RFK Jr. Ends Federal Contracts To Develop mRNA Vaccines

from the true-colors dept

One of the more frustrating parts of the RFK Jr. experience is nailing down his views. Part of that is because he tends to keep quite vague about those views, especially when it comes to vaccines, depending on who he is talking to. When he’s running an anti-vaxxer organization, his views are specific and clear. Sitting in front of Congress in a confirmation hearing to run HHS, however, causes him to speak in generalities and non-committal answers. The other problem here is that RFK Jr. also just seems to lie a lot.

For example, way back in November of last year, after his HHS nomination, Kennedy did an interview with NPR. He was, of course, asked about his long anti-vaxxer history and what he planned for vaccines if confirmed to run HHS. Here was his response.

Kennedy said in his NPR interview that vaccines were “not going to be taken away from anybody”.

He says he wants to improve the science on vaccine safety which he believes has “huge deficits” and that he wants good information so people “can make informed choices“.

And in previous hearings before Congress, Kennedy has specifically claimed he is not anti-vaccine.

So are we clear? Kennedy says he is not anti-vaccine, has never been anti-vaccine, and is not going to take vaccines away from anyone.

Fast forward through thousands of words about Kennedy that indicate the opposite to the present, where Kennedy is once again doing his anti-vaccine routine and is pulling the funding and contracts for mRNA vaccines for respiratory diseases. You know, like COVID, or influenza.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary and a longtime vaccine critic, announced in a statement Tuesday that $500 million worth of vaccine development projects, all using mRNA technology, will be halted.

The projects — 22 of them — are being led by some of the nation’s leading pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Moderna to prevent flu, COVID-19 and H5N1 infections.

Now, it should be emphasized that it’s only mRNA vaccines that are being defunded… for now. There are actually four different kinds of vaccines out there, with mRNA being but one. And there is some reasonable opinion out there that mRNA technology may have been over-hyped during the pandemic, though for obvious reasons, since it represented the light at the end of a death-tunnel. Though there’s also plenty of evidence that mRNA has the potential for some pretty big health breakthroughs. That’s how you get the same vaccine researcher, Adam Finn at the University of Bristol in the UK, to say both of these things.

Each has advantages and disadvantages, but Prof Finn argues we “overhyped” mRNA vaccines during the pandemic to the exclusion of other approaches, and now there is a process of adjusting.

“But to swing the pendulum so far that mRNA is useless and has no value and should not be developed or understood better is equally stupid, it did do remarkable things,” he says.

If you want a little bit of the gory medicine here, I’ll try to make it quick and simple. The advantage of mRNA technology is the speed with which you can produce iterative shots for variants of viruses. Other types of vaccines, such as inactivated or attenuated vaccines, tend to be more effective and preventing illness and keeping people from becoming contagious because they give the body’s immune system more, oh, let’s call it “virus meat” than the mRNA vaccine, which only provides instructions for the body to build specific proteins. So if you have a virus that remains fairly static, such as measles, an attenuated vaccine works great, because it offers more and longer protection and you don’t have to worry about the virus changing to evade your vaccine.

But if we’re talking about COVID, which branches into variants rapidly, you lose some of the effectiveness of an attenuated vaccine and make yourself far less nimble to combat those variants. There is utility in mRNA technology, in other words, as there is in the other flavors of immunization. Nuance is what is needed here, with granular decision making on using different vaccine technology depending on the illness.

From Kennedy, however, we get only this.

Kennedy said in the Tuesday statement that he wants the health department to move away from mRNA vaccines, calling on the department to start “investing in better solutions.” He provided no details on what those technologies might be.

He’s a proven liar, so I doubt that there will be much investment in solutions that involve other types of vaccines. He’s already railed against those other vaccination technologies, too, after all.

But if America really wants to invest in solutions that will move healthcare in the country forward, I would like to suggest we start with investing in some cardboard boxes. That way Kennedy will have something with which to clean out his office so we can send him on his way.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “RFK Jr. Ends Federal Contracts To Develop mRNA Vaccines”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
57 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

RFK is literally entering the war on cancer by joining the side of cancer.

No; RFK is merely pulling the U.S.A. out of that “war”. Other countries will take the lead, and are already recruiting.

It’s hardly the first time that a government, through its own stupidity, has crippled itself; see Wikipedia’s “brain drain” article for details. It’s also been suggested by some (but not on that page) that religious fervor has historically interfered with scientific advancement.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

One of the more frustrating parts of the RFK Jr. experience is nailing down his views.

Have you considered that, like Trump, there probably aren’t any? No underlying philosophy; just some post-hoc rationalizations to justify whatever whims the person has, based on whatever they think the public will buy.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Heart of Dawn (profile) says:

Re: the world will move on without you

Here’s a fun fact, MAGA; science got you the Moon Landing, science got you the Manhattan Project.

