FACT FOCUS: RFK Jr.'s reasons for cutting mRNA vaccine not supported by evidence
The longtime vaccine critic said in an X video posted Tuesday evening that mRNA vaccines do not adequately prevent upper respiratory infections such as COVID-19 and the flu, advocating instead for the development vaccines that use other processes.
COVID-19 is the only virus for which real-world data on mRNA vaccine effectiveness is currently available, as mRNA vaccines for other diseases, including the flu, are still under development. The two scientists whose discoveries enabled the creation of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 won a Nobel Prize in 2023 for their work.
Kennedy's claim ignores how mRNA vaccines work, according to experts. They prevent against severe infection and death, but cannot completely prevent an infection from occurring in the first place. Plus, years of research supports the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines that use mRNA technology.
Here's a closer look at the facts.
KENNEDY: 'As the pandemic showed us, mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract.'
THE FACTS: His claim is contradicted by scientific evidence. Countless studies show that vaccinated individuals fare far better against COVID-19 infections than those who are unvaccinated, while others have estimated that COVID-19 vaccines prevented millions of deaths during the global pandemic. The mRNA vaccines do not prevent respiratory diseases entirely, experts say. Rather, they can prevent more serious illness that leads to complications and death. For example, an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 may prevent an infection in the upper respiratory tract that feels like a bad cold from spreading to the lower respiratory tract, where it could affect one's ability to breathe.
'A vaccine cannot block a respiratory infection,' said Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious diseases physician and clinical associate professor at Stanford University School of Medicine. 'That's never been the standard for a respiratory virus vaccine. And it's never been the expectation, and it's never been that realistic.' He called Kennedy's claim 'misguided.'
Jeff Coller, a professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins University, had a similar outlook.
'Vaccinations don't have to be neutralizing, meaning that you're not going to get COVID,' he said. 'But the important part of a vaccination is that they reduce hospitalization and death. And a reduction in hospitalization and death is proof of an effective vaccine.'
Vaccines have traditionally required growing viruses or pieces of viruses called proteins and then purifying them. Then a small dose of the vaccine is injected to train the body how to recognize when a real infection hits so it's ready to fight back. But this method takes a long time. The mRNA technology speeds up the process and allows existing vaccines to be updated more quickly.
The 'm' in mRNA stands for messenger because the vaccine carries instructions for our bodies to make proteins. Scientists figured out how to harness that natural process for vaccines by making mRNA in a lab. They take a snippet of the genetic code that carries instructions for making the protein they want the vaccine to target. Injecting that snippet instructs the body to become its own mini-vaccine factory, making enough copies of the protein for the immune system to recognize and react.
Scott explained that mRNA vaccines are not a 'magic force field' that the immune system can use to block an infection, as it can't detect whether a virus is nearby. It can only respond to a virus that has already entered the body. In the case of COVID-19, this means that the virus could cause an upper respiratory tract infection — a cold, essentially — but would be significantly less likely to cause more severe consequences elsewhere.
Myriad studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines have been published since they first became available in late 2020. Although protection does wane over time, they provide the strongest barrier against severe infection and death.
For example, a 2024 study by the World Health Organization found COVID-19 vaccines reduced deaths in the WHO's European region by at least 57%, saving more than 1.4 million lives since their introduction in December 2020.
A 2022 study published in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases found that nearly 20 million lives were saved by COVID-19 vaccines during their first year. Researchers used data from 185 countries to estimate that vaccines prevented 4.2 million COVID-19 deaths in India, 1.9 million in the United States, 1 million in Brazil, 631,000 in France and 507,000 in the United Kingdom. The main finding — that 19.8 million COVID-19 deaths were prevented — is based on estimates of how many more deaths than usual occurred during the time period. Using only reported COVID-19 deaths, the same model yielded 14.4 million deaths averted by vaccines.
Another 2022 study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, reported that two mRNA vaccines were more than 90% effective against COVID-19.
Operation Warp Speed, the federal effort to facilitate the development and distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine, began under the first Trump administration.
'What I don't understand is why is President Trump is allowing RFK Jr. to undermine his legacy that led to a medical intervention that literally saved millions of lives?' Coller said. 'Why is Trump allowing RFK to undermine U.S. leadership in biomedical research and drug development?'
