a0which critically were NOT done prior to approval.<\/em><\/p>\n

    BOTTOM LINE: <\/strong>There is no public proof that the leadership change at the FDA drove the reversal, but for many of us observing this process, the optics look like the classic \u201cBig Pharma\u201d pressure-driven, regulatory workaround rather than process driven by strict, evidence-based improvement in the actual data being reviewed.\u00a0\u00a0 I think that is a very clear \u201cbuyer beware\u201d warning to consumers.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    What mFlusiva Is \u2013 And What It Is Not<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    mFlusiva uses the same basic mRNA technology deployed in the Covid-19 shots, with all the same issues in quality control, batch consistency, and potential for adverse effects in the body that continue over time.<\/p>\n

    Just as with the mRNA COVID shot, this new mRNA flu shot delivers mRNA instructions that tell your cells to make influenza hemagglutinin proteins to trigger your immune system to react to those proteins as foreign and build antibodies. That is not a side effect, it is the stated mechanism of action, as Moderna\u2019s prescribing information describes clearly: \u201cAfter delivery into cells, the mRNA serves as a template for the synthesis of the intended proteins. The expressed, membrane-bound HA glycoproteins… are recognized by immune cells as a foreign antigen, eliciting immune responses.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

    Moderna\u2019s label confirms in their own FDA regulatory filing that\u00a0mFlusiva is designed to convert our own cells into foreign-antigen-displaying targets<\/u><\/strong><\/em>\u00a0for our immune system to recognize as foreign for our cytotoxic T-cells to destroy. This is not a side effect; it is the stated mechanism.<\/p>\n

    In an alarming omission few doctors are even me\u201dntioning, Moderna\u2019s prescribing package insert does also says clearly \u201cmFlusiva has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity <\/em>(i.e. trigger cancers), genotoxicity <\/em>(i.e. cause gene mutations or deletions), or impairment of male fertility in animals.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>An equally alarming omission is Moderna\u2019s failure to design the clinical trial in a way to check for any effect on unvaccinated <\/em>people living in close contact with those who receive mFlusiva. After all the problems we have seen with shedding from the mRNA COVID shots<\/em>, they never even considered this problem with mFlusiva.<\/p>\n

    According to the marketing hype, the mRNA Flu vaccine now means that manufacturers can theoretically update mRNA vaccines \u201cfaster\u201d than traditional egg-based flu shots, which require months of planning and production.\u00a0 Proponents claim<\/em> these purported advantages:<\/p>\n