FDA approves Moderna's new lower-dose COVID-19 vaccine

The Moderna shot had a much higher dose than the Pfizer one, making it even more dangerous (higher rate of serious side effects).

The company finally admits that higher dose was completely unnecessary:

It found the new vaccine was safe and was at least as effective — and more by some measures — than the original shot, the company said.

The Moderna shot had a much higher dose than the Pfizer one, making it even more dangerous

Yet still much less dangerous than not vaccinating, if there was no other option it would still be a perfectly valid vaccine, the problem for this vaccine (and the opposite of a problem for the population) is that better vaccines were developed and put in the market at the same time.

The company finally admits that higher dose was completely unnecessary:

No, it does not, it even explains the difference in the first part.

The new vaccine, mNexspike, is a step toward next-generation coronavirus vaccines. It's made in a way that allows for a lower dose — a fifth of the dose of its current COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax — by refining its immune target.

It is obviously invalid to pretend this means the original and the new vaccines are the same just with a lower dose.

The Moderna shot had a much higher dose than the Pfizer one, making it even more dangerous

Yet still much less dangerous than not vaccinating, 

Not for healthy under-65s. That's why they stopped recommending it for that group.

Not for healthy under-65s. That's why they stopped recommending it for that group.

That is still completely false, there is no scientific evidence that any vaccine is even remotely as dangerous as not vaccinating, a political decision do not replace this evidence, which is why medical institutions are making this clear

For example about the recommendation on pregnancies

https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2025/05/acog-statement-on-hhs-recommendations-regarding-the-covid-vaccine-during-pregnancy

For example about the recommendation on pregnancies

Your reference just says that some ob-gyns recommend it to protect infants from covid. But there are plenty of others who don't recommend it due to the high risks of miscarriage or infant deaths from causes other than covid.

Your reference just says that some ob-gyns recommend it to protect infants from covid. But there are plenty of others who don't recommend it due to the high risks of miscarriage or infant deaths from causes other than covid.

Health care professionals? no, they don't, there is no evidence of any risk of miscarriage nor infant deaths, the vaccine is still a much safer option over not vaccinating. Even if unethical, unprofessional people try to mislead people with fake studies published on known pseudoscientific outlets.

So your claim that the vaccines are more dangerous than the infection for any population is still demonstrably false, obviously the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is obviously much more reliable than random people on the web about what is better for patients.

Not for healthy under-65s. That's why they stopped recommending it for that group.

That's a load of hooey. The Modern vaccine is my strong preference and I have taken it every year since introduced, along with the annual flu vaccine. There is literally no actual data that shows the Moderna vaccine to be dangerous in any way. None, zero.

Not for healthy under-65s. That's why they stopped recommending it for that group.

Here in the UK, this year only over-75s will get the vaccine (and those under 75 who have certain conditions). The reason given is that general immunity has been increasing ‘due to a combination of naturally acquired immunity following recovery from infection and vaccine-derived immunity’. Cost-effectiveness rather than side effects is the reason for stopping it for under-75s. I.e. there's no point on wasting money for generally healthy under-75s.

Why is this still news?!

They made their billions without testing their products sufficiently! People died as a result of these clot shots!

They made their billions without testing their products sufficiently! People died as a result of these clot shots!

All completely false, all vaccines were safe and effective, reduced risks compared with the infection and saved millions of lives, simply some of the vaccines were better than the others.

Making false statements about vaccines to mislead people to reject them puts their health and life at risk and it is deeply irresponsible.

I took both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and I prefer the Pfizer. Still, four people just on the block where I live died from the covid virus, the youngest only 56, the others in their 70s, all before any vaccines were available to them. I wish the Moderna vaccine, or any vaccine, had been available at that time. I miss my friend.

@1glenn,

I don't understand why your comment was downvoted. Your comment matches what I saw at the time. People were dying, hospitals were getting full, and people waiting for treatment for other problems had to wait longer.

https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality

38000 in the US alone!

yeh nothing to see here…

The issue with the reporting on Covid deaths was died from Covid or with Covid a very big difference. In Australia and I am sure around the world people with broken limbs who happed to have Covid were reported as being hospitalised due to Covid which is obviously false. Doctors were scared to label any death or side effect Covid dependent as their jobs literally depended on it!

That should read “Covid vaccine dependent “

38000 in the US alone!

Wrong claims repeatedly debunked make for terribly bad arguments.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-health/dont-fall-vaers-scare-tactic

When deaths are LOWER in the vaccinated population it makes no sense to count every death as if it was related to the vaccines, in reality people will keep dying from all other causes, so this is transparently wrong claim to make.

The issue with the reporting on Covid deaths was died from Covid or with Covid a very big difference

Exactly the same difference as in other diseases and conditions like malnutrition, if you only count people that died from malnutrition and not those that died with it (but from problems that depended on manutrition) you would have completely solved the problem, after all the vast majority of fatal victims "only" die from related causes.

And no, quick, gross weekly numbers that count everything until better classification is done in time do not conform the data that is included in studies and that proves the huge burden covid became. That is just another false argument repeatedly debunked.

Repeatedly debunked by the pharmaceutical industry….

That argument runs both ways!

a large proportion of the reported Covid deaths were not from Covid but simply that the patients had Covid at the time of death!

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-backs-lawsuits-against-pfizer-over-covid-19-vaccine-safety-the-tide-is-turning-101719371877572.html

I guess the US states that sued Pfizer for lying about side effects and efficacy had nothing better to do….

debunk that!

Wonder how fast RFK Jr will try and ensure that absolutely nobody is allowed to take it.

Repeatedly debunked by the pharmaceutical industry….

Debunked by science, so completely that you could not make even an argument to defend the false claim. That is how strong the debunking is.

That argument runs both ways!

When you are unable to present actually scientific evidence to prove your claim it is clear the argument only runs one way, else you could bring any respected institution of medical science supporting your point, yet you can never bring any.

a large proportion of the reported Covid deaths were not from Covid but simply that the patients had Covid at the time of death!

No, they are not. That is again something well debunked but that you choose to repeat to mislead people

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/covid-deaths-not-overcounted-us/

I guess the US states that sued Pfizer for lying about side effects and efficacy had nothing better to do….

Unfortunately when political actors can't get the scientific evidence to support what they want the people to believe in order to be better manipulated they have the recourse of using the legal system, as if that would in any way change the scientific facts. When the best expert you could find to support your point is a self-described mentally handicapped person that have been found to lie repeatedly and that think infections are not produced by microbes you are also accepting that there was nobody even remotely credible to support your point so you had to use the bottom of the barrel.

I mean, RFKjr debunks himself routinely, it is hardly any effort to just repeat what he has said to make it more obvious.