Giving up on science will simply mean that another country will get to own The Next Big Thing. Expect India and China to develop revolutionary new technologies and claim the next steps in advancing humanity while you sit there rolling coal.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The science is actually that the covid vaccine is remarkably poor vaccine that did very very little to reduce transmission and almost certainly has net negative health for people under 30, but was mandated anyway. (simply because there are real, serious side effects and the risk of death for healthy young people was basically zero)

That’s the science, well supported by data. But you don’t actually believe in science. You believe in yelling “Science!” like a religious mantra, even tho you don’t understand it at all. (I do)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Science” and “Eugenics” are two different things, very unrelated to each other. One is evidence based, the other is entirely vibes. I’ve been following mRNA vaccine tech for the last 24 years of its development. I’m pretty sure I understand it better than someone who parrot’s Kennedy’s pseudoscience garbage.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“Science” and “Eugenics” are two different things, very unrelated to each other.

ORLY? FYI, modern eugenics uses the results of scientific research to rid the world of so-called “useless eaters” by doctors pushing prospective parents toward medical abortion after a positive result on an amniocentesis test, for example.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The science is actually that the covid vaccine is remarkably poor vaccine that did very very little to reduce transmission

Was it the vaccine that did that, or was it the lack of giving a shit about transmissibility from people who thought wearing a mask to protect others (and themselves) from catching COVID was literally Nazi fascism?

and almost certainly has net negative health for people under 30

Would you mind repeating this, but in a way that has an actual understandable point?

there are real, serious side effects and the risk of death for healthy young people was basically zero

Numerous “young people” died from COVID (or health complications that were exacerbated by COVID); not nearly as many people, young or old, died from the COVID vaccine.

you don’t actually believe in science

Which do you believe in: fact-based science that disagrees with your opinions or vibe-based science that confirms your biases?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

mRNA tech has a lot of issues. The covid vaccine was rushed out (fair, it was an emergency) but then mandated for very low-risk populations (not fair, not even a little bit).

It has demonstrable serious side effects, including myocarditis (some acute enough to cause cardiac events) and bad effects on pregnant women and reduced female fertility (probably the same thing at different stages). Oh, also some nasty blood clots for some women on the pill. Many female soldiers who were trying to get pregnant were advised (by their doctors) not to take it and wound up forced out of the military.

It had very low efficacy rates, only low single digit % effects on infection and transmission rates. Which is the only possible justification for mandating vaccination. It did significantly lower mortality for older people when they eventually got infected, which is great! But that is not at all a reason to mandate vaccination.

And because it has serious side effects (strangely most affecting young people) and the risk of death from covid for a healthy young person was basically zero (go ahead, look it up) that meant it almost certainly had a net negative health effect on anyone under 30. And it DEFINITELY never should have been given to children. Shouldn’t have even been authorized for use on children, yet several school districts were talking about requiring it.

And of course, no one, anywhere, has a right to public grant funds. Those should be granted based on merit and cost-benefit analysis. mRNA vaccines don’t really have it.

That way Kennedy will have something with which to clean out his office so we can send him on his way.

You…you realize you lost, right? Your next chance to “send someone packing” will be 2028, and honestly your odds don’t look good.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

risk of death from covid for a healthy young person was basically zero

Sure, the risk of death is low (apart from in neonates, where it’s actually unacceptably high) except we now have millions of kids with life-changing chronic health conditions that we have no treatment for, whose education has been ruined by permanent neurological damage from infection. Thankfully in the US at least the vaccine helped to mitigate that, while not preventing it. The UK, which didn’t, paints a FAR worse picture of the consequences in long covid stats from the ongoing studies in kids now publishing the data for the five year mark.

David says:

Re:

The blood clot thing was AstraZeneca, not an mRNA vaccine, if I remember correctly.

The point with vaccine mandates is not the effect on an individual’s health but on stopping the proliferation of an epidemic. For example, rubella infections tend to be fairly benign. Except on pregnant women (and like many infections, old and/or immune-compromised folks), so you don’t want them endemic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The blood clot thing was AstraZeneca…

Which was subsequently withdrawn from circulation as a result even though the odds of getting a blood clot from it was 000.1%, which is weird. After all, no one is telling airlines they should no longer provide their services, and the odds of getting a DVT on a long haul flight is about 100 times greater than the chances of getting a blood clot from the AstraZeneca vaccine.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Arianity (profile) says:

Re:

the risk of death from covid for a healthy young person was basically zero

that meant it almost certainly had a net negative health effect on anyone under 30

The risk from vaccination was also “basically zero”. If you actually look at the relevant rates, the risk from vaccination was lower than from covid, even for young people. You’re comparing two small numbers, and cherrypicking one as “basically zero”. Young people were generally better off getting vaccinated even while being much lower risk.

