US axes mRNA vaccine contracts, casting safety doubts
The announcement, made by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., marks his latest effort to weave vaccine scepticism into the core of US government policy.
"We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted," Kennedy said in a statement.
The health department's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (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," he added.
"We're shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate."
The changes affect Moderna's mRNA bird flu vaccine - a move the company itself disclosed in May - as well as numerous other programs, including "rejection or cancellation of multiple pre-award solicitations" from pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Sanofi.
In total, the affected projects are worth "nearly $500 million," the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said. Certain late-stage projects were excluded from the move "to preserve prior taxpayer investment."
"Let me be absolutely clear: HHS supports safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants them," Secretary Kennedy said.
"That's why we're moving beyond the limitations of mRNA and investing in better solutions."
Since taking office, Kennedy, who spent two decades sowing misinformation around immunisation, has overseen a major overhaul of US health policy - firing, for example, a panel of vaccine experts that advise the government and replacing them with his own appointees.
In its first meeting, the new panel promptly voted to ban a longstanding vaccine preservative targeted by the anti-vaccine movement, despite its strong safety record.
He has also ordered a sweeping new study on the long-debunked link between vaccines and autism.
Unlike traditional vaccines, which often use weakened or inactivated forms of the target virus or bacteria, mRNA shots deliver genetic instructions into the host's cells, prompting them to produce a harmless decoy of the pathogen and train the immune system to fight the real thing.
Though in development for decades, mRNA vaccines were propelled from lab benches to widespread use through President Trump's Operation Warp Speed - a public-private partnership led by BARDA that poured billions into companies to accelerate development.
The technology's pioneers, Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman, were awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work contributing "to the unprecedented rate of vaccine development during one of the greatest threats to human health in modern times."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
11 hours ago
- IOL News
South African banks face scrutiny over political account closures
SA's big banks' trade policies in the spotlight Image: IOL Regulators have been warned against approaching complaints about South African banks in the same way as US president Donald Trump, who this week issued an executive order after accusing financial institutions of unacceptably restricting law-abiding individuals and businesses' access to banking services based on political or religious beliefs. Mametlwe Sebei, president of the General Industries Workers Union of SA (Giwusa), an affiliate of the SA Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu), said Giwusa would not support merely implementing moves similar to Trump's as the situation required the same interventions but for different reasons. Sebei said moves against the banks for being reactionary and assaulting human rights must be supported. "We also know that banks are not accountable in this country, there are political parties, trade unions, community organisations whose bank accounts were closed without an adequate explanation," he said. Sebei described banks as untransformed and that there is not much to look into as far as the banking industry and its conduct are concerned as many South Africans have suffered a lot. He said even Giwusa recently had a dispute with one of the country's major banks, which gave some members access to the union's accounts without authorisation and there were no adequate explanations. According to Sebei, companies perceived to be close to certain public figures have had their bank accounts closed without explanation. "When they close bank accounts, they are effectively condemning workers in those companies to unemployment, retrenchments and job losses. You cannot destroy a company to punish the owners," he said. Sebei said the idea that private banking institutions can take political decisions is extremely dangerous and that is why this should be strongly regulated. In addition, he said the law already provides for instances where there is suspicion of misuse of banking facilities by a client that is able to be reported to the authorities as provided for in the Financial Intelligence Commission Act. Sebei added that the current laws can be implemented without jeopardising jobs and the livelihoods of workers. "Financial services are a lubricant by which the economy is working, it has enormous power in society and in the economy that can destroy not only individuals but also companies and whole industries. These people are wielding enormous public power that has been privatised into institutions that are guided by profiteering and nothing else and want to exercise this power without transparency, accountability and even pass political judgment and that for me is deeply troubling," he said.
