Ed. Note: As much as I wanted to write about RFK Jr.’s inane decision to cancel almost $500 million in vaccine contracts, I realized that I was no more qualified to challenge his action than he was to take it. Instead, I have asked an academic who is exceptionally well qualified to address the mess. This academic has chosen to stay anonymous for obvious reasons, but I very much appreciate his effort here.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy announced his decision to end 500 million dollars’ worth of development contracts covering 22 projects on vaccines using messenger RNA (mRNA). This is a decision that will result in many unnecessary deaths, especially when (not if) the next pandemic arrives. Former Surgeon General Jerome Adams stated, “this move is going to cost lives. University of Minnesota Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm said, “I don’t think I’ve seen a more dangerous decision in public health in my 50 years in the business.”
Vaccines based upon mRNA are most familiar because two of them are directed against Covid-19. Several years ago one of the nation’s most respected medical scientists, Professor Eric Topol lauded them: “This will go down in history as one of science and medical research’s greatest achievements, perhaps the most impressive.” Secretary Kennedy claimed that these and other vaccines against respiratory viruses “pose more risks than benefits,” but Stanford University School of Medicine Professor Jake Scott was unequivocal: “the claim that mRNA vaccine technology poses more risk than benefits is simply false.” Dr. Steven Novella explained that an international, retrospective study on 99 million doses of these vaccines, “found that the benefits far outweigh the risks,” a result that confirmed earlier research. One estimate is that mRNA vaccines saved three million lives in the US alone.
Secretary Kennedy stated, “This dynamic drives a phenomen[on] called [antigenic] shift, meaning that the vaccine paradoxically encourages new mutations and can actually prolong pandemics as the virus constantly mutates to escape the protective effects of the vaccine.” Dr. David Gorski refuted this argument: “Of course, one also must point out that the best ‘incubator’ for evolutionary selection pressure to produce more transmissible variants that can evade the immune response is to have a virus circulating freely among billions of people and that there is nothing special about “natural” [survivor] immunity compared to vaccine-acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 that would make it any less of an evolutionary selection pressure to select for more transmissible variants…”. Dr. Novella concurred: “Widespread vaccination therefore decreases new mutations and variants.” In other words, selective evolutionary pressure is the same, no matter what the reason, and the more a virus is allowed to multiply, the more variants will arise. The alternative that Secretary Kennedy suggested, a universal vaccine, might charitably be described as an attempt to hit a 600-yard hole-in-one.
Making vaccines from mRNA increases speed and flexibility, factors that are critical in responding to the next pandemic. Dr. Scott lamented, “What poses risk is abandoning the most adaptable, scalable vaccine platform we’ve ever had…Halting future development undermines pandemic preparedness at a time when we can least afford it.” Dr. Paul Offit, co-inventor of a vaccine against the rotavirus, indicated that this cancellation might put the US in a “more dangerous” position to respond to a future pandemic. Former USDA official Peter Lurie said that the US was “turning its back on one of the most promising tools to fight the next pandemic.”
The pullback of funds follows the June cancellation of a 600 million dollar contract to develop a mRNA vaccine to combat human bird flu, a disease which might develop into a pandemic. “Canceling this contract makes the world less safe,” said Johns Hopkins scholar Dr. Amesh Adalja.
Vaccines against other infectious diseases are also being developed through mRNA technology. In addition, vaccines for various types of cancer immunotherapy are being studied in clinical trials. The goal is to stimulate the immune system to eliminate the cancer cells. Even more remarkable is that some of these vaccines are tailored to individual patients.
Some people are concerned that mRNA vaccines can alter their DNA, but this concern is unfounded. To adapt Alexis Hubaud’s analogy, DNA is a cookbook that stays in the library. Messenger RNA is a recipe written in haste on a scrap of paper and taken into the kitchen. A vaccine made of mRNA is another piece of paper, but this won’t change the contents of the cookbook, which stayed in the library.
Dr. Novella concluded, “[C]ongress still has the power to act. The simplest way would be to pass new legislation which specifically restores the funding. I don’t see this as very likely to happen – but perhaps if there is sufficient outrage from the public (write your congressman and senators) something might happen.” If, conversely, no pressure is forthcoming, Congress will not prevent this monumental folly.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This was a great guest post. Thanks, SHG. Also, I could not help but think of the whiplash between the COVID mRNA vaccines and now this . . .
[Ed. Note: Dammit, Janet.]
Rick Bright, who used to head the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) said, “We’re taking our country from 2025 back to 1940…”
Somebody should tell Trump that RFK Jr implied that the Trump Vaccine killed more people than it saved.
Re Ed. Note: I appreciate you seeking out an expert, but being willing to follow the evidence instead of making dangerous politicized decisions contrary to evidence, was in fact an indicator that you were/are qualified to comment.
Indeed, given the reported extent of journal article fakery, even someone in a field isn’t necessarily better than a non-expert’s opinion (like the person who falsely pushed his article that vaccines cause autism).
“’After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses,’ Kennedy said.” David, I share your frustration. One difference is that we don’t know which experts Secretary Kennedy meant, but the experts quoted here have known track records. If anyone wants to claim that Eric Topol is a shill for Big Pharma, good luck with that.
