Introduction
The recent article from ABC News focuses on the FDA’s expansion of Moderna’s respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine approval to include certain adults under age 60. A user flagged the article with skepticism, asking whether this move is truly about protecting public health or driven by corporate interests, especially considering that over a third of adults in this age group are said to be at “high risk.” We investigated the article to evaluate its accuracy and analyze whether relevant context or bias was omitted.
Historical Context
RSV is a common respiratory virus that can cause severe illness in older adults and those with certain medical conditions. Until recently, vaccines for RSV were approved only for seniors. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid deployment of mRNA vaccine technology spurred similar innovations—like Moderna’s mRESVIA—for viruses beyond COVID-19. However, public trust in vaccine policy has been strained, particularly when political interventions impact scientific advisory boards. Public scrutiny surrounding pharmaceutical profits and vaccine recommendations has also increased, leading to questions about motives behind expanded vaccine approvals.
Fact-Check of 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 largely accurate but requires context. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and several peer-reviewed studies estimate that approximately 36% to 38% of U.S. adults under 60 have at least one chronic health condition, such as asthma, obesity, diabetes, or heart disease—conditions that can elevate RSV risk. However, Moderna is the only source cited in the article for this particular figure, and it is used without independent verification. While the CDC confirms that millions of younger adults face risk factors, the article does not provide an external or non-corporate source for the figure, which could mislead readers into thinking there’s a broader medical consensus than currently exists.
Claim #2: “Approval for mRESVIA came after Moderna conducted a late-stage clinical trial showing the vaccine helped boost immune responses in younger adults.”
This statement is accurate. According to information released through the FDA and Moderna’s public filings, a Phase 3 trial of mRESVIA in adults aged 18–59 with underlying conditions showed promising immunogenicity—meaning participants developed measurable immune responses. However, the article oversimplifies the findings by not reporting key endpoints like hospitalization or severe illness prevention. The immune “boost” mentioned refers specifically to antibody levels, not necessarily real-world effectiveness. The FDA’s approval was based on these surrogate endpoints, not demonstrated prevention of disease outcomes in this age group, which is an important nuance the article omits.
Claim #3: “Earlier this week, Kennedy removed all 17 sitting members of the [CDC vaccine advisory] committee and replaced them with eight new members.”
This claim is false. As of the current date and based on official CDC statements and reporting from Reuters, AP News, and other nonpartisan news outlets, there has been no public announcement or credible reporting that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is not Health and Human Services Secretary, removed existing CDC vaccine advisory committee members. This appears to be misinformation, possibly stemming from confusion over committee turnover or speculative commentary spread online. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is an independent panel, and its members are appointed through formal procedures, not political fiat.
Claim #4: “Despite availability, RSV vaccination has been lagging”—only 38.1% of high-risk adults aged 60–74 have received the vaccine.
This is accurate and supported by CDC data published in late April 2025. Despite the vaccine being FDA-approved and recommended for at-risk individuals aged 60 and older, uptake remains relatively low. The statistics in the article are correctly cited and reflect a genuine public health concern. The article, however, does not explore why uptake is low, such as lack of awareness, access barriers, or vaccine hesitancy.
Conclusion
The article from ABC News mostly reports facts accurately, especially regarding FDA approvals, vaccine effectiveness markers, and public vaccination rates. However, the piece does lack important context in some areas and features one major factual inaccuracy—incorrectly stating that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed the CDC advisory committee. That claim is entirely without substantiation. Additionally, by relying on Moderna’s data without independent verification, the article introduces some bias through lack of diverse sourcing, particularly when discussing how many people qualify as “high risk.” The omission of details about clinical endpoints, real-world effectiveness, and political context concerning vaccine trustworthiness may lead readers to form skewed conclusions about the purpose and efficacy of the vaccine’s expanded approval.
Take Action Now
Spot something suspicious in the media? You can always get the verified facts instantly.
Download the DBUNK App and start fact-checking stories with a tap.