It had very low efficacy rates, only low single digit % effects on infection and transmission rates. Which is the only possible justification for mandating vaccination.

The efficacy rates were quite high for original covid. It was only until we started getting more variants did it drop (although not to single digits, unless you’re cherrypicking fading protection/low doses etc). The original efficacy was in the 90%’s (somewhere between ~91-96%) for infection. Transmission was similarly impacted by variants. Later variants also had much higher R_0’s and faster incubation times.

This is also ignoring that it’s efficacy against hospitalization was much higher than it was just for infection/transmission. And that itself was a valid justification, especially when hospitals were strained.

(Sidenote: The U.S. also never actually had a widespread general mandate. A few exceptions for military/federal employees etc, but generally it was set by employers, not the government)

Those should be granted based on merit and cost-benefit analysis. mRNA vaccines don’t really have it.

Medical science grants are already chosen based on those things, by actual experts. mRNA cleared the bar by miles.

Mamba (profile) says:

Re:

Out of all the dumb shit you’re saying that is wrong “your odds don’t look good.” Is easily the dumbest. The odds are already in Dems favor, and once the true stupidity and cruelty of the BBB are felt by the MAGA, it’s gonna be ugly. Crops are rotting in the field, farm bankruptcies are already double last year. Vegas is absolutely fucked. Florida is like quintuple fucked. Red states in general are fucked.

JMT (profile) says:

Re:

…the risk of death from covid for a healthy young person was basically zero…

You people are so heartbreakingly fucking selfish.

If a healthy young person didn’t catch Covid because they were vaccinated then they also didn’t transmit it to somebody or multiple people who could suffer serious effects or die. That’s literally how herd immunity works. But no, you’re all “I’m fine, fuck everyone else”.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Kennedy says he is not anti-vaccine, has never been anti-vaccine, and is not going to take vaccines away from anyone.

Kennedy, like the flu, is constantly mutating, changing form and target every year or so, and since no mRNA could heal him from that, he decided that this technology is no use.
And Robert Malone has strictly nothing to do with this decision, of course.

Anonymous Coward says:

“If you want a little bit of the gory medicine here, I’ll try to make it quick and simple. The advantage of mRNA technology is the speed with which you can produce iterative shots for variants of viruses.”

Correct. And this is of particular importance in the cases of zoonotic viruses (“zoonotic” == “can be transmitted from animals to people”) because those have a propensity to mutate into myriad variants at a significantly higher rate than [some] other viruses. With H5N1 looming on the horizon — and let’s note that the CFR (case fatality rate) for it is about 10X that of SARS-CoV-2 — we need a fully operational mRNA vaccine pipeline up and running today.

We may dodge this. I certainly hope so. But if we don’t, Kennedy’s decision is going to kill millions. And that, of course, is the idea: every decision made by the administration is driven by the goal of maximizing the death count.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was man-made is sketchy, at best. The scientific consensus is that it had a zoonotic origin, and yes, I’ve read the original research papers.

Also, consider Occam’s Razor: suppose that you’re trying to engineer a virus as a weapon. One of your primary design goals will be a high CFR but with an infection progression that isn’t too quick. (If the infection quickly kills everyone, then few people live long enough to spread it.) There’s no indication of this in SARS-CoV-2, and that’s not because the techniques for it aren’t known.

So in order to conclude that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered as a bioweapon, we must simultaneously believe two contradictory things: first, that the Chinese were good enough to create it; second, that they were bad enough not to give it highly desirable characteristics. This seems highly unlikely, at best — and not at all congruent with their history of excellence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was man-made is sketchy, at best.

FYI, the evidence outlined in this book is clear and far from “sketchy”.

The scientific consensus is that it had a zoonotic origin, and yes, I’ve read the original research papers.

Here’s a whole list of lab leak incidents, many of them involving diseases with zoonotic origins, thus you’ve disproved nothing.

Also, consider Occam’s Razor: suppose that you’re trying to engineer a virus as a weapon.

The only one arguing that is you. Or are you trying to claim that man made climate change was deliberately created as a weapon against Earth? TL;DR: Just because something can be shown to be manmade, doesn’t mean it was deliberately created, and even where it was, it doesn’t automatically follow that there are particular motives behind its creation. Stop ascribing motives of your own to others, you violent POS.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Actually, they did. I’ve read the book AC linked to (though I got my copy from Amazon) and it does indeed say what they assert it does. However, given the reading comprehension issues you’ve displayed in the past, I’ll link you to this page making the exact same allegation (which I believe the Chinese government attempted to cover up not as some kind of conspiracy, but merely as an attempt to “save face”).

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...