But how “to follow the evidence”? Is that like “doing my own research”? The way some feel now about this mRNA vaccine news may mirror the reaction others had on learning of nanochips in the DNA-altering COVID-19 vaccines. How do we decide which experts to believe, especially in an era in which “elite” is derogatory?
I could read the literature but I can’t evaluate it. At least with the Monty Hall problem where public opinion was split, i could see that almost all the people who changed their minds went in one direction, so i could assume that to be the correct answer. But how do you change a person’s vaccine stance? Science is not the answer as most of us are scientifically illiterate. A logical argument might work with some, but there are plenty of people who aren’t logical (the basis of many advertisements).
The people whom Secretary Kennedy installed (Drs. Makary, Bhattacharya, and until recently Prasad) collectively have a bad track record. We know this through the Jonathan Howard’s book and his blog contributions, where he cataloged things that they said that were untrue. Their backgrounds do not align particularly well with their jobs. On the other hand Paul Offit helped to develop a vaccine.
Ironic. President Trump claimed that he was responsible for the success of the COVID vaccine, and now RFK, Jr. wants to end funding for mRNA research (research that led to the development of the COVID vaccines). My only criticism of the COVID vaccine rollout (and it is a very small criticism because there was some effort to do so) was that I thought the government could have done a better job explaining why the vaccines developed were so safe and that while being vaccinated might not prevent you from getting COVID they would protect you from dying from it. (But I was lucky, my wife is a biochemist and was able to explain why these vaccines were miraculous and very, very safe.)
I’m not surprised to see that the same con artists who sold us the scamdemic and the accompanying MRNA “miracle cure” are still peddling the same lies. Nor am I surprised to see NYT readers still believing those lies. Don’t forget to line up for your 99th covid booster!
Notice the Host’s humility. Notice your lack of any such virtue. Stop proving me right, stupid.
Did you expect anything else from him?
Secretary Kennedy spoke untruths during the Samoan measles outbreak, then he and Dr. Prasad…revised…this sorry chapter of history. Does that count for nothing with you?
A couple of things here.
Your expert impeaches themself. There is indeed something special about mucosal ““natural” [survivor] immunity compared to vaccine-acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2”.
These shots induce a class switch to IgG4. It has been replicated many times. It may in fact be inherent to the platform. Perhaps RFK did not bring it up, but any expert that extols the virtue of this platform while ignoring the elephant in the room disqualifies themselves.
[Ed. Note: Actual information about lgG4 immune tolerance.]
I cannot see how an interesting result concerning IgG4 is sufficient to justify forclosing all work on this technology. See S. Pillai, “Is it bad, is it good, or is IgG4 just misunderstood?” Science Immunology, 7 Feb 2023, Vol 8, Issue 81
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327.
I did read that commentary when it came out. I’m sure it improved the author’s K-index immensely. It was cited by many of the usual suspects who decried the class switch as “nothingburger!”. The basis for the author’s Alfred E. Newman approach appeared flawed and a bit circular at the time.
See N. Hall, “The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists” Genome Biology, 30 July 2014
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0
Our gracious host provided a link to a study that applies much more rigor to the subject. Section 3 is relevant to your comment. Is the class switch an “interesting result” or a known failure mode? They provide several historical examples in which vaccine induced class switch to IgG4 correlates with results that were decidedly not good.
If it is a known failure mode, why did it take so long to test for it? Why was the issue discovered in Europe instead of the US? Why did we give it to children? Did we proceed recklessly?
Pillai states, “Accurately deciphering the negative consequences, if any, of increased IgG4 levels will be difficult.” Perhaps, but not impossible.
See Martín Pérez, Carla et al., Post-vaccination IgG4 and IgG2 class switch associates with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections, Journal of Infection, Volume 90, Issue 4, 106473
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(25)00067-2/fulltext
The class switch is also induced in children.
Kobbe, Robin, et al., Delayed Induction of Noninflammatory SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific IgG4 Antibodies Detected 1 Year After BNT162b2 Vaccination in Children. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 43(12):p 1200-1203, December 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000004488
I do not claim expertise to judge this platform. There are those with expertise that are approaching the subject with rigor. I thank them for that.
One problem with the study by Uversky is the presence of William Makis as one of the coauthors. He was terminated from his hospital position; his medical license is inactive; and he is pushing ivermectin for off-label uses. The switch to more IgG4 was also seen when inactivated-virus vaccines were used: Liu Z 2024 Biosafety and Health 6:153-164, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259005362400051X?via%3Dihub; therefore, this effect is not unique to mRNA-based vaccines. In a series of tweets Edward Nirenberg discussed the class switch (https://x.com/ENirenberg/status/1607539359556714496). He said in part… anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty would have a very hard time making the case that third doses are unnecessary, unsafe, or ineffective…”
One concern with the study by Martín Pérez and coworkers is that it uses infections as its metric. Why did they not examine prevention of hospitalization or death? Even if future research indicates that class switching is a significant problem, it might indicate the need to make booster shots using a different platform, such as protein subunits. Yet RFK Jr criticized the Novavax approach and instead expressed enthusiasm for a universal vaccine. The latter would take a long time, even under the optimistic assumption that it could be created.