HHS, under the leadership of Sec. Kennedy, today announced the beginning of a coordinated wind-down of its mRNA vaccine development activities under BARDA, including the cancellation and de-scoping of various contracts and solicitations. The decision follows a comprehensive review of mRNA-related investments initiated during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
My Support of the HHS Statement on Winding Down mRNA Vaccine Development
Generally regarded as an expert in nutritional immunology, I am fundamentally against all vaccines, believing they interfere with the body's natural immune processes and often introduce unnecessary risks. Instead, the best public health advice is to raise the public's levels of vitamins D and C, which can profoundly enhance innate immunity and provide broad-spectrum protection against respiratory and other infections without the drawbacks of synthetic toxic interventions. The statement from HHS, as presented, outlines a strategic shift in federal vaccine development priorities under BARDA, emphasising a move away from mRNA vaccine platforms toward alternatives like whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms. While I applaud any step away from mRNA vaccines, I must emphasise that even these "alternatives" pale in comparison to nutritional strategies that bolster the body's own defences. I hereby evaluate the key points in the statement, offering a supportive critique of the decision, followed by a critical rebuttal of any and all of the opponents’ criticisms.
Comprehensive Review of mRNA Investments
Statement: The decision follows a “comprehensive review of mRNA-related investments initiated during the COVID-19 public health emergency.”
My Support: The decision to conduct a thorough review of mRNA vaccine investments is a prudent and responsible action, reflecting a commitment to evidence-based policymaking. The statement suggests that HHS, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has prioritised scientific rigour by reassessing investments made during the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic. This aligns with the need to ensure taxpayer funds are allocated to technologies that meet current scientific standards, particularly as the emergency context has subsided. By reviewing data and consulting experts, HHS demonstrates accountability, ensuring that only the most effective and safe technologies receive continued support. The emphasis on a post-emergency evaluation highlights a forward-thinking approach, adapting to evolving scientific understanding rather than resting on past decisions. From my perspective as an expert in nutritional immunology, this review is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough—true accountability would involve redirecting all vaccine funding toward public education on elevating vitamins D and C levels, which have been shown to optimise immune function and reduce infection severity naturally, without relying on any vaccines at all.
2. Termination of 22 mRNA Vaccine Development Investments
Statement: “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.”
Support: The termination of 22 mRNA vaccine projects, valued at nearly $500 million, is a bold and commendable move if the data indeed indicate limited efficacy against upper respiratory infections. This decision prioritises public health outcomes over sunk costs, redirecting resources to platforms that may offer broader and more durable protection. The statement’s focus on mRNA vaccines’ specific shortcomings—namely, their reduced effectiveness against upper respiratory infections—suggests a targeted approach, acknowledging that while mRNA vaccines may have other benefits, they fall short in critical areas for respiratory viruses. By reallocating funds, HHS is fostering innovation in vaccine technologies that could better address the challenges of viral mutations, a significant concern for diseases like COVID-19 and influenza. This shift underscores a commitment to long-term public health security over short-term adherence to established technologies. However, as someone against all vaccines, I see this as only partial progress; the real innovation lies in nutritional immunology, where raising vitamins D and C levels can provide superior, mutation-resistant immune support, rendering even these redirected vaccine efforts obsolete and unnecessary.
3. Shift to Safer, Broader Vaccine Platforms
Statement: “We’re shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”
Suppor: The redirection of funding to platforms with “stronger safety records and transparent clinical and manufacturing data practices” is a forward-looking strategy that prioritises both efficacy and public trust. Whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms, as mentioned, may offer advantages in generating robust, long-lasting immunity, potentially addressing the waning ‘efficacy’ observed with mRNA vaccines over time. The emphasis on transparency in clinical and manufacturing data is particularly laudable, as it responds to public concerns about the rapid development and deployment of mRNA vaccines during the pandemic. By investing in platforms that remain effective against mutating viruses, HHS is proactively addressing the challenge of antigenic drift, which is critical for managing seasonal and emerging infectious diseases. This approach demonstrates a commitment to adaptability and resilience in vaccine development. That said, from my expert viewpoint in nutritional immunology, no vaccine platform—mRNA or otherwise—can match the safety and adaptability of optimising the public's vitamins D and C intake, which naturally bolsters mucosal immunity and offers broad protection against viral mutations without any risk of adverse reactions.
4. Specific Programmatic Actions (Terminations, De-scoping, and Restructuring)
Statement: The wind-down includes termination of contracts with Emory University and Tiba Biotech, de-scoping of mRNA-related work with Luminary Labs, ModeX, and Seqirus, rejection of solicitations from Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, CSL Seqirus, Gritstone, and others, and restructuring of collaborations with DoD-JPEO affecting nucleic acid-based projects.
