Login
By Daniel O’Connor
In a First Opinion column for STAT titled “Kennedy’s case against mRNA vaccines collapses under his own evidence,” Stanford infectious disease physician Jake Scott unleashes a pointed critique of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr.’s decision to halt $500 million in federal mRNA research funding.
The piece claims RFK Jr.’s cited evidence not only fails to justify his policy — it undermines it.
But does STAT’s takedown stand on firm ground — or are we seeing yet another reflexive dismissal of any critique of the mRNA platform?
RFK’s $500 million move: Sensible scrutiny or scientific sabotage?
Kennedy’s action centers on pulling taxpayer money from late-stage mRNA vaccine research focused on respiratory illnesses, citing a large bibliography compiled by outside experts.
Moderna was the beneficiary of that money, and the company was already subsidized in billions of dollars. Let’s not forget also that the National Institutes of Health was in on the action, securing at least $400 million in royalty payments from Moderna for the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine.
As to the mRNA technology, critics argue that the compilation includes in vitro studies irrelevant to real-world vaccination, misrepresents risk data and ignores favorable large-scale studies on vaccine safety.
But let’s pause. Was Kennedy’s move purely political, or was there some logic beneath the surface?
mRNA vaccines, while groundbreaking, come with unresolved issues:
- Durability: Protection wanes quickly, necessitating regular boosters. And more and more scientific evidence in the form of peer-reviewed research evaluated and reported by TrialSite suggests this problem won’t likely go away easily.
- Safety signal complexity: Myocarditis in young males, rare anaphylaxis and evolving spike protein persistence data raise serious questions, among other conditions. The biodistribution challenge of these products — at least with COVID-19 immunization — has not been solved.
- Informed consent culture: Shouldn’t a risk-benefit discussion be more transparent? During the pandemic, a national emergency and another statute was leaned on heavily to reduce the influence of the all-mighty important informed consent.
STAT’s framing: Evidence or editorial?
Jake Scott’s article walks the reader through numerous studies allegedly misused in Kennedy’s bibliography.
However, Scott frames RFK Jr.’s use of evidence as either “staggering incompetence or willful misrepresentation” — strong accusations that presume a singular, universal interpretation of the science. That’s worth interrogating.
Key points from STAT:
- In vitro doesn’t equal real-world data: Studies using recombinant spike or mRNA in mouse brains are labeled irrelevant to intramuscular human vaccines.
- Misuse of data: The bibliography reportedly blurs spike protein effects from infection with those from vaccination.
- Cherry-picking: STAT claims Kennedy’s team ignored large-scale studies with favorable safety findings.
- Undermining preparedness: The op-ed argues Kennedy’s cuts threaten readiness for future pandemics.
Facts vs. speculation: Who’s playing fast and loose?
Hard facts:
- RFK Jr. ended $500 million in funding for mRNA respiratory research.
- He provided a lengthy evidence packet as justification.
- Some cited studies do involve non-standard administration routes (e.g., brain injections in mice).
- mRNA vaccines have demonstrated short-term effectiveness and rare but real side effects (e.g., myocarditis in young males).
Speculation & spin
STAT’s critique leans heavily on the assumption that RFK Jr.’s use of certain scientific studies signals either ignorance or deception.
But in doing so, the piece sidesteps a more nuanced — and frankly necessary — conversation about the real-world limitations of mRNA vaccine technology.
Rather than grappling with Kennedy’s broader policy rationale, such as durability issues, public trust erosion and the need for long-term safety transparency, STAT opts for character attack, a truly unfortunate move that demonstrates the limitations of that heavily industry-funded media.
Jake Scott calls Kennedy’s funding cut “scientific sabotage,” an inflammatory label that conveniently ignores mounting concerns about mRNA’s uneven performance outside of clinical trials.
Waning immunity, the need for repeated boosters, and poorly communicated risk-benefit tradeoffs aren’t fringe talking points — they’re active challenges that have even top scientists rethinking platform strategy.
And while the op-ed ridicules Kennedy’s grasp of “vaccine platforms,” it fails to engage with deeper structural critiques — like regulatory capture, accelerated approval pathways, or shifting efficacy metrics that left many confused and skeptical during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
By glossing over these valid concerns, STAT misses an opportunity for meaningful debate, replacing it with an echo of establishment certainty.
Where’s the vias? And what’s missing?
The STAT piece is heavy on rhetorical force but light on humility. There’s a clear pro-mRNA platform bias, with little room for balanced skepticism.
The piece ignores ongoing academic debate about the best path forward in vaccine technology, instead pushing a narrative of “science settled, Kennedy wrong.”
It assumes:
- mRNA is the only viable future pandemic defense.
- All safety concerns have been resolved or are statistically insignificant.
- Anyone questioning mRNA is anti-science or politically motivated.
These assumptions are not only premature — they discourage the very transparency and discourse public health needs.
Final thought: TrialSite’s perspective
The scientific community must ask hard questions. Kennedy’s move, while controversial, reflects ongoing concerns about mRNA’s durability, long-term safety and public trust.
Instead of mocking dissent, media outlets like STAT should welcome it — especially when it involves public funds and emerging biotechnologies.
Originally published by TrialSite News.
Daniel O’Connor is the founder and CEO of TrialSite News.
