Trump once hailed mRNA vaccines as 'miracle', RFK now halting advancement
Now, his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is effectively halting the vaccine technology's advancement. Kennedy announced Wednesday that the federal government is cancelling US$500 million (NZ$843 million) worth of mRNA research development contracts, putting an end to US-backed hopes for the vaccine technology to prevent future pandemics, treat cancer or prevent flu infections.
It's a sharp pivot from how Trump and top officials described the technology during his first term.
Here's a look at what Trump and some of his closest advisers have said about mRNA vaccines that were credited with slowing the pandemic five years ago.
Robert Redfield, Trump's director of the Centers for Disease Control
ADVERTISEMENT
'A Covid-19 vaccine is the thing that will get Americans back to normal everyday life,' said Redfield, in a September 16, 2020, statement.
Americans were still donning face masks as one of the few ways of protecting themselves from a virus that had killed nearly 200,000 in just over six months. Redfield promised that the new vaccines — developed for the first time using mRNA technology — would offer a return to normalcy.
Trump wanted to make sure Biden didn't get credit
'Don't let Joe Biden take credit for the vaccines ... because the vaccines were me, and I pushed people harder than they've ever been pushed before. The vaccines are — there are those that say it's one of the greatest things. It's a medical miracle.' Trump said on November 26, 2020, during a news conference in the White House.
Weeks earlier, Trump had lost the election in a bitter race against Democrat Joe Biden. As the Republican grappled with leaving Washington and continued to plan for the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines, he reminded reporters that he oversaw the development of the new shots.
'They say it's somewhat of a miracle and I think that's true,' Trump said on December 8, 2020, during a speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
The event celebrated Operation Warp Speed, the government-funded project that accelerated vaccine development with pharmaceutical companies. Trump was promoting the shots as the government prepared to offer them to frontline health workers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump's first-term health secretary, Alex Azar
'It's clear that many Americans are learning these vaccines are safe and extraordinarily effective,' Azar said on December 16, 2020, at a news conference.
The government was shipping out mRNA vaccines to states, preparing to distributed it to the masses. Azar noted that a vast majority of Americans — between 70% to 80%, according to polls — intended to get the new Covid-19 vaccine that would be available to the public in the coming months.
Gen. Gusave Perna, Trump's chief operating officer for pandemic response
'It takes somewhere between five and 10 years to put a vaccine on the street. Look what we did. Now, that's because of the great work of the scientists who had done the research on mRNA vaccines and others because of industry working on this, they just didn't wake up one day and start working on it,' Perna said during a podcast interview that aired on May 9, 2023.
Reflecting in an interview about his time overseeing Operation Warp Speed, Perna credited the mRNA technology with the government's ability to get shots in arms mere months after the pandemic started claiming lives in the US in 2020.
Trump supporters boo his vaccine accomplishments
ADVERTISEMENT
'Take credit because we saved tens of millions of lives. Take credit. Don't let them take that away from you,' Trump said on December 19, 2021 during a live interview with former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.
Daily Covid-19 deaths had ticked down to 1500 compared to 3000 from a year earlier after Americans began receiving their first doses of the mRNA vaccines.
Trump revealed to O'Reilly and the audience that he had just gotten a Covid-19 booster.
The crowd booed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
The American People Are Inwardly Dead. Are All Western Peoples?