IOL News
12 hours ago
- IOL News
Economists warn of job losses as US tariffs threaten South African trade
The South African sugar industry is facing the threat of collapsing and job losses as a result of US President Donald Trump imposing 30% tariffs on the country's exports. Image: Karen Sandison / Independent Newspapers In the wake of the recent 30% tariff hike imposed by the United States, South Africa's sugar and automotive industries are bracing for significant upheaval. Economists warn that these tariffs could spell disaster for local businesses, jeopardising exports and leading to alarming job losses. An economist has warned that losing the market will collapse the industry after President Donald Trump's 30% tariff hike imposed on goods exported to the country's second biggest trade partner. Economist Miyelani Mkhabela shared these sentiments as some local exporters already expressed concern about their future. 'People have a reason to panic because the tariffs will make it difficult for South African products to appeal to the American market,' said Mkhabela. He said small industries are facing the danger of collapsing because although the normal trade deal between South Africa and the US might be restored after the end of Trump's presidency, 'four years is a lot for a company.' 'When the market is closed (through exorbitant tariffs), it means a lot for small businesses that are sending products to the American market would suffer, as their clients would say your products are 30% higher. 'That would collapse the South African manufacturing system because we depend on the US as our second trade partner,' he said. He said South Africa cannot easily find a country that could replace the American market, which 'is bigger than what we are sending to the whole of Africa'. However, he said the African economy would recover after four years as it recovered from the global financial crisis and 'is still recovering from the global health (Covid-19 pandemic). But after Trump, many emerging companies will no longer exist because they will fail to repay bank loans. SA Farmers Development Association (SAFDA) Executive Chairman Dr Siyabonga Madlala, who is involved in sugar manufacturing, is concerned that while businesses have no power over politically influenced tariffs, they are the ones bearing the brunt. Madlala anticipated a loss of millions of rand, a situation that would result in alarming job losses. He said the South African Sugar Association (SASA)'s lots of sugar meant for the US might go to waste. 'America, through AGOA (the African Growth and Opportunity Act), has given us a lucrative market for about 24,000 tons of sugar exports, so with the imposition of tariffs, our sugar won't be attractive to our US consumers as it is now becoming expensive. 'It forces US consumers to look for alternatives rather than buying from us because our sugar becomes 30% more expensive,' said Madlala. South African competitors in supplying the US with sugar are Mexico, Brazil, Australia, and several Central American and Caribbean nations. He estimated that, through the tariffs, SASA will lose R168 million from its annual revenue. According to Madlala, the US market, which found South African sugar affordable under the AGOA agreement, may look for alternative countries to buy from. 'The reason is that lots of other countries are subsidised, therefore they can afford to still sell sugar than us, as we are not subsidised but working on our own,' said Madlala. He said reducing production would cause job losses and the shutdown of sugar mills. 'Once you try to lower the production, it means some farms will shut down or diversify. By that, it means that sugar mills will lose sugar cane supply, which is the lifeblood of the sugar mill,' he said. He said the tariffs came at the wrong time when the government's master plan was succeeding in reviving some major sugar mills, including Tongaat Hulett, which in the process was coming out of business rescue. 'While we are appreciating the master plan's initiative, we are now bombarded with the tariffs,' said Madlala. Influential organisations such as FW De Klerk Foundation recently called for the country to expand its trade partners rather than relying on the US. Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen said the government was also reaching out to other countries. However, Madlala said finding an alternative market was not easy to do overnight. National Association of Automotive Component and Allied Manufacturers (NAACAM) CEO Renai Moothilal told the media that the automotive industry was already feeling the effects, as some companies have started to lose US deals. 'We are already seeing new contracts, especially for the US, being cancelled or not pursued, putting one of the country's most critical manufacturing sectors at risk,' Moothilal said. Build One SA (BOSA) called on Ramaphosa to engage directly with the US Congress members, who will decide on the fate of AGOA, and tell them that over 500,000 US jobs are linked to trade with South Africa. Another economist, Khulekani Mathe, commended Ramaphosa for continuing to negotiate with Trump, as he cannot immediately find an alternative market. He said it was not guaranteed that South Africa/US trade would recover after Trump's departure. 'It is dependent on whether we are to negotiate anytime between now and four for more favourable terms. The economic recovery would depend on whether the country can find an alternative market to send the volume of products that are sent to the US, something that can not materialise in the short term. Professor Bonke Dumisa said Trump was miscalculating to think tariffs would benefit his economy because 'Economic History shows us that no one wins the tariff wars'. 'Purportedly, it is said that the USA wants to open space for its businesses to recapture the market space they lost as they focused on moving abroad to produce more competitively priced products. Unfortunately, USA businesses priced themselves out of the markets. 'The South African businesses affected by these Tariffs must look for alternative markets. There is very little that the government can do to help these businesses,' said Dumisa. [email protected]
Daily Maverick
16 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Middle powers must step up to salvage G20 and the fragile multilateral order
