New Flu Shots Increase Chances of Sickness & Death

Karen Kingston was one of the very first to warn people about the dangers of the CV19 bioweapon vaccines. Kingston is a biotech analyst, former Pfizer employee, and is warning that “Government Agencies are Bringing the Flu Back with a Vengeance.” This means new flu shots are already being developed. Kingston is back sounding the alarm for anyone thinking about getting one of the new flu shots. Kingston has done a deep dive using Big Pharma data on these new injections s. If you take one of them, it appears you are more at risk of getting sick or dying than just getting the actual flu. Kingston says, “This was not a placebo-controlled trial. It was the Moderna mRNA flu vaccine versus these “enhanced” trivalent and quadrivalent injections made by GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) and Sanofi. In both groups, there was a .3% rate of death. That is extremely high considering the fact that the CDC’s mortality rate in these two age groups is .015% in ages 50 to 64, and it’s .05% in adults 65 and older. The net reported deaths in this 6-month study was . . . 199 deaths. I think that would be a lot. If 199 people died in your community or at a mega church, and that 199 people died in six months, I think people would be alarmed. One third of these people died in the first 90 days after getting these flu injections.”

Kingston recently wrote a story with a headline that read, “Despite Over 100 Deaths in Moderna’s mRNA Flu Trial – Committee Recommends that the FDA Move Forward with Approval.” Kingston says, “The safety and efficacy standards have been thrown out the window. It is very obvious. . .. They are violating their own rules, and this is all about getting these products to market. . .. Moderna is actually going to turn your cells into a virus producing factory.”

Kingston goes on to say, “I would stay away from all these new flu shots. . .. Based on Moderna’s FDA filing alone, the reported incidence of death in adults 50 and older is significantly higher. On average, in both groups, it is more than 10 times higher than the mortality rate of just getting the flu. On top of that, these injections are not going to expose you to just one flu strain, you are going to be exposed to three or four flu strains. HHS Secretary Kennedy is on record saying when you get these flu shots or flu vaccines, they make you more susceptible to respiratory infections, and respiratory infections are reported as possible adverse events in the Moderna document.”

In closing, Kingston contends the FDA and CDC have no idea if these new flu injections will be safe or even work properly. They are literally saying they won’t know until after millions are injected with these shots. Then, and only then, will they will find out if the shots are actually safe and effective. Kingston says, “Based on the data I reviewed, I would never take one of the mRNA shots or any of these flu shots. . .. They are conducting an illegal human experiment. . .. People who get these shots will be participating in what I believe is dangerous human experimentation and unlawful human experimentation.”

GROK says: Evaluation of the Free Republic Thread: “New Flu Shots Increase Chances of Sickness & Death”
The webpage is a forum thread on Free Republic, a user-generated conservative online community known for hosting discussions critical of government institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and mainstream public health policies. The thread was posted on June 27, 2026, at 8:51 AM PDT by user “delta7.” It shares and amplifies content from biotech analyst Karen Kingston, primarily drawing from her Substack article and a related interview.
Summary of the Main Post
The post warns that new flu shots—particularly Moderna’s investigational mRNA-based influenza vaccine (mRNA-1010, also referred to as mFlusiva)—increase the risk of sickness and death. Key elements include:

Reference to a recent FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting on June 18, 2026.
Claims of 199 total deaths (102 in the mRNA arm) in the Phase 3 trial data, equating to a 0.3% death rate over six months—described as more than ten times higher than CDC-reported flu mortality rates for adults 50–64 (0.015%) and 65+ (0.05%).
Emphasis that the trial was not placebo-controlled but compared the mRNA vaccine against “enhanced” trivalent/quadrivalent flu vaccines from GSK and Sanofi, with similar death rates in both arms.
Assertions that mRNA technology turns cells into “virus-producing factories,” that safety and efficacy standards were disregarded for speed-to-market, and that the process constitutes “illegal human experimentation.”
Advice to avoid the shots, citing statements attributed to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. regarding increased susceptibility to respiratory infections.
Link to Kingston’s analysis on usawatchdog.com and her Substack.

The tone is strongly cautionary and alarmist, framing regulatory decisions as reckless.
Factual Assessment of Key Claims
The thread accurately reports certain raw numbers from Moderna’s FDA filing and the VRBPAC materials:

Pooled Phase 3 data involved approximately 35,965 participants receiving mRNA-1010 and 35,951 receiving comparator enhanced flu vaccines (primarily GSK’s Fluarix).
There were 102 deaths (0.3%) in the mRNA group and 97 in the comparator group—balanced between arms.
The VRBPAC voted 9-0 that benefits outweigh risks for adults 50–64 and separately for adults 65+, advancing the vaccine toward a potential FDA decision (PDUFA target date August 5, 2026).