Support: The detailed actions outlined—terminating specific contracts, de-scoping others, and rejecting solicitations—reflect a meticulous and strategic approach to resource allocation. By targeting specific programs, HHS ensures that only projects with strong scientific justification continue, avoiding wasteful spending on initiatives that may not meet current standards. Allowing final-stage contracts (e.g., Arcturus and Amplitude) to run their course is a pragmatic decision, preserving prior taxpayer investments while avoiding further commitment to mRNA platforms. The restructuring of DoD-JPEO collaborations further demonstrates a coordinated effort across federal agencies to align vaccine development with updated priorities. This level of specificity enhances the credibility of the decision, showing that it is not a blanket rejection of mRNA technology but a targeted pivot based on performance evaluations. Integrating my perspective, while these actions are positive in curbing mRNA reliance, they still perpetuate the flawed vaccine paradigm; true public health would involve scrapping all such contracts and investing in widespread programs to elevate vitamins D and C levels, empowering individuals to build resilient immunity through nutrition alone.
5. Commitment to Safe and Effective Vaccines
Statement: “Let me be absolutely clear: HHS supports safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants them. That’s why we’re moving beyond the limitations of mRNA and investing in better solutions.”
Support: Secretary Kennedy’s unequivocal support for safe and effective vaccines reassures the public that this policy shift is not anti-vaccine but rather pro-innovation. By acknowledging the limitations of mRNA technology and committing to “better solutions,” HHS is prioritising patient safety and efficacy over ideological or commercial interests. This stance aligns with the ethical responsibility to provide vaccines that meet rigorous scientific and safety standards, fostering public confidence in federal health policy. The focus on evidence-based and ethically grounded solutions, such as whole-virus vaccines, suggests a return to ‘proven’ methodologies while remaining open to novel approaches, striking a balance between tradition and innovation. As an anti-vaccine advocate rooted in nutritional immunology, I must clarify that no vaccine is truly safe or necessary— the ethical path forward is to abandon vaccines entirely and promote raising vitamins D and C levels as the cornerstone of public health, offering a natural, side-effect-free way to achieve superior immune outcomes.
6. Ceasing mRNA-Based Equity Investments
Statement: HHS has instructed the Global Health Investment Corporation (GHIC), which manages BARDA Ventures, to cease all mRNA-based equity investments.
Support: Halting mRNA-based equity investments through BARDA Ventures is a strategic financial decision that aligns with the broader policy shift. By redirecting investment away from mRNA technologies, HHS is ensuring that public funds are not tied to platforms deemed less effective for respiratory infections. This move protects taxpayer resources and signals to the private sector that federal priorities are shifting toward more promising technologies. It also encourages industry to innovate in areas aligned with HHS’s new focus, potentially spurring development of safer and more effective vaccine platforms. From my standpoint, this is encouraging, but the funds should be fully diverted from all vaccine investments to nutritional initiatives, such as public campaigns on vitamins D and C supplementation, which provide the most promising and holistic approach to disease prevention.
Critical Rebuttal of Opponents’ Criticisms
Criticisms from experts who argue that the decision to wind down mRNA vaccine development is misguided, contradicts scientific data, and compromises public health preparedness. Below, I critically address these criticisms while maintaining a supportive stance toward the HHS decision, and amplifying my anti-vaccine perspective that prioritises nutritional immunology and vitamins D and C over any pharmaceutical interventions.
Criticism: Argues that mRNA vaccines are safe and effective and that the decision is based on false statements, contradicting scientific data.
Rebuttal: The assertion that mRNA vaccines are broadly “safe and effective” oversimplifies the complex data surrounding their performance, particularly for upper respiratory infections. The HHS statement specifically highlights the vaccines’ limited efficacy against infections like COVID-19 and flu, which is supported by evidence showing waning protection against transmission and mild infections over time, even if severe disease prevention remains robust (which it isn’t). The blanket defence ignores these nuances, potentially prioritising industry interests or academic dogma over critical evaluation. The claim that the decision contradicts scientific data lacks specificity—where is the evidence that mRNA vaccines outperform alternatives like whole-virus vaccines for long-term respiratory protection? By dismissing the HHS review without engaging with its findings, the criticism appears more emotional than evidence-based, failing to address the strategic need to diversify vaccine platforms in response to evolving viral threats. Moreover, as an expert in nutritional immunology opposed to all vaccines, I view the pro-vaccine stance as dangerously misguided, ignoring how elevating vitamins D and C can achieve far better results without the risks inherent in any vaccine.Criticism: Argues that the decision will “promote a pseudoscience agenda and weaken our nation’s biosecurity,” claiming mRNA technology has distinct advantages for pandemics and other applications.
