Top Scientist Issues Stark mRNA Vaccine Warning to U.S.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Rick Bright, the former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has warned that Department of Health and Human Services' decision to cut funding for mRNA vaccine development could threaten American national security.
"BARDA wasn't the only government agency making early investments in mRNA research," Bright wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times. "The Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency had already recognized mRNA's potential for swift action against emerging biological threats, including those that might be weaponized."
It comes after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the termination of 22 mRNA development investments and the reallocation of roughly $500 million at the beginning of this month.
Why it Matters
Bright said the mRNA platform had been central to the fast response to COVID-19 and that abandoning the technology would undermine the nation's ability to respond quickly to future biological threats.
Multiple scientists and doctors have spoken out against this decision, including infectious diseases expert Dr. Thomas A. Russo, who told Newsweek that mRNA vaccines "will be critical when the next, inevitable infectious diseases crisis rears its ugly head."
What To Know
On August 5, the HHS confirmed it would cancel $500 million in mRNA vaccine development contracts, impacting research teams and proposals—including those from Emory University, Tiba Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur and others.
The projects reportedly targeted respiratory viruses including seasonal influenza, COVID-19, RSV and H5N1 and included work by major industry and academic teams.
Secretary Kennedy argued that the data showed mRNA vaccines had not met expectations for preventing upper respiratory infections and that HHS would shift funding toward other vaccine platforms.
But Bright praised mRNA technology, saying that the "unprecedented speed" with which a COVID-19 vaccine was developed in 2020 "was possible only because years earlier, the United States had invested" in it.
"This decision undercuts one of the most significant medical advances in decades, technology that could protect millions more people from the threats ahead," Bright said.
"I know the stakes because I was BARDA's director when the United States made the decision to invest heavily in mRNA," he said. "That investment did not begin with Covid-19. It began in 2016, when we faced the Zika virus outbreak."
"We needed a way to design a vaccine in days, not years, to protect pregnant women and their babies from devastating birth defects. Older vaccine approaches were too slow," Bright continued. "The solution was mRNA: a flexible, rapid-response technology that could be reprogrammed for any virus once its genetic sequence was known. That early investment laid the groundwork for the lightning-fast Covid-19 response four years later."
Kennedy said in a post on X the time: "We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted. BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu," Kennedy said in a post on X. "We're shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate."
Newsweek has contacted the HHS, via online inquiry form, for a response to Bright's comments.
File photo of an employee of the Bavarian Red Cross (BRK) preparing the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 for vaccination in a vaccination center, taken in Bavaria, Germany, in January 2021.
File photo of an employee of the Bavarian Red Cross (BRK) preparing the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 for vaccination in a vaccination center, taken in Bavaria, Germany, in January 2021.
AP
What People Are Saying
Former BARDA director Rick Bright said in his NYT op-ed: "Like every technology, mRNA has limitations. Vaccines meant to protect against respiratory infections, whether developed through mRNA or older technologies, are generally better at averting severe disease than preventing infection. It is a scientific challenge we can address with next-generation vaccines. The answer to limitations is improvement, not abandonment.
"Political narratives about mRNA have fueled confusion, which leads to mistrust, yet the scientific evidence consistently shows that this technology is safe and effective and holds enormous potential for future vaccines and treatments."
Children's Health Defense, an anti-vax nonprofit founded by Kennedy Jr. which focuses on childhood health epidemics, said in a post on X: "CHD applauds this most recent announcement to defund 22 mRNA vaccine projects under BARDA. While we believe that the mRNA shots on the market are unsafe and should be off the market, this is a welcome step in the right direction. The pandemic preparedness industry as it exists today is a threat to human welfare."
What Happens Next
HHS said it would shift funding toward other vaccine platforms but did not provide detailed timelines or specify which programs would receive redirected support.