The post mortems on the re-election of Donald Trump after his disastrous first term, and an interregnum of relative normalcy under Joe Biden, continue on both sides of the Atlantic. Confining their examination to the political level, the pundits are missing the mark by a mile. Skimming along the surface like water bugs, journalists like Jake Tapper and Ezra Klein the USA, and Timothy Garton Ash in the UK are focusing on the failure of Democrats to replace an aging and declining President Biden, who had promised to only run for one term, with a younger, more vibrant candidate. Without addressing the spiritual, cultural and philosophical levels of our descent into national and global darkness, we cannot understand how we came to this pass, much less how to halt the slide into the abyss. In short, the most powerful nation on Earth twice elected a fascistic narcissist because this nation had first lost its soul, it's essential intactness a people. The question is, given America's cultural influence in the global society, how many other peoples have inwardly expired? Looking no deeper than political excrescence and no further back than Biden's last two years, Tapper, Klein and Ash are united in blaming Joe for not getting out of the race earlier. In the words of the Brit, 'Had Biden cleared the way for a Democratic primary in autumn 2023 the strongest candidate could have defeated Trump, and the entire world would have been spared the disaster now unfolding.' The commentariat on both sides of the pond are clinging to the wisdom-of-the-people illusion as what passed for democracy corrodes in real time. They echo the refrain, 'In 2023 77% of Americans thought Biden was too old to be president for another four years,' but the Democratic poobahs wouldn't listen. Timothy Garton Ash makes a statement sure to rile up 97% of Americans: 'This partly stems from the 237-year-old US constitutional device of rolling your prime minister and monarch into one.' It's a bit rich for people upholding the decrepit institution of monarchy to criticise the modern-day empire that replaced their empire for not ousting a decrepit leader, given that Americans fought a war of independence to free us from their monarchy, which was already decrepit in 1775. With regard to the present, when 'the people' are moribund, it matters little how decent the candidate is. The way things played out was no accident of history, or the result of Jill Biden and the 'politburo' (their word) around Joe concealing his decrepitude. Even now, with the benefit of double hindsight, there's widespread willful blindness. Journalists, academics and the commentariat should have seen after Trump's coup attempt that a growing darkness had engulfed America, and without a basic change in course authoritarianism was inevitable. Now, it's much harder to rid a nation of a tyrant than to prevent him from rising to power. In a column I wrote in June of 2022, 'Indict the Bastard,' I said that if Trump wasn't indicted and tried for his political crimes in time to keep him out of office, he and the servile Republican Party would steal the election, as they had tried to do with the January 6 2020 coup attempt. Though I've never underestimated the stupidity of the American people, I didn't think Trump would win cleanly over Biden or Harris. At the moment the Repubs are brazenly planning to steal both the midterm elections. They're ruthlessly gerrymandering districts in Texas, and will do so in every other state they can under the direction of their dictator, who said today 'we're entitled' to add more Republican seats to the House and Senate. Trump knows that if the Democrats win both Houses of Congress, the House will impeach him for a third time, and this time, if the Democrats control the Senate, he'll be convicted and removed from office. The governors of California and New York are saying they're going to fight fire with fire. Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, called it a war yesterday. America is entering a gerrymandering civil war, but without a living, irate citizenry behind them, the Democrats are going to lose again. Deadness of the heart is the cultural and spiritual background that allowed the iniquity of Trumpism to emerge, just as it is the underlying reality that allows Netanyahu's campaign of starvation and genocide in Gaza to continue. Those who still have a beating chamber in their heart must face the virus of indifference if we are to rid ourselves of this global malignancy. The metaphysical momentum for our perilous predicament (and by 'our' I don't just mean Americans) has been building for a very long time. Here in California, the last best place on Earth, it's clear that man has reached the end of his long run, and no appeal to indigenous peoples or our indigenous past can meet the challenge we face as individuals and a species. Three or four of the nine core tipping points of the Earth's ecosystem have already been breached, and the rest are on the verge of being breached. The cornerstone nation-state has crumbled, as Israel's genocide in Gaza and Russia's WWI trench-warfare-plus-drones in Ukraine make a gut-wrenching mockery of the international/multilateral system. Radical change is imperative at all levels in a globalized world, but callow thinkers like Ezra Klein cling to a nationalistic framework and fantasise about 'abundance,' in an updated version of Reagan's trickle down economics of 40 years ago. Irrespective of the nationalistic mindset, that's an inherently false hope, since giving priority to material abundance ineluctably produces tremendous inequality. Why? Because it doesn't address human motivations of greed, power, comparison, competition and consumerism. Though the elites of media and academia have to think, speak and write within their prescribed lines and limits, those of us who aren't serving corporations or clicks can and must think more broadly, and especially, more deeply.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Defunding Of mRNA Vaccine Research In The US