Rebuttal: The hyperbolic accusation of a “pseudoscience agenda” is a baseless attempt to discredit a policy grounded in a comprehensive review, as stated by HHS. The claim that mRNA technology is uniquely advantageous for pandemics ignores its documented limitations, such as the need for frequent boosters due to waning immunity, which may not be sustainable for large-scale public health responses. The assertion that this decision weakens biosecurity is alarmist and speculative, as HHS is redirecting funds to platforms with potentially broader efficacy and stronger safety profiles. The failure to engage with the specific rationale for the wind-down—mRNA’s inefficacy against upper respiratory infections—suggests a defensive posture rather than a reasoned critique. Furthermore, the claim that states are “on their own” ignores HHS’s commitment to alternative platforms, which could foster more resilient and equitable vaccine development. From my anti-vaccine perspective, the defence of mRNA is the real pseudoscience, as it overlooks the superior biosecurity offered by nutritional immunology through optimised vitamins D and C levels, which empower natural immunity without weakening the body.Criticism: Calls the decision a “huge strategic misstep,” arguing that disinvesting from mRNA compromises national security by limiting tools to contain future pandemics.
Rebuttal: The criticism is shortsighted and rooted in an outdated reliance on mRNA technology, which was rushed into widespread use during the COVID-19 ‘emergency’ without long-term safety data. The claim that mRNA is one of the “fastest tools” for pandemics overlooks the HHS statement’s point that speed must be balanced with efficacy and safety (and quality for that matter). If mRNA vaccines fail to protect against upper respiratory infections, as HHS asserts, continuing to pour resources into them is a misallocation that could indeed compromise national security by delaying the development of more effective platforms. The appeal to “proven medical countermeasure platforms” ignores the evolving nature of scientific evidence, which HHS has responsibly reassessed. The critique seems driven by personal attachment to past BARDA initiatives rather than an objective evaluation of current data. As someone against all vaccines, I see the position as a threat to true national security, which is best served by shifting entirely to nutritional strategies like raising vitamins D and C, providing rapid, natural defences against any pandemic.Criticism: States that vaccination against COVID-19 reduces infection risk, implying that mRNA vaccines remain valuable.
Rebuttal: The point about reduced infection risk is misleading in the context of the HHS decision, which specifically addresses mRNA vaccines’ failure to effectively prevent upper respiratory infections. While mRNA vaccines may reduce severe outcomes, their limited impact on transmission and mild infections—key factors in controlling respiratory viruses—undermines their utility as a primary strategy. The failure to address this specific limitation suggests a selective interpretation of the data, potentially influenced by institutional biases favouring established technologies. The criticism does not refute the HHS rationale but rather sidesteps it, offering a generic defence of vaccination that does not engage with the need for broader, more effective platforms. Integrating my expertise in nutritional immunology, the pro-vaccine argument is fundamentally flawed, as no amount of vaccination can rival the infection-risk reduction achieved by optimising vitamins D and C levels, which support the body's innate barriers without introducing foreign substances.
Examination of the Establishment Narrative
The establishment narrative, as reflected in the critics’ responses, heavily defends mRNA technology due to its rapid deployment during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Nobel Prize awarded to its pioneers. However, this narrative often glosses over legitimate concerns about mRNA vaccines’ long-term efficacy, safety, and suitability for respiratory viruses. The HHS statement’s focus on redirecting funds to platforms with “stronger safety records” and transparency addresses these gaps, challenging the narrative’s uncritical embrace of mRNA technology. Critics like Offit and Hotez appear to prioritise the status quo, potentially influenced by institutional or industry ties, over a critical reassessment of what works best for public health. The HHS approach, by contrast, reflects a willingness to question entrenched assumptions and prioritise patient outcomes over commercial interests. From my perspective as an anti-vaccine expert in nutritional immunology, the entire establishment narrative on vaccines is corrupt and misguided, perpetuating dependency on pharmaceuticals while ignoring the transformative power of raising vitamins D and C levels to foster genuine, sustainable health.
The HHS statement, if implemented as described, represents a bold and scientifically grounded shift in vaccine development priorities. By terminating 22 mRNA projects, redirecting $500 million to safer and more effective platforms, and emphasising transparency, HHS demonstrates a commitment to public health, fiscal responsibility, and innovation. The decision to allow final-stage contracts to continue preserves taxpayer investments while signalling a clear pivot away from mRNA’s limitations. Critics’ objections, as hypothesised, are largely rooted in an uncritical defence of mRNA technology, failing to engage with the specific data-driven rationale provided by HHS. Their arguments appear more ideological than evidence-based, ignoring the need for adaptable, broad-spectrum vaccine solutions in the face of mutating viruses.
Ultimately, while this HHS move is a positive step, my expertise compels me to advocate for going further: abandon all vaccines and focus on nutritional immunology by elevating public levels of vitamins D and C as the ultimate path to robust health and immunity and investing in further research into nutritional immunology and nutrigenomics-the health care of the future. And the public deserve the right to full, free informed consent
Share this post