As the world stares down a vortex of geopolitical instability, the challenge facing South Africa during its presidency of the G20 is not simply one of technical diplomacy. It is existential; the future of multilateralism is at stake. As a senior foreign diplomat in Pretoria put it to me recently: 'It is South Africa's destiny to have the G20 at this moment in history.' We live in an era of simultaneous, overlapping crises — climate change, inequality, war, debt, misinformation. But perhaps the most dangerous of all is the corrosion of international legal norms and standards and companion institutions that were established to manage such crises in the first place. That system, born in the ashes of World War 2 and further entrenched during the post-Cold War years, is now unravelling under the weight of double standards, exceptionalism and populist disdain. Donald Trump, the godfather of modern 'anti-globalism', has injected a dose of toxic precarity into international multilateral and trade relations, including the G20, whose presidency the United States is supposed to take over from South Africa at the end of this year. His approach to geo-economics — cynical, transactional, inward-looking — has metastasised across the globe, with numerous copycat nationalist extremists galvanised by the political cover Trump provides. Against this bleak backdrop, the 'great powers' — the US, China, and Russia — are locked in a grim tug-of-war for global influence and control, although it is important to recognise that of the three, China now represents the 'adult in the room': the only serious, rational actor, and a pillar of relative stability in a sea of uncertainty. What does this mean for the G20? Well, the traditional engine room of economic diplomacy now risks becoming just another forum for geopolitical point-scoring. The possibility of consensus — let alone coordinated action — has never looked so tenuous. So here we are: South Africa, as the current G20 president, presiding over an increasingly dissonant chorus, with the risk that next year's chair, the US, might simply abandon the entire ensemble if the domestic political winds shift. The famed G20 'troika' — the trio of past, present, and incoming chairs meant to ensure institutional continuity — may not survive the year. A new typology And so South African diplomats and officials will be advised to prepare for a number of possible scenarios, ranging from complete failure on the back of US obstructionism or boycotting, to a reasonably successful outcome, potentially achieved by the use of a uniquely South African negotiating concept from the early 1990s, namely 'sufficient consensus'. In this context, this may be the moment that 'middle powers' have been waiting for. It is far from being a new concept, but in looking towards those middle powers, it is worth recognising that the landscape has shifted and a new typology is needed. Between the three 'great powers' tussling for supremacy and the true middle powers, sits a 'mezzanine tier' of five former and emerging great powers: France, the UK, Germany, Japan and India — major economies with global reach, but tethered by domestic fragilities or preoccupations and inconsistent leadership. Between them and the rest — the bulk of the global community, often marginalised, frequently ignored, but deeply affected by global decisions — sit the true middle powers: states with shared values and enough legitimacy, capability and regional credibility to convene, broker and lead. In this four-tiered world, it is Tier Three — these middle powers — that must now carry the baton of multilateral renewal. They are neither so dominant as to provoke resistance, nor so weak as to be ignored. If anything, they are uniquely positioned to reclaim or reset the normative core of international relations. Moreover, South Africa, despite its domestic weaknesses and contradictions, is well-positioned to play a leadership role. As the respected veteran international relations professor Garth le Pere, now associated with the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (Mistra), will argue in a forthcoming paper, the country 'has certainly registered impressive gains as a respected 'norm entrepreneur' on the global stage, which has burnished its multilateral credentials'. Global governance crisis A primary example of this has been South Africa's principled stand on the genocide in Gaza and its extraordinary leadership in litigating the matter at the International Court of Justice. There is perhaps no more stark illustration of the global governance crisis than the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza. The relentless assault on civilians, the mounting evidence of war crimes and the studied silence — or, worse, complicity — of many Western capitals have shattered any illusion that the 'rules-based order' is universally applied. It has become clear that for some states, 'rules' are for others. In this context, the emergence of the Hague Group — a coalition of countries pushing for international accountability for Israel — represents a watershed moment. At long last, a group of states is willing to act not on the basis of geopolitical calculus, but on the foundations of international law and moral consistency. If Gaza is the acid test — of values and commitment to the equal and consistent application of principles of international law — the test for middle powers is clear: can they sustain this moral clarity, not just on Gaza, but across the spectrum of global crises? Can they model a new kind of leadership, grounded in principles rather than power? Amid the dysfunction, there are glimmers of what a middle-power-led agenda could look like. The recent agreement between Spain, Brazil and South Africa to explore a global wealth tax is one such example — bold, values-based and aimed at tackling structural inequality head-on. But more is needed. As the G20 presidency progresses, South Africa could convene a group of like-minded middle powers — let's call it the M10 — to build consensus on the core issues of sustainability, equality, and solidarity, the three pillars of South Africa's G20 agenda. An M10, comprising Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Canada, Spain, South Korea, Australia, Norway, Ireland and South Africa itself (all of whom are either G20 countries or invited guests), could work to salvage and advance at least 10 priority deliverables from this G20 cycle. These might include ideas and principles such as: A framework for global wealth taxation; A new global agreement on loss and damage finance; Strengthened climate finance targets for adaptation in the face of climate breakdown; Global standards on just transition planning; A roadmap for debt reform for climate-vulnerable countries; A moratorium on fossil fuel subsidies; A commitment to reform the Bretton Woods and UN Security Council governance structures; Global norms on AI and digital rights; A joint statement on Gaza and international law; and A global compact on youth and intergenerational equity in climate policy. Or it could be focused in a more granular way on affirming the specific recommendations of the myriad G20 working groups and task forces that are now concluding their work and entering what is known as the 'advocacy phase' of the year. It will be about what such middle powers decide they can most usefully agree upon and drive a wider consensus in support of, with or without US cooperation. This is not about forming a new geopolitical bloc. It is about making multilateralism work again — through pragmatic cooperation, moral clarity and inclusive leadership. At this hinge moment in human history, we sit at that delicate Gramscian moment when the old order is dying, but the new has yet to be born. If great powers cannot be relied upon to steward the international system responsibly, then the middle powers must step into the breach. For South Africa, the G20 presidency is more than a diplomatic milestone. It is a chance to reimagine leadership in a fractured world — to prove that solidarity is not a slogan, but a strategy. And that middle powers, acting in concert, can help bend the arc of global governance back towards justice, sustainability and peace. Perhaps the M10 can lead the way. DM
