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 skepticism 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 immunization, 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
Bangkok Post
11 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Higher US tariffs officially take effect
WASHINGTON - Higher US tariffs came into effect for dozens of economies on Thursday, drastically raising the stakes in President Donald Trump's wide-ranging efforts to reshape global trade. As an executive order signed last week by Trump took effect, US duties rose from 10% to levels between 15% and 41% for a list of trading partners. Many products from economies including the European Union, Japan and South Korea now face a 15% tariff, even with deals struck with Washington to avert steeper threatened levies. But others like India face a 25% duty — to be doubled in three weeks if it keeps buying Russian oil — while Syria, Myanmar and Laos face staggering levels at either 40% or 41%. Thailand succeeded in negotiating its tariff rate down to 19% — on par with most regional peers — from 36% threatened earlier. Taking to his Truth Social platform just after midnight, Trump posted: 'IT'S MIDNIGHT!!! BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TARIFFS ARE NOW FLOWING INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!' The latest wave of 'reciprocal' duties, aimed at addressing trade practices that Washington deems unfair, broadens the measures Trump has imposed since returning to the presidency. But these higher tariffs do not apply to sector-specific imports that are separately targeted, such as steel, autos, pharmaceuticals and chips. Trump said on Wednesday he planned a 100% tariff on semiconductors — though Taipei said the chipmaking giant TSMC would be exempt as it has US factories. Even so, companies and industry groups warn that the new levies will severely hurt smaller American businesses. Economists caution that they could fuel inflation and weigh on growth in the longer haul. While some experts argue that the effects on prices will be one-off, others believe the jury is still out. With the dust settling on countries' tariff levels, at least for now, Georgetown University professor Marc Busch expects US businesses to pass along more of the bill to consumers. An earlier 90-day pause in these higher 'reciprocal' tariffs gave importers time to stock up, he said. But although the wait-and-see strategy led businesses to absorb more of the tariff burden initially, inventories are depleting and it is unlikely they will do this indefinitely, he told AFP. 'With back-to-school shopping just weeks away, this will matter politically,' said Busch, an international trade policy expert. Devil in the details The tariff order taking effect on Thursday also leaves lingering questions for partners that have negotiated deals with Trump recently. Tokyo and Washington, for example, appear at odds over key details of their tariffs pact, such as when lower levies on Japanese cars will take place. Washington has yet to provide a date for reduced auto tariffs to take effect for Japan, the EU and South Korea. Generally, US auto imports now face a 25% duty under a sector-specific order. A White House official told AFP that Japan's 15% tariff stacks atop of existing duties, despite Tokyo's expectations of some concessions. Meanwhile, the EU continues to seek a carveout from tariffs for its key wine industry. In a recent industry letter addressed to Trump, the US Wine Trade Alliance and others urged the sector's exclusion from tariffs, saying: 'Wine sales account for up to 60% of gross margins of full-service restaurants.' New fronts Trump is also not letting up in his trade wars. He opened a new front Wednesday by doubling planned duties on Indian goods to 50%, citing New Delhi's continued purchase of Russian oil. But the additional 25-percent duty would take effect in three weeks. Trump's order for added India duties also threatened penalties on other countries that 'directly or indirectly' import Russian oil, a key revenue source for Moscow's war in Ukraine. Existing exemptions still apply, with pharmaceuticals and smartphones excluded for now. And Trump has separately targeted Brazil over the trial of his right-wing ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of planning a coup. US tariffs on various Brazilian goods surged from 10% to 50% Wednesday, but broad exemptions including for orange juice and civil aircraft are seen as softening the blow. Still, key products like Brazilian coffee, beef and sugar are hit.
