At first glance, the data referenced by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to support the cancellation of approximately $500 million in federal grants for mRNA vaccine research might seem compelling.
The agency mentions about 400 research papers compiled in a 181-page document titled “COVID-19 mRNA ‘vaccine’ harms research collection.”
In a video on X, Kennedy stated, “After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA,” that HHS concluded mRNA technology presents more risks than benefits for respiratory viruses like COVID-19 and the flu. He added that they reviewed the science, listened to experts, and took action.
I can say unequivocally that this was the most dangerous public health decision I have ever seen made by a government body.
— Michael Osterholm, University of Minnesota
But is that really the case? A closer examination of the data shows that most of the cited studies—about 360 of them—are more focused on the impacts of COVID-19 infection rather than the vaccines themselves.
Furthermore, many studies referencing vaccines were conducted on lab mice, with some administering vaccines via methods not applicable to human use, such as direct brain injections or intravenous delivery.
What’s more concerning is the lack of robust evidence backing Kennedy’s claims. The data collection does not include well-supported studies affirming the safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines, even overlooking recent studies, such as one from Danish researchers involving over a million recipients of the latest mRNA COVID booster published on July 28.
This study looked at 29 possible adverse side effects, like heart or kidney issues, and found “no statistically significant risk” associated with the vaccine. Concerns about myocarditis, a type of heart inflammation frequently highlighted by anti-vaccine proponents, were found to be mostly mild and short-lived. In fact, cases were more prevalent—and serious—among unvaccinated individuals infected with COVID.
The agency also didn’t include a study estimating lives saved by the COVID vaccines, which suggested that from the start of the global vaccination effort in 2020, vaccines may have saved up to 4 million lives. This study was acknowledged as conservative, and other estimates indicated that vaccines prevented over 18 million hospitalizations and more than 3 million COVID-related deaths in the U.S. in just the first two years.
When weighing these numbers against Kennedy’s assertion that mRNA vaccines pose “more risks than benefits,” it raises serious doubts about the decision-making process at the Department of Health and Human Services under his stewardship.
Infectious disease expert Jake Scott from Stanford Medical School reviewed Kennedy’s data citations and concluded they illustrate “textbook confirmation bias”—seeking out information that fits pre-existing beliefs. In this situation, that belief is Kennedy’s clear anti-vaccine stance.
The disparity between Kennedy’s data claims and established facts concerning vaccine safety and effectiveness has led many experts to deem his cancellation of 22 mRNA vaccine research contracts a reckless and detrimental move for science and public health. Michael Osterholm emphasized, “I can say unequivocally that this was the most dangerous public health decision I have ever seen made by a government body.”
If Kennedy truly believes that the effects of mRNA vaccines are not well understood, a reasonable approach would be to advocate for more research, not less. However, HHS did not respond to requests for comment.
A brief overview of mRNA technology: these vaccines work by instructing the body on how to create parts of a pathogen for the immune system to recognize and combat. The advantages of this technology are substantial. Rapidly engineered vaccines can combat newly emerging pathogens, which is crucial for preemptively addressing potential pandemics.
The potential applications of mRNA vaccines span far beyond current uses, with ongoing research exploring targets such as flu, HIV, hepatitis C, malaria, tuberculosis, and cancer. Notably, Drew Weissman and Katalin Karikó were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2023 for their work on this technology.
The U.S. government had invested $2.5 billion in developing the mRNA COVID vaccines, particularly through Operation Warp Speed, which was part of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)—the agency that Kennedy has instructed to terminate mRNA contracts.
Even though former President Trump praised this development, he later altered his stance as vaccines became targets for conspiracy theories from right-wing groups. Kennedy’s explanation of his decision on X is filled with significant misunderstandings about how these vaccines work, according to scientific consensus and real-world data.
He suggested mRNA vaccines have poor performance against upper respiratory viruses, but this contradicts evidence of lives saved and hospitalizations prevented. Data from the CDC shows the COVID case rate among unvaccinated individuals was significantly higher compared to the vaccinated population.
He further claimed that vaccines could encourage COVID mutations; however, experts point out that such mutations occur naturally and that widespread vaccination actually reduces the chances for new variants to emerge.
The data package Kennedy’s agency presented, which supports the decision to cancel research, isn’t based on U.S. government scientists. In fact, its co-authors are identified as Martin Wucher, a dentist; Byram Bridle, a faculty member at a Canadian veterinary college; and Erik Sass, a nonfiction author.
I tried reaching out to these individuals for comments but didn’t receive any. The compilation appears to be derived from material for a book titled “TOXIC SHOT: Facing the Dangers of the COVID ‘Vaccines,’” which features essays from prominent anti-vaccine advocates.
The compilation fails to convincingly support the claim for halting vaccine research. For example, one paper mentioned regarding myocarditis warns that “no causality can be assumed or established” between the condition and the vaccine due to a lack of a control group.
Kennedy’s recent decisions are likely to hinder American scientific progress for many years to come, potentially ceding the development of crucial medical technologies to other regions. Furthermore, a new NIH commissioner recently stated that “the mRNA platform is no longer viable” in public health, a sentiment likely fueled by the skepticism propagated by Kennedy and his fellow anti-vaccine advocates.
Ultimately, the mRNA platform may be viewed in hindsight as a monumental advancement in healthcare—just not within the United States.