Scientific organizations, industry groups and public-health leaders said they would assess the impact and consider next steps, while some public-health advocates announced initiatives to defend vaccine science and provide public information.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
US pediatricians' new COVID-19 shot recommendations differ from CDC advice
NEW YORK — For the first time in 30 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics is substantially diverging from U.S. government vaccine recommendations. The group's new COVID-19 recommendations — released Tuesday — come amid a tumultuous year for public health, as vaccine skeptics have come into power in the new Trump administration and government guidance has become increasingly confusing. This isn't going to help, acknowledged Dr. James Campbell, vice chair of the AAP infectious diseases committee. 'It is going to be somewhat confusing. But our opinion is we need to make the right choices for children to protect them,' he added. The AAP is strongly recommending COVID-19 shots for children ages 6 months to 2 years. Shots also are advised for older children if parents want their kids vaccinated, the AAP said. That differs from guidance established under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which doesn't recommend the shots for healthy children of any age but says kids may get the shots in consultation with physicians. Children ages 6 months to 2 years are at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and it was important that recommendations continue to emphasize the need for them to get vaccinated, said Campbell, a University of Maryland infectious diseases expert. Vaccinations also are recommended for older children who have chronic lung diseases or other conditions that put them at higher risk for severe disease, the AAP said. In a statement, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said 'the AAP is undermining national immunization policymaking with baseless political attacks.' He accused the group of putting commercial interests ahead of public health, noting that vaccine manufacturers have been donors to the AAP's Friends of Children Fund. The fund is currently paying for projects on a range of topics, including health equity and prevention of injuries and deaths from firearms. The 95-year-old Itasca, Illinois-based organization has issued vaccination recommendations for children since the 1930s. In 1995, it synced its advice with recommendations made by the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There have been a few small differences between AAP and CDC recommendations since then. For example, the AAP has advised that children get HPV vaccinations starting at age 9; the CDC says that's OK but has emphasized vaccinations at ages 11 and 12. But in 30 years, this is the first time the recommendations have differed 'in a significant or substantial way,' Campbell said. Until recently, the CDC — following recommendations by infectious disease experts — has been urging annual COVID-19 boosters for all Americans ages 6 months and older. But in May, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. A few days later, the CDC issued language that healthy children may get the shots, but that there was no longer a 'should' recommendation. The idea that healthy older kids may be able to skip COVID-19 boosters has been brewing for some time among public health experts. As the COVID-19 pandemic has waned, experts have increasingly discussed the possibility of focusing vaccination efforts on people 65 and older — who are among those most as risk for death and hospitalization. A CDC expert panel in June was set to make recommendations about the fall shots. Among the options the panel was considering was whether suggest shots for high-risk groups but still giving lower-risk people the choice to get vaccinated. But Kennedy bypassed the group, and also decided to dismiss the 17-member panel and appoint his own, smaller panel, that included vaccine skeptics. Kennedy also later excluded the AAP, the American Medical Association and other top medical organizations from working with the advisers to establish vaccination recommendations. Kennedy's new vaccine panel has yet to vote on COVID-19 shot recommendations. The panel did endorse continuing to recommend fall flu vaccinations, but also made a decision that led to another notable difference with the AAP. The new advisory panel voted that people should only get flu vaccines that are packaged as single doses and do not contain the preservative thimerosal. The AAP said there is no evidence of harm from the preservative, and recommended doctors use any licensed flu vaccine product that's appropriate for the patient.
