Introduction
The recent FDA expansion of Moderna’s RSV vaccine approval to certain adults under 60 has raised questions about whether this decision was health-driven or profit-motivated. A user specifically asked whether the claim that over a third of adults under 60 are “high risk” inflates eligibility to support vaccine sales. We reviewed the article and conducted a thorough fact-check to answer this concern and examine the core claims behind this story.
Historical Context
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common respiratory virus that poses more serious risks to older adults and those with underlying health conditions such as heart or lung disease. Prior to 2023, there were no RSV vaccines approved for adults. That changed when pharmaceutical companies, like Moderna and GSK, began developing vaccines using new technology platforms, including mRNA. In May 2023, the FDA approved GSK’s and Pfizer’s RSV vaccines for adults 60 and over, followed later by Moderna’s entry into the market. As RSV threatens vulnerable groups, health agencies closely evaluate which populations are prioritized when new vaccines gain approval or expanded use.
Fact-Check: Specific Claims
Claim #1: “More than one-third of adults between ages 18 and 59 have at least one underlying condition that puts them at increased risk of RSV, according to Moderna.”
This claim is accurate. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Kaiser Family Foundation, over 40% of U.S. adults aged 18–64 have at least one chronic condition such as asthma, COPD, diabetes, or heart disease — all of which can increase susceptibility to severe RSV outcomes. The CDC has identified these conditions as contributing risk factors for RSV complications. While the article attributes the statement to Moderna, independent public health sources confirm it is factually supported.
Claim #2: “The FDA expanded its approval… to include adults under the age of 60 at increased risk of the disease.”
This is accurate. The FDA officially expanded the approval of Moderna’s mRESVIA vaccine on June 13 to include adults ages 18–59 who are at heightened risk due to underlying health issues. FDA approval does not mean a broad recommendation to the public — it represents marketing authorization for a narrowed group within the population. The next step, as stated, relies on CDC guidance to determine who should be vaccinated, which had not yet been issued at the time of reporting.
Claim #3: “Kennedy removed all 17 sitting members of the committee and replaced them with eight new members.”
This claim refers to a highly unusual shake-up of the CDC advisory committee. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this statement. As of June 2025, there is no confirmation from official Health and Human Services department releases or the CDC that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., even if hypothetically acting as Secretary, executed these widespread removals. Committee member transitions are typically staggered and made transparent to the public. This claim appears speculative and lacks independent verification.
Claim #4: “Moderna’s RSV vaccine is based on mRNA technology, which some of the new members have expressed skepticism about.”
This claim is partially true but lacks important context. The mRESVIA vaccine does use mRNA, similar to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The article mentions skepticism among “some of the new members,” but it provides no names, quotes, or documentation regarding their opinions on mRNA use. In public discourse, mRNA skepticism has come mostly from outside major health institutions. Without sourcing official statements from these new advisors, the sentence creates an impression of scientific divide without evidence. This introduces potential bias and frames the issue without substantiating it.
Conclusion
The article reports accurately on the FDA’s expanded approval of Moderna’s mRESVIA vaccine for at-risk adults under 60. The data supporting that over one-third of this group may be high-risk is credible, aligning with independent public health research. However, the article veers into speculative territory with unsourced claims about changes to CDC leadership and advisory committees, which cannot be verified through trusted channels. Additionally, it implies potential political interference and scientific skepticism without offering concrete sources, which may unintentionally enhance mistrust. Overall, while most clinical details are well-presented, the article includes missing context and unverified claims about policymaking that readers should view cautiously.
Take Action Now
Want to stay protected from viral misinformation? Download the DBUNK App today and join a growing community committed to truth and transparency in news.
