I suspect he has no math. I suspect he’s just “guessing” – in the same way that Blinkin is “guessing” that no one’s coming:
He didn’t take the decision alone. Here is what he said about this recently:
“There are over 5,000 peer-reviewed studies now that chronicle and detail the injuries from the COVID-19 vaccines. And these include very serious injuries, particularly in young people, from myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots, and aneurysms. In all of the different agencies of people who are working on this, they are all unanimous that this (removing funding for mRNA vaccines for upper respiratory illnesses) was the wise and prudent course for us to do.”
And regarding the link between Covid mRNA vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, did you ear about this publication?
Why should I care what this lying fool has to say? Please quote someone with actually expertise on the subject and who doesn’t have heavy economic interests in the antivax movement.
Do you still not understand that skimming some quote from someone you found on the internet does not constitute scientific evidence?
Oh, look. Gil is citing yet another trash site he managed to dredge up. Yawn.
2 Likes
Why do you think « Trial site news » is a trash site?
Anyway, the original paper was published in « Scientific Reports », a well-established journal that belong to the Nature portfolio. What is your beef with this study I share with you below? Is it a trash study?
This is the article that @Giltil’s latest bullshit source is citing:
Top 10 drugs most frequently associated with adverse events of myocarditis and pericarditis
This is it’s conclusion:
Conclusion
Although our findings did not allow for causal inference, this study is the first to identify the 10 most frequently reported drugs associated with myocarditis and pericarditis using the extensive, long-term pharmacovigilance data from the global pharmacovigilance database. The findings suggest a notable signal detection between several vaccine types (smallpox, influenza, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccine) and both forms of carditis. Notably, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine had the highest number of reports, underscoring the imperative for heightened clinical vigilance in monitoring potential carditis manifestations following administration of these drugs. Future studies should build on these results by investigating the underlying mechanisms, exploring patient-specific risk factors, and examining the long-term outcomes for these drug-associated carditis events.
Please note the following:
-
It explicitly disavows finding any causal relationship between the Covid vaccine and “adverse events of myocarditis and pericarditis”
-
It explicitly suggests further research is needed – research which RFK Jr’s policy will prevent.
Which means that Gilbert’s latest bullshit source takes us exactly nowhere, in terms of supporting RFK Jr’s policy.
Addendum: yes, more people who have taken the Covid vaccine have had a myocarditis or pericarditis event than anybody taking another drug – but that may have something to do with the fact that that probably more people have taken the Covid vaccine than have taken any other drug. I would expect the Covid vaccine to be in there, even if it had no causal effect – and I would expect even a minuscule causal effect to be magnified by these numbers.
5 Likes
Something tells me the scientifically minded and literate folks would not have approved of policies banning, say, the use of vaccines of one sort or another – although with the political climate as it is, popular and especially publicly voiced opinion, even among intellectuals, ought be viewed with caution, anyway.
Anyway, this message is to express a frustration not with that, but with specifically the administration’s opposition even to research into a subject. I can understand someone who doesn’t (but should) know any better being overly skeptical, enough to ban the administration of a class of drugs, or even the development of similar ones. I think they’d do well to have their decisions informed by qualified professionals before committing to them, but I can at least respect their authority to ultimately put down the regulations of their choosing, whether I – as someone with no relevant qualifications, mind – happen to find their choices agreeable or not. But the idea that learning more about something could not only fail to yield (further) useful results, but could actually be a net detriment is utter lunacy, and wholly indefensible.
2 Likes
Because it uses misleading and sensationalistic language like this:
The results are striking, even unsettling to say the least: COVID-19 mRNA vaccines accounted for the vast majority of reported cases in both categories, raising complex, and frankly, troubling questions for clinicians, regulators, and the public.
The number 2 drug in that study, clozapine, is one I prescribe regularly in my practice. It is reserved for a small subset of schizophrenia patients who are unresponsive to other treatments, mainly because it has a risk of agranulocytosis. Now, put on your thinking cap and see if you can figure out why there are more cases of carditis associated with the COVID mRNA vaccine than with clozapine.
I have no beef with the study.
Does it? What is that assertion of what it “seems to”, based on, specifically? I’d really like to know how you have determined that RFK Jrs actions here only target mRNA vaccines against upper respiratory tract infections.
With regards to those vaccines more specifically, I have a number of questions here that I think need to be answered by people defending RFK Jrs claims (ideally that would be RFK Jr himself of course) about Covid and other upper respiratory tract disease mRNA vaccines.
