The Guardian view on RFK Jr's vaccine cuts: an assault on science from a politician unfit for his office
Robert F Kennedy Jr, during Senate confirmation hearings for the role of secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), seemed to get that. Those who feared what a vaccine sceptic might do in that role breathed again. 'I'm going to empower the scientists at HHS to do their job and make sure that we have good science that is evidence based … I'm not going to substitute my judgment for science,' he said.
Yet now, without good explanation or sound science, he is cutting $500m of research funding for mRNA vaccines, claiming that they 'fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like Covid and flu'. In fact, no Covid vaccine fully protects against infection, but they have been shown to prevent deaths in billions of people. The 22 contracts that will be cancelled include one with Moderna for a vaccine against bird flu, which many fear could trigger the next human pandemic (and there will be one). Instead, federal funds will go to vaccines developed in more traditional ways.
Either Mr Kennedy lied to Congress or he has a different understanding of science and evidence from most scientists, unpicking what they thought was uncontestable. The childhood vaccine schedule is being reconsidered, and mandating the measles vaccine is being questioned in spite of fatal outbreaks in the US. He has sacked the Centers for Disease Control vaccine advisory panel and replaced it with many people known to have sceptical views.
Mr Kennedy is particularly hostile to the mRNA vaccines against Covid-19, panning them in 2021 as the 'deadliest vaccines in history', wrongly claiming that half those suffering the rare side-effect of myocarditis would die or need heart transplants within five years. The vast majority have quickly recovered. Until 2023, he chaired an anti-vaccine organisation called Children's Health Defense, where he petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to rescind the licence of all Covid-19 vaccines and compared mandating vaccines to Nazi oppression in the second world war.
This is the stuff of internet scares; labyrinthine tangles of misinformation dotted with odd inaccurate nuggets of quasi-science. It doesn't compare with the evidence base for mRNA vaccines, which went through clinical trials on hundreds of thousands of people and have since been used to vaccinate billions.
Experts agree that the mRNA vaccines were a stunning breakthrough that allowed people to be protected in record time from Covid-19. They contain messenger RNA, a tiny bit of genetic code that teaches the immune system to fight the virus. No need to grow the virus in hen's eggs, which takes months. The 'plug and play' technology can be adapted against other viruses, such as flu, including some that devastate populations in poor countries. The inventors won the Nobel prize in 2023.
Mr Kennedy's cancellation of funding not only stymies much research but also feeds worldwide doubt in mRNA vaccines. We are all the losers. Humanity needs these vaccines. Other countries need to step up with money and reassurance to try to heal this latest breach between science and nonsense. And Mr Kennedy is clearly unfit for the job he holds.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
New antibiotics capable of killing drug-resistant gonorrhoea are developed... by AI
New antibiotics capable of killing drug-resistant gonorrhoea have been developed by AI. Experts believe that Artificial Intelligence could signify a 'second golden age' of antibiotic discovery, after creating two drugs that could be capable of killing superbugs such as gonorrhea and MRSA. Led by Professor James Collins at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a specialist research team used generative AI algorithms to interrogate 36million compounds. The experts then trained the AI to help it learn how bacteria was affected by different molecular structures built of atoms in order to design new antibiotics. In order to do this, they gave it the chemical structure of known compounds and data on their ability to hinder the growth of different bacteria species. Throughout the study, published in the journal Cell, anything too similar to the current antibiotics available, or with the potential to be toxic to human beings, was eradicated. Scientists also had to ensure that the system was indeed creating medicine, rather than soap. Two approaches were then attempted to help design antibiotics with AI - the first searching through millions of chemical fragments, while the other allowed AI to control the process entirely. The result was innovative AI-generated drugs for both the sexually transmitted infection and possibly life-threatening MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Both were found to be capable of killing the superbugs in laboratory and animal tests. It marks a significant move in the use of AI among researchers hoping to combat the rise in deaths caused by an overuse of antibiotics. The bacteria-fighting medicines are crucial for clearing infections and preventing life-threatening complications. However, hard-to-treat cases are on the rise as the bacteria that cause them are becoming increasingly impervious to the drugs. At least one million annual deaths due to antibiotic resistance have been recorded globally since 1990, according to the University of Oxford. Over the past decade, the NHS has made a concerted effort to reduce the number of antibiotic prescriptions given to patients, in order to slow the spread of superbugs. Yet 37 million prescriptions were written in the UK in 2023, compared to 36 million in 2022 and 31 million in 2020, official figures show. However, clinical trials and a further refinement of the possible drugs, estimated to take between one and two years, will be required before the drugs can be prescribed. WHAT IS ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE? Bacteria can become drug resistant when people take incorrect doses of antibiotics or if they are given out unnecessarily. The World Health Organization (WHO) has previously warned if nothing is done the world is heading for a 'post-antibiotic' era. Bacteria can become drug resistant when people take incorrect doses of antibiotics or if they are given out unnecessarily. Former chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies claimed in 2016 that the threat of antibiotic resistance is as severe as terrorism. Dr Andrew Edwards, from the Fleming Initiative and Imperial College London, told the BBC that the work has 'enormous potential' and indicates a 'novel approach to identifying new antibiotics'. Meanwhile, Professor Chris Dawson, from the University of Warwick, said that the drugs could mark a 'significant step forward as a tool for antibiotic discovery'. However, Professor Collins warned that 'better models' are still required for AI to truly help tackle drug-resistant infections. Other concerns raised by medical experts included how complex the AI-designs are to manufacture, with just two drugs created out of 80 initial designs. Meanwhile, a new antibiotic designed to treat drug-resistant infections would ideally be used as little as possible in order to ensure its success. This, therefore, raises questions about the likelihood of a commercial profit being possible. In 2024, an estimated 71,802 people were diagnosed with gonorrhoea, according to government figures. Meanwhile, 910 cases of MRSA were recorded across England from 2023 to 2024, marking an increase of 15.6 per cent from 2022 to 2023. While MRSA can live harmlessly on the skin, the bacteria has the potential to become deadly if it enters the body.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Pam Bondi threatens prosecution for leaders not complying with immigration officers
Pam Bondi, the attorney general, said Thursday she has sent 'sanctuary city' letters to the mayors of 32 cities and a handful of county executives, warning that she intends to prosecute political leaders who are not in her view sufficiently supportive of immigration enforcement. 'You better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you're not, we're going to come after you,' she said, speaking to a Fox News reporter. 'Our leaders have to support our law enforcement.' Bondi's letter asks the recipients to provide a response by 19 August that 'confirms your commitment with complying with federal law and identifies the immediate initiatives you are taking to eliminate laws, policies and practices that impede federal immigration enforcement'. Bondi cites an executive order issued by Donald Trump on 28 April which called for the attorney general to identify jurisdictions that 'obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws' then to 'notify each sanctuary jurisdiction regarding its defiance of Federal immigration law enforcement and any potential violations of Federal criminal law' as a precursor to prosecution or withholding grants. Each of the recipients appears to have received a near-identical letter, none of which specify what local laws or practices fail to comply with Bondi's assertions. Initial responses from state and local governments receiving the letters include a mix of incredulity and defiance. 'Nothing in Attorney General Bondi's letter is new and none of it has legal merit,' said Barbara Pierce, director of communications for the city of Rochester, New York. 'The letter reiterates many of the frivolous arguments that the federal government has already made in its pending suit against the City of Rochester. These same arguments were levied against the City of Chicago and were dismissed by the Federal District court for the Eastern District of Illinois nearly a month ago. We look forward to the opportunity to respond to Attorney General Bondi's letter, and continue to underscore the inaccuracies of the federal government's position.' Bruce Harrell, the Seattle mayor, said the letter's portrayal of his city and its laws was untruthful. 'Immigration enforcement is the exclusive responsibility of the federal government. The City neither interferes with nor carries out those federal duties,' he said. 'We have received and are reviewing the latest letter from Attorney General Bondi and strongly disagree with its assertions. Our laws and policies protect the safety, privacy and constitutional rights of all Seattle residents while remaining compliant with applicable law. We remain committed to our local values, including being a welcoming city for all. We will continue to defend our residents and our rights – and we will not hesitate to do so in court.' The office of Eric Adams, the New York City mayor, a Trump ally and embattled re-election candidate, offered a less strident immediate response. 'The job of a mayor is to protect the safety of every single person in their city – and that's exactly what Mayor Adams has worked to do every day for nearly four years,' said Kayla Altus, Adams' press secretary. 'Keeping New Yorkers safe also means making sure they feel safe, and Mayor Adams has been clear: no one should be afraid to dial 911, send their kids to school, or go to the hospital, and no New Yorker should feel forced to hide in the shadows. 'That's why the mayor supports the essence of the local laws put in place by the city council, but he has also urged the council to reexamine them to ensure we can effectively work with the federal government to keep violent criminals off our streets.' The letters follow the publication of a revised 'sanctuary jurisdiction' list on 5 August . The Department of Homeland Security withdrew a previous list after an outcry from rural sheriff's offices and conservative jurisdictions that argued the list was created without input from sheriffs and 'violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement'.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Mogul who backed Boston's woke Dem mayor outraged after she erected BIKE LANE outside his mansion