Politico
19 minutes ago
- Politico
NIH plans heat up animal testing debate
WASHINGTON WATCH NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya elaborated on his strategic priorities for the National Institutes of Health on Friday — and drew criticism from some animal rights advocates. His strategy focuses on plans Bhattacharya and his boss, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have previously touted, like prioritizing nutrition research, advancing artificial intelligence, focusing on research reproducibility and shifting to solutions-based health disparities research. 'Taxpayer dollars are a finite resource, entrusted to NIH officials to invest in the nation's future,' Bhattacharya wrote in a statement published on NIH's website. 'By transparently establishing priorities and aligning our goals, we aim to demonstrate to the American public that we take this commitment seriously — and that we are doing all we can to honor their trust.' Falling short: But one priority area — moving away from animal testing in favor of alternative models and establishing an office to develop, validate and deploy those methods — was a sore point for animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. From PETA's vantage point, Bhattacharya's plan didn't go far enough. 'Dramatic change is essential, as we've seen how 'enhancing oversight' is a laugh-into-your-sleeve exercise, and 'considering non-animal methods' is a check box,' Kathy Guillermo, PETA's senior vice president of laboratory investigations, said in a statement. 'PETA urges him to remember that at the highest levels of the Trump administration, there are well-placed people rooting for NIH to break with career animal experimenters.' Animal testing state of play: In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been a persistent critic of animal testing at the health agencies and co-sponsored 2022 legislation with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to permit drugmakers to use alternative methods to test their products. The health agencies have not shied away from the issue or from animal rights groups. Among the first policies that the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration announced this spring was a move away from animal testing for research and drug development. According to public calendar disclosures, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary met with PETA in July. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. The Pete & Bobby Challenge. HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth are challenging Americans to complete 50 pull-ups and 100 push-ups in under 10 minutes. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. EXAM ROOM Health insurance companies pay vastly different prices for health services from one another— even when they're performed at the same hospital. Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, two of the largest health insurers in the U.S., negotiated rates for six inpatient procedures that varied by an average ratio of 9.1 nationwide, according to a report by health data analytics firm Trilliant Health. Sticker shock: The median rate for a coronary bypass — with no catheterization or major complications — is $68,194. However, negotiated rates ranged from $27,683 to $247,902. Rates even varied within the same health system. For example, Aetna pays $166,288 for a patient with diabetes to have major heart bypass surgery using a minimally invasive technique at Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, while UnitedHealthcare pays about half that rate. The report also found no correlation between aggregate measures of cost and quality within a sample of 10 top-tier hospitals. Health systems that have similar quality in care might have wildly different negotiated rates for the same health services, according to the report. High-quality care? The data raises questions about whether insurers deliver the best value for patient care. 'It actually creates a fiduciary duty for the employers to be using this sort of information to make sure they're providing high-value health benefits to their employees,' said Allison Oakes, chief research officer at Trilliant Health, who worked on the report. She believes that this data could help reduce some price disparity. 'The hope is we start to see some of this variation in prices shrink, which, without changing quality or access, could actually reduce spending by quite a bit,' she said. Unintended effect: Ben Handel, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, agrees that this kind of price transparency could lead to negotiated rates homogenizing. However, it might not necessarily bring down prices, he said. 'The other potential scenario is it raises prices,' he said. He notes that insurers' incentives vary by context. For example, when administrating a self-insured plan — where employers directly pay health costs and insurers provide only the network — they earn a percentage of each claim. 'Raising costs makes you more money,' said Handel.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Marco Rubio Halts Gaza Visa Program Following Loomer's Explosive Revelations
The U.S. State Department, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has announced an immediate halt to Palestinian visas after conservative activist Laura Loomer posted videos on X showing Gazans arriving at U.S. airports. Over the weekend, Loomer shared clips from an organization called 'HEAL PALESTINE,' showing Palestinians entering the U.S. through the group's medical program. She argued the arrivals posed a national security risk, claiming Muslim-majority countries should take care of Gazans instead. 'Heal Palestine is more than welcome to send the GAZANS to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, or other Muslim countries for medical care. The issue is, these countries don't want them because they know the GAZANS have terrorist tendencies. Are we supposed to endanger American lives so we don't get called 'racist' by a Palestinian organization?' Loomer wrote in a post on X. Rubio confirmed the freeze during an interview on Face the Nation, saying, 'We are not going to be in partnership with groups that are friendly with Hamas. We're going to pause those visas … and we are going to pause this program and re-evaluate how those visas are being vetted and what relationship if any has there been by these organizations to the process of acquiring those visas.' Loomer later expressed frustration, writing on X: 'It should freak everyone out that it took a civilian blowing the whistle on GAZANS coming into our country with State Department-issued visas as opposed to a government employee or terrorism analyst at the CIA flagging this.' HEAL Palestine pushed back, stressing the initiative is a medical treatment program, not a refugee resettlement effort. 'Guided by human and American values, HEAL is committed to offering hope and healing to the few young lives we can reach,' the group said in a statement. Solve the daily Crossword