This week, the US Health Department announced the cancellation of several mRNA vaccine development contracts. The cuts and restructuring of collaborations affect 22 projects worth about half a billion US dollars, and no new mRNA projects will be funded. The US Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., claimed mRNA vaccines don't provide effective protection against upper respiratory tract infections and said that funding would be shifted towards 'safer, broader vaccine platforms'. The SMC asked experts to comment on how this affects NZ and local mRNA vaccine research. Professor Kjesten Wiig, Co-director of the RNA Development Platform and Director of the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, comments: 'The recent decisions out of the US to cut funding for mRNA vaccine development represent a new low for the American medical and scientific community, one that risks undermining decades of progress in public health and infectious disease preparedness. 'At the Malaghan Institute, our research is not directly affected by US funding cuts. Likewise, the national RNA Development Platform continues to receive sustained support from the New Zealand Government. This backing allows us to focus on developing safe and effective RNA vaccines and therapeutics not just for human medicine but also for treatments that will benefit our primary industries, and for New Zealand specific problems. 'RNA is a proven, safe and transformative technology. Its potential extends well beyond the pandemic. In the absence of US leadership, there is an unprecedented opportunity for countries like New Zealand to step up to ensure this breakthrough science continues to benefit people globally.' No conflicts of interest. Our colleagues at the UK SMC have also gathered comments. A small selection follows—see their website for the full expert reaction. Prof Christopher Chiu, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Imperial College London, said: 'Hundreds millions of people received mRNA vaccines during the pandemic with no major ill effects, dramatically reducing the risk of severe COVID-19, hospitalisation and death. In this way, they played a critically important part in allowing society to return to normal. Overall, the mRNA vaccines have been shown to be very safe, although like all treatments they can cause side effects, mostly mild but including some rare severe reactions. It is misleading to single out mRNA vaccines for promoting mutations and failing to protect against common cold-like symptoms; this is true for all respiratory virus vaccines that are given by injection and can stimulate a protective immune response. Better protection is needed but until we have next-generation alternatives that can completely block infection in the nose and lung, mRNA vaccines will continue to be important and valuable.' No conflicts of interest. Dr David Elliman, Honorary Associate Professor, UCL, said: 'This is a very worrying development. mRNA vaccines were an extremely important tool in saving the lives of people from COVID. There is no reliable published evidence that supports RFK Jr's assertion that the vaccines encourage new mutations and, in so doing, may prolong pandemics. The evidence to support this should be made public, so that it can be examined, by experts in the field who have not been picked because of their anti-vaccine views. 'While this development is not only a retrograde step for the development of mRNA vaccines, of greater concern, perhaps, is that it reinforces the impression that, in spite of his protestations, RFK Jr is antivaccine. This has implications, not only for vaccination programmes in USA, but around the world. At a time when vaccination rates are falling globally, we need to follow the evidence, not ideologically led beliefs. Such misguided beliefs are likely to cause unnecessary suffering and death, particularly in children.' No conflicts of interest. Prof Robin Shattock, Professor of Mucosal Infection and Immunity, Imperial College London, said: What do we know about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines? 'Following their use in millions of individuals during the pandemic and using current technology, we have an extraordinary level of detail on the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines. In the context of COVID-19, these vaccines prevented millions of deaths and hospitalisations. As for mRNA vaccines against other infectious these would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Do mRNA vaccines increase the mutation rate of viruses? 'No, there is no scientific evidence that this is the case. Different viruses mutate at different rates, for example influenza virus changes on a seasonal basis, SARS-CoV2 continues to vary irrespective of whether individuals have received mRNA vaccines. What are the impacts of this funding cut on public health and health research in the US and globally? 'This will impoverish American resilience to future pandemics. But more importantly, it will be used by some to legitimise unfounded claims that mRNA vaccines and vaccines in general are unsafe. This is directly opposite to the scientific evidence-based approach to science. This technology offers real benefits not only against infectious diseases, but also in our fight against cancer, autoimmunity, and hereditary diseases. If known, what data might he [R.F. Kennedy Jr] be referring to and how does it compare with other existing evidence? 'It is unclear as to what evidence he is referring to, given that these vaccines have been highly scrutinised by regulatory bodies on an ongoing basis (FDA, EMEA, MHRA). He has provided no evidence to show that alternative vaccines are any different to mRNA vaccines concerning claims of safety and the unfounded claim that mRNA vaccines drive the mutation rate of viruses. Any other considerations you have about the claims being made? 'This is another blow against vaccine uptake in general, where for example, we are seeing the return of Measles outbreaks in the US and unnecessary deaths.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I work on RNA vaccines in an academic setting, but have no associations with any of the work that is being axed by RFK or the companies involved.'