A construction mogul who was once an ardent supporter of Boston's woke mayor has turned against her after the city built a bike lane right outside his mansion. Jay Cashman, 72, poured millions into Mayor Michelle Wu's election in 2021, but became outraged when the new two-lane bike path was erected outside his $19 million mansion on Dartmouth Street last year, according to the Boston Globe. It was just part of Wu's plans to build an an elaborate cycling network around the city, as she doubled the number of dedicated bike lanes in Boston since she took office to 15 miles. Her administration had identified Dartmouth Street 'as a bike corridor project' because it provides direct access to the Charles River Esplanade, which city officials called a 'daily destination for residents, commuters and visitors alike.' But Cashman has argued that these new bike lanes were hastily built and ignored critics' concerns, which ranged from safety risks, loss of parking spaces, more congested street traffic and slower response times for emergency vehicles. 'I'm for bike lanes, but I'm for bike lanes that basically are safe,' he told the Globe as he cycled through the city himself. The mogul is now using his wealth and resources to fight the mayor's plans to expand the bike network even further. He founded an advocacy group called Pedal Safe Boston and is convening neighborhood groups and meeting with lawmakers about legislative fixes to create bike lane standards. The millionaire has also spent a whopping $100,000 to evaluate whether a statewide ballot measure to regulate bike lanes would be a more effective way to make city streets safer. He is even backing a plan for city officials to consider removing or altering the bike lanes Wu's administration created and set new rules for them moving forward. Until then, Cashman argues, any construction on new bike lanes should be paused. The proposal is being backed by Democrat mayoral challenger Josh Kraft - the son of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. 'We really need to take the time to study how they impact business and figure out where to put them,' he explained to Bloomberg. Kraft has seized on the issue of Wu's bike lane rollout as an example of how the mayor does not listen to criticism and is out of touch with the business community. Advertisements and text messages from a super PAC endorsing Kraft have called the bike lanes a 'disaster' and proof that Wu's plans 'only make things worse' for the city. The messaging seems to resonate with at least some voters, as a February poll from Emerson College found nearly half of all registered Boston voters think the city has too many bike lanes. Another 35 percent said they believed the city has enough bike lanes and just 17 percent said there were too few. But cycling enthusiasts are wary of Cashman's motives. Someone even set up a website with his organization's name, describing it as a 'scam.' They say creating more bike lanes makes cyclists safer and are frustrated that Cashman has not worked with them to come up with a solution. 'I would just wish that Pedal Safe Boston would engage in the conversations already taking place as opposed to throwing stones from the outside,' said Galen Mook, executive director of MassBike - a nonprofit that advocates for improving bike infrastructure. 'There's a little bit of privilege with the Pedal Safe Boston team because they have influence and money,' he continued. 'They haven't actually gone through the literal decades' worth of work of how the city has been putting down bike lanes.' The Wu administration has also defended the bike lanes she put up and is continuing to advocate for even more bike lanes, with nearly two miles planned in Cashman's neighborhood in the next few years. She claims the bike lanes make roads safer, pointing to city data showing that crashes have declined by 51 percent on streets where bikers and drivers are separated by posts or other barriers. Advocates also argue that bike lanes can boost store traffic as cyclists take breaks. At a business forum in June, Wu likened the city's new bike lanes to a family rearranging furniture. 'Once you move it around, it's always going to feel very weird because you are so used to how it was before,' she said. 'Sometimes, you need to live in it a little bit to see if that actually works.' City officials have also noted that they held more than 50 public meetings on roadway projects last year, and amid the criticism, the Wu administration has taken down some flex posts - plastic bollards that act more as a visual cue than a physical barrier to protect bikers. David Wean, a member of the Boston Cyclists Union, also acknowledged that there are some issues - like when a lane abruptly ends and bikers are forced into the middle of car traffic. Still, he argues that much of the new infrastructure has made the streets safer as he railed against Cashman's plans for a pause. 'Insisting on absolutely complete, rigorous data is just a way of stalling it,' Wean said. Business owners, though, seem to be taking Cashman and Kraft's side in the debate. Meg Mainzer-Cohen, the president and executive director of the Back Bay Association, for example, claims the once business-friendly neighborhood has become a hazard for storefronts and delivery trucks. Bike lanes 'basically drove a stake into the functionality of the whole neighborhood.' In the Brighton neighborhood, business owner Richie Singh said he also saw his revenue decline 40 percent year-over-year after the bike lanes went up late last year. Some of his best customers were slapped with $100 parking tickets for blocking bike lanes. Worst of all, he said, he only sees two or three cyclists utilizing the new lane each day.