___
Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Edmonton Journal
2 hours ago
- Edmonton Journal
Opinion: 'New approach' to COVID shots puts Albertans at risk
Article content On June 13, the minister of Primary and Preventative Health Services, Adriana LaGrange, announced 'a new approach to COVID-19 immunizations' to reduce vaccine wastage and 'better align supply with demand … while continuing to protect those at highest risk.' Article content This rationale is a red herring. The 'new approach' drastically limits Albertans' access to the lifesaving COVID vaccine. Wastage? No provincially funded vaccine has been wasted. The COVID vaccine was provided by the federal government for the past four years; 2025 is the first time provinces must order and pay for it. Article content Article content Article content Under the 'new approach,' 240,000 fewer doses of vaccine have been ordered than were given last year. It also limits the venues for vaccine delivery to 13 per cent of the sites that were accessible last year, and drastically restricts who can receive free vaccine. Article content Albertans must register with the vaccine-booking system in advance if they wish to 'register intent' to receive a COVID shot. If more people register than the number of doses ordered, the minister has not provided assurance that the province can acquire more vaccine in time. Article content Pharmacists, who gave 87 per cent of COVID shots last year, have been removed from delivery options. COVID vaccine will be delivered entirely by public health clinics. This decision makes no sense; it instead creates unfair barriers to those who work shifts, lack transportation, or are unable to get to vaccine-delivery locations. Article content Article content The 'new approach' will limit who will receive COVID vaccine free of charge, requiring other Albertans to pay a yet-to-be determined fee. Alberta is the only Canadian jurisdiction that will make its citizens pay for the vaccine. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends that everyone over the age of 65, health-care workers, pregnant women, and Indigenous people (including Métis) receive the COVID vaccine. Article content Cost is a barrier to many Albertans — particularly low-income families, community-dwelling seniors, and members of racialized and other equity-denied communities. Scientific research and evaluation have shown a clear cost-benefit to immunization of those groups included in the NACI recommendations. Their evidence is that the social and economic benefits of protecting these groups outweigh the costs. Article content The 'new approach' proposes to implement the campaign in four phases, beginning with seniors in group settings like nursing homes, then people compromised with some medical conditions, then all seniors, followed by all other Albertans. Alarmingly, health-care workers will not receive free COVID vaccine and are in the last group to be immunized, if vaccine is still available. Article content This 'new approach' is either a massive failure to plan or an actual plan to fail. Public health experts and common sense indicate that if you want to protect people from a killer disease for which there is a safe and effective vaccine, you should make the vaccine available, easily accessible, and affordable. The 'new approach' weaponizes a policy to do the exact opposite. Article content This 'new approach' creates obstacles to immunization against a serious vaccine-preventable disease that caused over 380 deaths last year — and unfairly disadvantages Albertans who would receive COVID shots free of charge anywhere else in the country. Article content Article content COVID vaccines, including the new non-mRNA product Novavax, are safe and effective and decrease the burden of illness and death for individuals and communities. Albertans, as with all other Canadians, deserve a fair chance to receive COVID vaccine if they want it. Article content Minister LaGrange must commit to follow national Canadian guidelines for free and timely access to COVID vaccine for all Albertans. Will the minister assure Albertans that there will be vaccine available to every Albertan who wants it? Following the 'new approach' will show that, compared to the rest of Canada, the 'Alberta Disadvantage' is real and possibly fatal. Article content Jeffrey Johnson, PhD, professor and former dean, School of Public Health, University of Alberta. Article content Dawn Friesen, MN, assistant deputy minister of Public Health and Compliance (retired). Article content Dr. Tehseen Lahda, pediatric specialist. Article content Dr. Paul Parks, emergency physician, past-president of the Alberta Medical Association. Article content John Church, PhD, professor emeritus, Department of Political Science, University of Alberta. Article content Kathleen Ness, assistant deputy minister of Health Service Delivery (retired), adjunct professor, School of Public Health, University of Alberta. Article content
Montreal Gazette
7 hours ago
- Montreal Gazette
Opinion: ‘Climate change has infiltrated my medical practice. I have no choice but to respond'
As a physician, I'm alarmed that there has been little in the way of substantive input from senior authorities in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, about climate-related health risks. Since the start of summer, I've given more than 20 interviews about the health risks caused by extreme heat and wildfire smoke, both symptoms of the climate crisis. During the weekend of July 26-27, Environment Canada issued dual heat and air-quality warnings for the Montreal area and a large part of Quebec, and I was once again asked to speak to the media. I found myself wondering, where are our government leaders? I regularly address the media about these topics. I believe it's essential to clearly identify and raise awareness about the health impacts of the climate change crisis, which are still far too often overlooked in public discourse. I also wrote a book on the subject. Why do I do this? Because of duty. Climate change has infiltrated my medical practice. I have no choice but to respond. Late last month, while I was on call at a Montreal hospital, two elderly patients were admitted with heat-related complications. Paramedics had rescued them from apartments where the indoor temperature hovered around 30 Celsius — true ovens. I've long been used to reviewing treatment plans for patients with lung disease during cold and flu season. But now, I also have to do it during the summer because of wildfire smoke. I hesitate to draw comparisons with the COVID-19 pandemic because these are very different crises. However, one thing stands out. Beginning in spring 2020 and for weeks, there were daily official media briefings, often featuring Quebec's premier, health minister and director of public health. Yet, when extreme weather rolls through our summers, the response is nothing like that. Where are government officials while our lungs are choking on wildfire smoke? Why aren't they addressing the estimated 470 people who die from heat each summer in Quebec? Radio silence. During the height of the pandemic, they showed up every day to explain what was happening, what steps to take and what services were available. We got more than a social media infographic. Yet, the silence surrounding climate-related health risks sends a message that these issues aren't important, that they don't count and that they're inevitable. Nothing could be further from the truth. In politics, accountability can take many forms, but leadership, public presence and clear recognition of the problem are good places to start. Addressing the media and, through them, the public is part of the job. When it comes to climate-driven health challenges, it's time for more robust ministerial responsibility. Even during the summer vacation period. The science is crystal clear: Environment Canada's increasingly frequent warnings are a direct result of our collective failure to take meaningful climate action, of our continued dependence on fossil fuels, and of premiers who still support the building of pipelines. In the face of all this, we must break the silence. Every level of government must connect the dots between climate and health in public statements and in policy. We need political recognition that meets the scale of the crisis, just as the International Court of Justice recently affirmed. Only then can we make better collective choices to protect everyone's health.
Toronto Star
8 hours ago
- Toronto Star
RFK Jr.‘s vow to overhaul vaccine injury program echoes grievances of anti-vaccine movement
WASHINGTON (AP) — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is vowing to 'fix' the federal program for compensating Americans injured by vaccines, opening the door to sweeping changes for a system long targeted by anti-vaccine activists. Health experts and lawyers say updates are needed to help clear a backlog of cases in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, created by Congress in 1986 as a no-fault payment system for presumed vaccine injuries.