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Government overcooked spending during pandemic, against official advice, harming economy
This year's is on how fiscal policy – taxing and spending – should be used to respond to economic shocks. Treasury's calculation of the size of the Covid response. Graph / Treasury Its main finding, learning from the Covid-19 pandemic, was that fiscal policy should be used sparingly, with the Reserve Bank taking the lead on managing the economic cycle using its monetary policy tools like the Official Cash Rate. 'Polite, but its conclusions are damning' – Willis The report lands in the midst of a protracted economic downturn, with both the Government and the Opposition pointing the finger at each other over who is responsible. The Government blames Labour for excessive, inflationary and unsustainable spending that prompted the Reserve Bank to plunge the economy into recession with high interest rates. Labour blames the Government for cutting spending and axing infrastructure projects. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated the Government's concerns about Labour's spending. 'Treasury's language is spare and polite, but its conclusions are damning,' Willis said. 'The report makes clear significant errors were made in the fiscal response to Covid.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated her concerns. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis pointed in particular to Treasury's criticism of the last Government for spending the Covid-19 fund on things that were only tangentially related to the Covid response, such as the school lunch programme. The report said the fund was established in May 2020 to 'support a timely economic response and public confidence'. However, it added that 'as the economy recovered, the then Government was advised against further stimulating, in favour of more targeted support'. Willis said the Government 'ignored' that advice, favouring 'undisciplined spending that pushed up inflation, eroded New Zealand's previously low public debt position, and fuelled a cost-of-living crisis that many families are still suffering from'. Labour has been approached for comment. Just ahead of Budget 2022, the then Finance Minister Grant Robertson said the Government struck the right 'balance'. 'There were and are no costless decisions. Doing less would have seen unemployment grow, or put people's health at risk,' Robertson said. Treasury told Govt to ease up on spending Treasury outlined a history of its advice during the pandemic. It said that initially, it had encouraged the Government to spend money to support the economy through things like the wage subsidy. However in late '2020 and into 2021 ... Treasury started to move away from recommending broad-based fiscal stimulus to support the economy towards more targeted and moderate fiscal support'. After the 2020 election, Treasury said it informed Robertson that there was 'adequate' fiscal space to support the economic recovery and space for 'further temporary support if the economic or public health situation deteriorated'. However, officials also 'highlighted the importance of controlling ongoing spending and ensuring it was high value to meet the medium-term fiscal challenge'. By August 2021, the beginning of Auckland's long lockdown, Treasury warned that any support to businesses should 'take account of macroeconomic trade-offs'. By Budget 2022, Treasury said it was recommending 'against any further stimulus'. The briefing noted that five years on from the beginning of the pandemic, spending is still close to its pandemic-era peak and has only been partly offset by higher revenue. Higher debt-servicing costs are weighing on the Government's balance sheet and lower GDP has 'contributed to the deficit both directly, by leading to a smaller tax base and lower revenue than anticipated, and indirectly, as spending plans were based on revenue expectations that did not eventuate'. The Covid fund was closed in 2022, ending that era of stimulus and Budget 2023 ended up being more stimulatory than planned thanks to the Auckland Floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. Unlikely comparison between Labour Govt and Ruth Richardson The briefing made an unlikely comparison between the Labour Government of Dame Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins and the fiscal policy of National Finance Minister Ruth Richardson. Treasury noted that fiscal policy can be counter-cyclical, which means it tries to counter and blunt the business cycle by, for example, spending money during a downturn to stimulate an economy, or saving during an upswing to cool an overheating one; or fiscal policy can be pro-cyclical – this means exacerbating a business cycle by spending money when an economy is hot or cutting back when an economy is shrinking. Treasury noted that the responses to the Asian Financial Crisis and the GFC had been accidentally counter-cyclical thanks to pre-promised tax cuts, however, fiscal policy was 'pro-cyclical in the early 1990s and during 2021-2023″. It said in the 1990s, 'pressures on fiscal sustainability motivated fiscal consolidation even as the economy was in recession'. In the case of the Covid response, the Government thought it was engaged in a counter-cyclical response to a 'severe economic downturn', however 'from late 2020, the economy turned out to be much stronger than expected (perhaps, in part, caused by the strength of fiscal stimulus itself)'. 'Combined with expenditure that was enduring rather than temporary, this resulted in large fiscal deficits while the economy was overheating.' The current Government is facing similar criticism for being pro-cyclical. Much like the Governments of the 1990s, it is trying to pull back spending to rebuild the balance sheet at a time of economic weakness. The Government was criticised for spending Covid money on school lunches. Photo / Liam Clayton How much was spent? Of the 20% of GDP spent on the pandemic, about half was spent on direct pandemic economic and health initiatives. Thirty-five per cent was spent on wage subsidies 'and similar schemes during lockdowns' and a further 18% 'arose from health-system costs such as vaccination and contact tracing, along with managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) costs'. The parties that now form the Government broadly agreed with this spending at the time – National, at some points, called for spending on wage subsidies to be even greater. The remainder of the response was 'made up of a wide range of initiatives with varied objectives', Treasury said. Some initiatives were 'aimed at more directly responding to the impacts of Covid-19 and others aimed at providing fiscal stimulus or achieving social or environmental objectives'. These included tax changes, training schemes, housing construction, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, Jobs for Nature, additional public housing places and school lunches. The then Opposition disagreed with much of this spending. Lessons for next time In a foreword to the report, Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie noted that increased use of fiscal support during shocks had 'contributed to public debt ratcheting up over time'. Rennie warned that if nothing changes, 'this leaves future generations with less financial capacity to respond to shocks'. The recommendations from the report note the Government needs to get better at saving money when the economy is booming to ensure there is fiscal space to support the economy when times are grim. When times are grim, the Government should allow the 'automatic stabilisers' to kick in, spending money on increased benefit payments. Managing the ups and downs of the economy should mostly be left to the Reserve Bank – a conclusion reached in Treasury's draft report, published earlier. 'Monetary policy changes can be reversed more readily and can often be implemented faster. The Government's spending and taxation decisions should generally seek to optimise long-run value for money rather than moderating economic cycles,' Treasury said. This does not mean there is no role for the Government. If monetary policy is constrained or at extremes – as it was at points during the pandemic – Government spending can kick in. Or, if interest rates can fall further, the Government could restrain spending to 'help moderate booms that would otherwise result in interest rates or the exchange rate becoming extremely high'. Treasury also said fiscal policy could be used to ease some of the distributional impacts of monetary policy, which can be blunt. Monetary policy during the pandemic was largely responsible for the housing boom and bust.