Bangkok Post
17 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
The scramble for the world's critical minerals
The world's superpowers have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for the critical minerals that are essential to the ongoing energy and digital transitions, including rare-earth metals (for semiconductors), cobalt (for batteries), and uranium (for nuclear reactors). The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand for these minerals will more than quadruple by 2040 for use in clean-energy technologies alone. But, in their race to control these vital resources, China, Europe, and the United States risk causing serious harm to the countries that possess them. As it stands, China is leading the pack, having gained ownership or control over an estimated 60-80% of the critical minerals that are needed for industry (such as for magnets) and the green transition. This control extends across the supply chain: China is heavily invested in mining across Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, and has been building up its processing capabilities. For Western powers, China's quasi-monopoly over critical minerals looks like an economic and national-security threat. This fear is not unfounded. In December 2024, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation for US restrictions on exports of advanced microchips to China. Since then, US President Donald Trump has forced Ukraine to relinquish a significant share of its critical minerals to the US in what he presents as repayment for American support in its fight against Russia. Mr Trump also wants US sovereignty over mineral-rich Greenland, to the dismay of Denmark. And he has suggested that Canada, with all its natural resources, become America's 51st state. The European Union, for its part, has sought its own mining contracts, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), touted as the "Saudi Arabia of critical minerals". From the Scramble for Africa in the 19th century to Western attempts to claim Middle Eastern oil in the 20th century, such resource grabs are hardly new. They reflect a fundamental asymmetry: less industrialised developing economies tend to consume fewer resources than they produce, whereas the opposite is true for developed economies -- and, nowadays, China. In principle, this asymmetry creates ideal conditions for mutually beneficial agreements: industrialised economies get the resources they desire, and non-industrialised economies get a windfall, which they can use to bolster their own development. But, in reality, vast natural-resource endowments have proven to be more of a curse than a blessing, with resource-rich countries often developing more slowly than their resource-poor counterparts. A key reason for this is that developed economies have more economic clout, advanced technology, and military might -- all of which they bring to bear to acquire the resources they seek. For example, European imperial powers used steam-engine technology to help them explore and exploit Africa for resources like copper, tin, rubber, timber, diamonds, and gold in the 19th century. This, together with more advanced weaponry and other technologies, meant that, far from offering local communities fair compensation for their valuable resources, European powers could subjugate those communities and use their labour to extract and transport what they wanted. But even countries that are exporting their resources for a profit have often struggled to make progress on development, not only because of imbalanced deals with more powerful resource importers, but also because their governments have often mismanaged the associated bonanzas. It does not help that resource-rich countries and regions often grapple with internal and external conflicts. Consider the mineral-rich provinces of the DRC, such as Katanga and North Kivu, which have long suffered from violence and lawlessness, fuelled by neighbours such as Rwanda and Uganda. Today, the advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels is fuelling bloodshed in eastern Congo -- and creating an opportunity for outside powers to gain access to critical minerals. The DRC-Rwanda peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration promises precisely such access to the US, in exchange for security guarantees. But the resource curse is not inescapable, especially for countries with strong outward-facing institutions to manage the economy's external relations, including its resource sector's ability to attract investment and generate revenues for the state, and inward-facing institutions to govern how those revenues are used. If a country is to translate its resource endowments into economic development and improvements in human well-being, both have a critical role to play. Outward-facing institutions must negotiate fair and transparent mining contracts with multinational corporations and strengthen local governments' ability to do the same. Such contracts should include local-content requirements, which keep more high-value-added processing activities at home, increase local employment, and strengthen the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Since acquiring a 15% stake in De Beers, Botswana has sought to ensure that diamond cutting -- not just mining -- occurs domestically, which requires inward-facing institutions to deliver adequate investment in these capabilities. Inward-facing institutions must also manage risks raised by resource extraction, from health and environmental damage (deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution) to labour-rights violations (including child labour). Unfortunately, as it stands, many mineral-rich countries are falling far short, leading some to advocate boycotts of critical minerals coming from conflict zones or countries using forced labour. While such boycotts are unlikely to sway these governments, they could convince multinationals and foreign governments to demand better enforcement of environmental and social standards from countries with which they do business. Ultimately, however, it is up to mineral-rich countries to defend their interests and make the most of their endowments. This starts with efforts to strengthen institutions. ©2025 Project Syndicate Rabah Arezki, a former vice president at the African Development Bank, is Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School. Rick van der Ploeg is Professor of Economics at the University of Oxford and University Professor of Environmental Economics at the University of Amsterdam.
