The U.S. Secretary of Health has claimed that mRNA vaccines are ineffective against respiratory illnesses and announced a $5 billion cut in funding for mRNA vaccine research. This contradicts existing scientific evidence, which shows that many mRNA vaccines are not only effective but often outperform other vaccine types. Here’s what you should know to assess these statements:

During his announcement, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, stated, “These vaccines cannot effectively protect against upper respiratory tract infections such as COVID and influenza.” He indicated that funding would shift “to a safer, more versatile vaccine platform that remains effective even as the virus mutates.”

There are currently various vaccine types available: live viruses, inactivated viruses, genetically engineered viral shells, individual viral proteins, and mRNAs that encode viral proteins. The effectiveness of these vaccines is often influenced more by the virus than by the vaccine itself.

For instance, the MMR vaccine has a 100% effectiveness rate in preventing measles outbreaks when vaccination coverage exceeds 90%. This high effectiveness is due to the measles virus being a stable target and requiring complex routes deep within the body, allowing ample opportunities for the immune system to respond before symptoms develop or transmission occurs.

In contrast, respiratory viruses, which cause colds and flus, initially infect cells in the upper respiratory tract. This setting complicates the generation of sufficient protective antibodies, making it significantly harder to prevent infection and transmission compared to measles.

Moreover, viruses responsible for colds, influenza, and COVID-19 are continuously mutating, driving evolutionary pressures for changes that can evade immunity from both infection and vaccination. Consequently, no influenza or COVID-19 vaccine can offer the same long-term protection as the measles components of MMR vaccines. However, mRNA vaccines perform comparably well.

For example, some mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are over 90% effective against symptomatic infections and provide enhanced protection against severe outcomes. In contrast, the effectiveness of non-mRNA vaccines for annual influenza prevention ranges from 20% to 60%. Additionally, a recent trial involving a combined COVID-19 and influenza mRNA vaccine has shown potential to surpass existing non-mRNA influenza vaccines for individuals over 50, who are most at risk.

Thus, Kennedy’s assertion regarding ineffectiveness is misguided. While this does not imply that mRNA vaccines will always be superior to others, new vaccines must outperform existing ones in clinical trials. If mRNA vaccines were ineffective, they would not receive approval.

Kennedy also posits that other vaccine types might sustain their effectiveness amidst viral mutations, likely referencing the concept of a “universal vaccine.” This idea aims to create a single vaccine effective against all variants of, for example, influenza or coronaviruses by targeting stable parts of the virus. However, achieving this is challenging since viruses often conceal stable regions beneath variable structures.

Despite extensive research efforts over the decades, developing a reliable universal vaccine has yet to be successful. Thus, investing heavily in this area may be unwise. Additionally, mRNA technology has been utilized in experimental settings for creating universal vaccines, making Kennedy’s second statement equally flawed.

Finally, effectiveness is just one factor; safety, cost, and the rapidity of vaccine development are also critical considerations. In this regard, mRNA technology provides significant advantages: it is safer than vaccines derived from live viruses, less expensive than those based on a single viral protein, and can be developed rapidly—essential in the context of quickly evolving respiratory viruses, especially during pandemics.

Moreover, mRNA vaccine technology has broader applications for developing a variety of other treatments. The funding cuts announced by Kennedy, based on erroneous claims, could impede progress by deterring companies from investing in this promising technology.