-
When it comes to the Covid mRNA vaccine, what evidence is there that the vaccine side-effects are caused by the mRNA component, as opposed to the SARS-Cov2 spike protein that is produced by it’s translation (or, possibly, the combination of both)?
-
How does the rate of vaccine-side effects from Covid mRNA-based vaccines compare to Covid vaccines based on more traditional protein technology?
-
And what evidence is there that these same side-effects persist for mRNA-based vaccines against other upper respiratory tract infectious diseases?
@Giltil I hope you can see the basis for asking these questions. Have you asked these same questions, and if so, what have you found?
It seems to me that we’d need to have all of them answered and supported with some pretty strong data before we can justifiably go and claim that all mRNA-based vaccine technology for all upper respiratory tract diseases should be stopped.
1 Like
Well, I’ve suggested that it was the case mostly based on the piece below. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the whole article, hence my use of « it seems ».
Heh. You can ctrl+a ctrl+c the entire article before the blocking pop-up appears, then just paste it into a text document. Here’s what it says:
Emily Mullin
Science
Aug 13, 2025 2:07 PMRFK Jr. Is Supporting mRNA Research—Just Not for Vaccines
HHS is slashing hundreds of millions in funding for mRNA vaccines and infectious disease treatments, but leaving the door open to mRNA therapies for cancer and genetic conditions.This month, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced that it was canceling 22 contracts and investments worth nearly $500 million as a part of a “coordinated wind-down” of mRNA vaccine research. Yet some projects that do not involve mRNA or vaccines have been caught up in the purge. At the same time, the administration has quietly endorsed research into mRNA treatments for cancer and genetic disorders.
HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been suspicious of mRNA vaccines, and in May he announced that HHS would no longer recommend mRNA Covid-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women. The same month, he canceled a $590 million contract with Moderna, one of the mRNA Covid vaccine manufacturers, for a bird flu vaccine based on the same technology. In a video on social media, he justified the latest cuts by saying “HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses,” which contradicts the scientific evidence.
“The major misconception is that mRNA is some voodoo thing that we are sticking into our body, that it’s a magic molecule from Mars,” says Jonathan Kagan, an immunologist at Harvard Medical School and cofounder of Corner Therapeutics, which is developing mRNA treatments for cancer.
Short for messenger RNA, mRNA is a molecule found naturally in every cell in the body. It provides instructions to cell machinery to make certain proteins and is used constantly by the body to run and repair itself. Kagan likens mRNA to an app for human health. Scientists have figured out how to make synthetic versions of the molecule that can be programmed to make different kinds of proteins. This tailored mRNA can then be delivered to people to address various diseases.
“The problem with mRNA is that the first clinical application was the most political thing on the planet,” says Kagan, referring to the mRNA Covid vaccines. “Therefore the disease got muddied in the technology.”
Developed and authorized during President Donald Trump’s first administration as part of Operation Warp Speed, the mRNA Covid vaccines use the molecule to direct cells to produce copies of the coronavirus spike protein, stimulating the immune system to create defenses against the virus. The shots were instrumental in reducing deaths and hospitalizations during the pandemic, and while they have a very high safety profile, they have been known to cause rare cases of heart inflammation in boys and young men. In June, the US Food and Drug Administration approved new labeling for Moderna’s and Pfizer’s mRNA Covid vaccines to emphasize this risk.
Research into mRNA vaccines had been ongoing for years, and during the pandemic the technology was used because it allowed for faster manufacturing compared to traditional vaccine development methods. The versatility of mRNA led to an explosion of interest in harnessing it against a range of other diseases, both in vaccines and therapeutics.
After the success of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, the US government invested more heavily in mRNA technology. The canceled contracts announced on August 5 were part of a program under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the agency within HHS tasked with developing medical countermeasures against pandemics and other public health threats. Among the projects canceled are some that weren’t working with mRNA or on vaccine development.
One of the targeted recipients, Tiba Biotech, had a $750,000 contract with BARDA that was slated to end October 30. The company was developing an RNAi-based therapeutic for H1N1 influenza, also known as swine flu. RNAi is short for RNA interference and refers to small pieces of RNA that can shut down the production of specific proteins. The approach has been well studied, and several RNAi-based drugs are on the market. The first was approved in 2018 to treat nerve damage caused by a rare disease called hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis.