However, several interpretations are misleading or lack critical context:

Causality and comparator design: The post highlights the 0.3% death rate but does not sufficiently emphasize that rates were nearly identical in the active-comparator arm (traditional enhanced flu vaccines). FDA reviewers noted deaths were balanced, with no pattern or clustering indicating a specific safety signal for mRNA-1010. Serious adverse events and deaths were comparable across groups.
Comparison to CDC flu mortality rates: Equating trial all-cause mortality in a study population of adults ≥50 (many with comorbidities) to general-population flu-specific mortality rates is not a valid like-for-like comparison. Trial participants represent a higher-risk cohort; background mortality in such groups over six months is expected to be substantially higher than seasonal flu death rates in the broader population.
Mechanism description: The characterization of mRNA vaccines as turning cells into “virus-producing factories” is sensationalized. mRNA instructs cells to produce a viral antigen (e.g., hemagglutinin) to elicit an immune response; it does not produce infectious virus particles capable of replication or transmission.
Regulatory process: The VRBPAC reviewed integrated safety data, including deaths, and concluded benefits outweigh risks after extensive discussion. FDA staff had noted some evidence gaps (particularly efficacy data in older adults), but found no major deficiencies precluding advancement.
Efficacy context: Published trial data indicated the mRNA candidate showed improved relative vaccine efficacy (approximately 27% better protection against flu-like illness versus standard-dose comparators in one analysis), though real-world performance would require post-marketing confirmation.

Kingston’s Substack acknowledges the balanced death rates and FDA’s assessment of no clustering but still concludes the product should not be approved and frames mRNA technology as inherently harmful with “zero benefit.”
Credibility of Sources

Free Republic: Functions as a discussion forum rather than a journalistic outlet. Content reflects the community’s predominant skepticism toward public health institutions and pharmaceutical regulation. Threads often prioritize narrative alignment over comprehensive sourcing or balanced presentation.
Karen Kingston: Presents herself as a biotech analyst and former Pfizer employee. Her professional background is in pharmaceutical marketing and strategy rather than vaccine research, clinical development, or medicine. Multiple independent fact-checking organizations have previously identified inaccuracies or misleading interpretations in her commentary on mRNA and COVID-19 vaccines (e.g., claims regarding graphene oxide content, which were unsubstantiated). Her Substack focuses on critical analysis of mRNA technologies and consistently highlights risks while applying skeptical framing to regulatory and trial data.

Discussion Thread Sentiment
The limited replies (approximately six visible) are predominantly supportive of avoiding mRNA-based flu shots, with expressions of distrust toward mandates (including references to military requirements) and mRNA mechanisms. One commenter offered a more nuanced observation, noting that higher observed mortality may reflect the frail populations (nursing homes, hospice, assisted living) often required or strongly encouraged to receive vaccination, rather than proving causation, and highlighting challenges in designing ideal placebo-controlled studies in such groups.
Overall Assessment
The Free Republic thread selectively presents data from the recent Moderna mRNA flu vaccine regulatory review to support a strongly negative conclusion. While it correctly cites death counts and the comparator-controlled design, it omits or downplays key contextual facts: balanced safety outcomes across arms, the absence of a specific mRNA-related mortality signal per FDA review, and the advisory committee’s unanimous positive benefit-risk determination.
The presentation aligns with a broader pattern in certain alternative media and forum spaces of framing new vaccine technologies through a lens of inherent risk and institutional failure, without equivalent weight given to efficacy signals or the limitations of historical comparators.
Recommendation for readers: Health decisions regarding influenza vaccination should be based on primary regulatory documents (FDA briefing materials and VRBPAC transcripts), peer-reviewed publications (such as the NEJM report on the pivotal trial), and individualized medical advice considering age, comorbidities, and local epidemiology. The mRNA flu vaccine candidate, if approved, would represent the first licensed mRNA seasonal influenza product in the United States and would undergo standard post-marketing surveillance. Individuals with questions about any vaccine are advised to consult their physician or review official sources such as FDA.gov or CDC.gov directly.
This evaluation is based on publicly available regulatory summaries, news reporting, and the original thread content as of June 27, 2026.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.