FDA’s reversal on mRNA flu shot draws concern online about approval process
Meanwhile, state bills targeting school vaccinations fueled debate about “medical freedom,” and the MMR vaccine generated conversation.
Meanwhile, state bills targeting school vaccinations fueled debate about “medical freedom,” and the MMR vaccine generated conversation.
The FDA alarmed vaccine experts by rejecting, then agreeing to review, a new mRNA flu vaccine without clear justification for either decision. Online reactions to the reversal suggest declining trust in federal health agencies, consistent with recent polling. At the state level, proposed legislation targeting school immunizations spurred online discussions about childhood vaccines and personal freedom. At the same time, mumps cases in Maryland and measles outbreaks nationwide sparked debate about vaccine hesitancy.
Insights brought to you by the reporters and science writers of Public Good News (PGN), a nonprofit newsroom dedicated to improving community health.
What’s trending in vaccine conversation:
On February 10, Moderna announced that the FDA declined to review its new mRNA flu vaccine for older adults, citing insufficient clinical trials. The rejection was described as inconsistent with prior positive feedback the company had received and reportedly was not supported by career scientists at the FDA. Vaccine experts said the decision may undermine trust in the FDA’s review process, echoing a recent survey finding that the CDC’s vaccine schedule changes have damaged public trust in the agency. On February 18, the FDA reversed course, agreeing to review Moderna’s approval application with some modifications. Health experts and social media users questioned the agency’s inconsistency and “chaotic decision-making.” Several posts expressed skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines.
Following changes to the CDC’s vaccine schedule, anti-vaccine and “medical freedom” groups have ramped up efforts to end vaccine requirements nationwide, prompting debate online. Social media posts discussed proposed bills in Iowa and Florida that would weaken or eliminate existing school immunization requirements. While many commenters noted that lower childhood immunization rates are associated with outbreaks and preventable deaths, some praised states that have expanded non-medical vaccine exemptions. Vaccine opponents also accused South Carolina and Connecticut of “government overreach” for proposed legislation that would eliminate non-medical exemptions.
A February 13 Baltimore Banner article reported that Maryland health officials issued a warning to health care providers about a recent rise in adult mumps cases in the state. As of February 19, the state’s health department reports 19 confirmed and seven probable cases this year, up from four cases in all of 2025. The article was circulated across multiple social media platforms, with many commenters highlighting the risk of severe complications from mumps infection. The news came as a federal health official received backlash for encouraging people to get the MMR vaccine. Some social media users accused federal health agencies of sowing doubt about the MMR vaccine.
Read the fact checks:
- Weill Cornell Medicine: Here’s What We Know: The Impact of mRNA Vaccines
- HealthyChildren.org: All About the AAP Recommended Immunization Schedule
- Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia: Mumps: What you should know
Recommendations brought to you by the health communication experts behind Infodemiology.com.
Recommendations for public health professionals
The Infodemiology.com team will provide messaging recommendations in response to some of the trending narratives outlined above. Use these helpful tips when creating content, updating web pages and FAQs, and developing strategy for messaging about vaccines.
The FDA’s inconsistent position on mRNA vaccines may undermine public confidence in vaccines and mRNA technology. Health communicators should exercise caution when addressing misleading claims about mRNA vaccines to avoid repeating or amplifying them. Debunking messaging may explain that mRNA technology is based on decades of research and that over five years of monitoring have found no evidence of widespread safety concerns linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Continuing to direct the public to trustworthy sources for vaccine information—such as their health care providers, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Vaccine Education Center, and the American Academy of Pediatrics—is recommended.
Efforts to alter or eliminate school immunization requirements are part of a broader trend that may weaken confidence in childhood vaccines and increase hesitancy. Emphasizing the decades of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of routine childhood vaccines is recommended, as is highlighting the risks of delaying or declining vaccines. Messaging may note that vaccines empower parents to protect their children and that vaccines work with a child’s immune system to help them fight deadly diseases.
Conversations about adult mumps cases provide an opportunity to explain how routine vaccines protect children from preventable diseases now and throughout their lives. Messaging may emphasize that mumps is a viral infection that causes painful swelling of the salivary glands and can lead to severe complications, including pancreatitis, brain inflammation, hearing loss, and infertility. Messaging may emphasize that measles, mumps, and rubella are highly contagious and that the MMR vaccine protects against all three. Highlighting that two doses protect children for life is recommended. Health communicators can encourage parents to talk to their child’s health care provider or their own to make sure they’re up to date on vaccines.