Moderna's mRNA flu vaccine study had a 0.8% absolute risk reduction.
Posted by The Joe Rogan Experience, Checked
- Sources
- 5 support1 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 70%
The Joe Rogan ExperienceNov 6, 2026
The trial's reported rates were 2.0% (mRNA-1010) versus 2.8% (standard-dose) in CIDRAP and Reuters-based coverage, so a 0.8-point absolute reduction matches the record within rounding. Recomputing from the raw counts (411/20,179 vs 557/20,124) gives about 0.73 points, which is close, and the post's "almost nothing" characterization is opinion that the extracted claim does not repeat.
What was said
… purposely used an antiquated old one to make it look better, and they got a warning, basically a letter from the Biden administration saying, This isn't a great study design. They've been warned on it, so that was one issue. The second is it didn't work. It had a 0.8% absolute risk reduction, which is almost nothing, and a significant side effect profile based on the clinical trials. So they weren't even comparing to the standard of care, even though they rigged the study. …
The Joe Rogan Experience · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. CIDRAP reports the trial results as 2.0% of 20,179 mRNA-1010 recipients contracting flu versus 2.8% of 20,124 standard-dose recipients, a difference of 0.8 percentage points.[2]
Supports. Reuters and the NEJM-based coverage report the same trial population and efficacy result (26.6% relative vaccine efficacy), which the rates above translate into an absolute difference.[1][3]
Supports. A People's Pharmacy analysis of the raw counts (411 of 20,179 vs 557 of 20,124) gives roughly 2.0% vs 2.8%, and a Substack calculation gives about 0.73 percentage points, which is close to 0.8 once rounding of the reported rates is accounted for.[4][5]
Context. The precise difference from unrounded counts is about 0.73 points, and the claim's 0.8% matches the rounded published rates rather than the exact calculation; coverage of the figure is limited to a few sources and one low-credibility outlet repeats it.[5][6]
Sources
6 sources: 1 fact-checker, 2 primary, 3 not rated
- 1Moderna's mRNA flu vaccine outperforms standard shot in ...reuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 2Phase 3 trial finds Moderna mRNA flu vaccine outperforms ...cidrap.umn.edu · primary source · cited for: supports
- 3Humoral Immunogenicity of mRNA-1010, an mRNA-based Seasonal Influenza Vaccine, in Adults ≥50 Yearspmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 4Will Flu Be Mild This Winter? FDA Approves First mRNA Flu Vaccinepeoplespharmacy.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 5The Unanswered Questions Behind Moderna's mRNA Flu Vaccinephilipmcmillan.substack.com · not rated · cited for: supports, context
- 6New mRNA Flu Vaccine Produced Much Higher Rates of Adverse Reactions Than Standard Shotalethonews.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- There were deaths in the Moderna mRNA flu vaccine trial group.Can’t tell
- The FDA sent an application back to Moderna regarding their mRNA flu vaccine.True
- A study on COVID-19 vaccination during the first trimester of pregnancy revealed an 82% miscarriage rate.False
- Raw data revealed an 82% miscarriage rate in women vaccinated during the first trimester.False
- Pfizer 5.3.6 post-market data noted an 81% miscarriage rate.Mixed