Bangkok Post
17 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Dealing with Trump is half the story
This will be an eye-opening article. It is an analysis that readers have not read anywhere. No one seems to realise that after a mega-earthquake in the ocean, giant tsunamis will always follow. If Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs are comparable to a mega economic earthquake, President Xi Jinping's reactions will have the impact of a giant economic tsunami. Because the US is loud and threatening, the world bows to US high tariff demands for transshipment products, massive market openings, trillion dollars of investment commitments, and huge product purchase promises. That is because the US is the largest buyer in the world with imports valued at US$3.3 trillion in 2024. The world conveniently ignores that there is a country affected most by the US onslaught called China -- the second largest buyer with a $2.6 trillion import demand. Its import volume is 78.8% of the US'. Despite its import volume, the world pays no attention that a shrinking Chinese economy could drastically affect global trade as well. The main objective of Mr Trump's reciprocal tariff scheme is to reduce China's trade surplus with the US. The direct surplus is $300 billion but after including indirect surplus through transshipments, the total surplus would be $350 billion. That is why Asean nations could not reach an agreement with Mr Trump without accepting a 40% or more tariff on transshipment products to block China from avoiding proper taxation. After accepting the penalty tax rate for transshipment products, many Asean countries seem to be overjoyed with their reciprocal tax rates being reduced to 19%-20%. Hail President Trump. They are unaware that for Asean, China is a bigger trading partner with $389 billion of import purchases. The US imports less from Asean, or $352 billion. Subtracting "transshipments" from China, US imports of Asean products would fall to $302 billion. Mr Xi is more important when it comes to trade issues than Mr Trump, around here. This is how fewer exports from China to the US would hurt Asean economies. First, there will be less need to import Asean components to be assembled into finished products for US customers. Second, consumption demand for Asean products, such as fruit and seafood, would be softer due to reduced export income. Third, instead of importing from Asean, China will conduct import substitution to utilise their half-emptied factories. Fourth, excess capacity would lead to dumping of already cheap products onto Asean markets. Do not forget that dumping is tax-free under the China-Asean Free Trade Agreement. The fifth one is less Chinese tourists visiting Asean countries. Thailand is one such country that fails to realise that a giant Chinese tsunami will be more damaging than Mr Trump's 19% reciprocal tariff earthquake. By adjusting certain items such as transshipment products and products indirectly exported to China, Thailand's export value to both China and the US was almost equal at 1.5 trillion baht in 2024. So far, the government and the private sector are only preparing to deal with an export reduction arising from Mr Trump's tariff. Nobody is prepared for an export reduction from China, which is likely to be more severe due to the reasons above. Tourism income is an important but overlooked issue. In 2024, foreign tourists brought in 1.4 trillion baht of income to Thailand. That is equivalent to 7.6% of GDP. About 19% of that tourism income came from Chinese tourists. The number of Chinese tourists has already dropped 34% since the beginning of the year. Mr Trump's 30% tariff on Chinese products will make this number much worse. A 50% drop in Chinese tourists? I am using estimates published by the Independent, a trustworthy online British newspaper. I believe the numbers are the work of Prof Niven Winchester at Auckland University of Technology in an article titled "GDP changes due to additional US tariffs". The effect on Thailand is a 0.44% GDP reduction. Want to know the GDP reductions for Vietnam and Indonesia? They are 0.30% for Vietnam and 0.11% for Indonesia. The same or similar tax rate produces different results in different economies. Those, particularly the government, who think Thailand has a better deal than its peers should think again. Since we are already looking at the GDP effects from the tariff, it is a 0.34% reduction for China, 0.29% reduction for South Korea, 0.13% reduction for the EU, and a 0.09% reduction for Japan. As for the US itself, which has to pay for higher priced imports, the GDP reduction is 0.36%. Out of 15 economies under this estimation exercise, Thailand is the second-most-affected economy. Number one is Switzerland with a 0.47% GDP reduction. It is not that Thailand has a stronger economic structure, but the Swiss were hit with a 39% reciprocal tariff rate. The following are my estimations, and not from Prof Winchester. The Chinese effect on Thai GDP would be twice as strong as the US effect. Because it would include import substitution and product dumping effects. My estimation is that less buying from China would cut 0.88% from Thai GDP growth. Furthermore, fewer Chinese tourists would cut another 0.55% from GDP. As such, the China tsunami would cause 1.43% in total damage to Thai GDP. The negative impact on Thai GDP is three times higher than the 19% Trump tariff. While both the government and the private sector is fully geared up to embrace the impact of a 0.44% GDP cut from Mr Trump's earthquake, no measures have been prepared, or even discussed, for China's tsunami. I do not mean to blame the Thai negotiation team. To have a reciprocal tariff rate on a par with our peers is essential. There are more issues than just trade. They are the issues of competitiveness and investment attractiveness. However, there is a price to pay to Mr Xi. I hope Mr Xi is a gentleman and does not take revenge on ungrateful Asean nations for abandoning China. I am talking about non-tariff barriers like raising product standards and requiring complicated documentation for imported products. Worst of all, China should not provide subsidies to local manufacturers to compete against Asean imports. Before I end the article, there are a couple of things on my mind about the agreement with the US. One is the definition of transshipment products. There is no clear agreement on Rules of Origin. If using the Asean standard, it requires a minimum of 40% of local content. If using the US standard, it varies from product-to-product, ranging from 50% of local content to 70%. Furthermore, the US does not trust local certification. All Rules of Origin on imports are verified by US Custom and Border Protection. A second issue is the commitment to purchase US products. Can the Thai government commit private companies to purchasing products from the US such as Thai Airways buying 100 Boeing jets? Mr Trump's tariffs have shaken the whole world. They have shaken China and shaken Thailand. Unfortunately, the shaking China will turn around and shake Thailand. The country must be prepared to be shaken by Mr Xi. If my analysis is right, the impact is frightening.