The contract cancellation came as a surprise to Tiba, which received a stop-work order on August 5 that did not reference the wind-down of BARDA’s mRNA vaccine development activities. “Our project does not involve the development of an mRNA product and is a therapeutic rather than a vaccine,” said Jasdave Chahal, Tiba’s chief scientific officer, via email.
Government contracts often include specific milestones that contractors must achieve to receive funding and move forward with their projects. Tiba says its project had met its goals so far and was near completion.
Also among the canceled contracts was a $750,000 award to Emory University to convert an mRNA-based antiviral treatment for flu and Covid into an inhaled, dry powder formulation. The project did not involve the development of a vaccine. “Unfortunately, we don’t have much insight to offer on the grant cancellation,” Emory spokesperson Brian Katzowitz told WIRED in an email.
The cuts are consistent with Kennedy’s desire to deprioritize research into infectious diseases, although experts have warned that they could leave the US more vulnerable to future pandemics.
Despite its scaling down of RNA-related infectious disease research, the administration has expressed enthusiasm about some non-Covid research involving mRNA.
In January, shortly after taking office, President Trump announced a joint venture by OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank called Stargate to invest up to $500 billion for AI infrastructure. At the time, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison talked up the potential for AI to make personalized mRNA-based vaccines for cancer.
In an August 12 op-ed in The Washington Post, National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya acknowledged the promise of mRNA. “I do not dispute its potential. In the future, it may yet deliver breakthroughs in treating diseases such as cancer, and HHS is continuing to invest in ongoing research on applications in oncology and other complex diseases,” he wrote.
Unlike his boss, Bhattacharya says he does not believe the mRNA vaccines have caused mass harm. But he says the reason for stopping mRNA vaccine research is because the platform has lost public trust—a rationale that deviates from Kennedy’s.
Yet mRNA may be more accepted when it comes to treating very sick patients with genetic disorders.
Earlier this year, regulators at the FDA greenlit a customized gene-editing treatment for an infant named KJ Muldoon with a rare and life-threatening liver disease. Created in just six months, it uses mRNA to deliver the gene-editing components to his liver. It was the first time a customized gene-editing treatment was used to successfully treat a patient.
In June, FDA commissioner Marty Makary praised the achievement on his podcast, calling it “kind of a big win for medical science,” and at an FDA roundtable Makary said the agency will continue to facilitate the regulatory process for these types of products.
The researchers behind the custom gene-editing treatment plan to use the same approach for more patients and recently met with the FDA about a clinical trial proposal. “The FDA was very positive about the proposal and effectively gave us the green light to proceed with our work,” says Kiran Musunuru, professor for translational research at the University of Pennsylvania and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
The team has another meeting with the FDA in a month or two to discuss extending the platform concept beyond a single disease or single gene to a broader group of disorders. “We’ll see how that goes,” he says.
Emily Mullin is a staff writer at WIRED, covering biotechnology. Previously, she was an MIT Knight Science Journalism project fellow and a staff writer covering biotechnology at Medium’s OneZero. Before that, she served as an associate editor at MIT Technology Review, where she wrote about biomedicine. Her stories have also … Read More
Staff Writer
So TL:DR you’re just wrong, and the ban targets all sorts of RNA based research not even related to vaccines.
Don’t just read articles by their title.
RFK Jr. is a clown, a moron, an idiot, and a tool.
2 Likes
Also, the article says (my emphasis)
Gee, funny how @Giltil seems to have forgotten that part of the article. Also, this is astonishing:
Gosh. I wonder how that happened.
3 Likes
I was about to jump on that too. COVID vaccine got a lot more exposure in the first few months than clozapine ever will, so of course there are a lot of cases with side effects. It’s not the number of cases that matter - it is the rate at which harmful side effects occur.
Actually the number of cases does matter in a different way, having a large sample let’s you detect smaller effects that would otherwise get lost in noise. It could be possible for the mRNA vaccine to actually be safer, but we just can’t detect the harm in other treatments. I’m not saying that is the situation here, this is just an example to illustrate how to approach the question. You really need to look at *rates and risk.*
The real point is that no one is denying there is reasonable evidence that the mRNA vaccine may increase the likelihood of carditis, particularly in younger males. This is not something that is being cloaked by a conspiracy of silence and may well be considered in policy recommendations going forward (in those countries where the process has not been co-opted by political ideologues with no scientific expertise, that is.)
3 Likes
Agreed. There will always be some form of side effects for certain people, it is unavoidable. Transparency about what those effects are is simply good practice.
1 Like