The cutting edge technology, which is expected to promote new medical breakthroughs in the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases, is being treated “like a four-letter word” within the Trump administration, causing panic among Trump-appointed medical personnel, fearing that theories of misinformation and misinformation and conspiracy will drive the Covid-19 vaccine, turning down important research in the field.
Scientists and public health experts interviewed by the Guardian have issued warnings about recent moves by the National Institutes of Health to gather information on funding for research into mRNA technology.
Some people fear that it is the first step in compensation or refund grants that include technology. This has been an integral part of the rapid creation of vaccines against Covid-19, the main achievement of the first Trump terminology in the fight against the pandemic.
In the case of Covid-19, messenger RNA technology, which teaches the body to fight infections by introducing immune cells into the distinctive spike protein of the coronavirus, has been tested for use in diseases ranging from avian influenza and dengue fever to pancreatic cancer and melanoma.
Although NIH has not officially stated that it is cutting off mRNA vaccine and therapy research, scientists interviewed by the Guardian said they were informally told that NIH is running keyword searches for grants that mention mRNA vaccine-related technologies and related phrases.
“My colleagues have been advised not to apply for grants for mRNA vaccines. All this is through Grapevine. There is no official statement about that,” said the New York-based scientist.
In a statement to the Guardian, the NIH confirmed that it had made a “data call” to learn more about funding for mRNA vaccine grants. Nature of the Scientific Journal first reported the data call, saying it was carried out on March 6 by NIH Director Matthew Memoli. Scientists were given to report information, and the NIH collected information on 130 mRNA grants as a result.
Many of the scientists, public health experts and medical researchers interviewed by the Guardian spoke about the state of anonymity and feared that if they publicly expressed concerns they might be targeted.
One former NIH official who recently resigned said he “doesn’t understand” what’s going on within the organization.
“So far, attempts to reason with people have fallen in deaf ears. Everything is run by the department [Department of Health and Human Services] Or the White House,” the person said. KFF Health News All grants, including MRNA studies, were reported to be reported to Memory for referrals to the Health Secretary of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Adding to the concern is the administration’s February decision review a Nearly $600 million contract Between HHS and Moderna, it was set to fund research into potential mRNA vaccines for five influenza subtypes, including H5N1 or avian influenza.
“mRNA has become a new four-letter word. So it’s crazy. It’s more than just anti-vax,” the person said, referring to the US anti-vaccine movement. “It’s about something related to the Covid response, which is weaponized by the extremes of the administration,” the person said.
Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and attending physician at Children’s Hospital Philadelphia, said he knows one of the researchers working on mRNA technology that has a “flag-up” grant.
“That doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t get it, but I’m worried that they might not get it,” he said. “It seems there’s a war with mRNA technology.” My question is. ”
Most experts agree that it is linked to the Covid-19 vaccine pandemic and politicization of misinformation.
“Before the pandemic, even the anti-vaccine groups didn’t focus on mRNA vaccines,” said Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, a vaccine law expert at the University of California Law School in San Francisco.
Most notable among Trump’s vaccine skeptics is Kennedy, the recently confirmed head of HHS. Kennedy criticized the mRNA vaccine while leading the health defense of anti-vaccine nonprofit children. In 2021, a group led by Kennedy subsequently filed a petition with the FDA to revoke emergency approval for the Covid-19 vaccine.
A study later showed that the claims were inaccurate. a Research by the Federal Fund The Covid-19 vaccine saved the lives of 3.2 million Americans and prevented more than 18 million hospitalizations until November 2022.
Kennedy denied it being an anti-vaccine during a Senate confirmation hearing.
Others who have been promoted to positions of power in the Trump administration have also questioned the Covid-19 strategy. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who is expected to be confirmed as the new director of the NIH, and Martin Makary, who has just been confirmed as the new director of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Jonathan Howard, a New York Neurologist Those who closely tracked medical misinformation over the past four years were critical of both. Bhatacharya and McCurry claim that Howard tried to convince people that the world had overreacted to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bhattacharya was one of the three authors of the great Barrington Declaration. This is a statement opposed to the Covid-19 lockdown, which supports so-called herd immunity. The declaration, signed in October 2020 on the campus of the right-wing American Economic Research Institute, called for the isolation of “old and frail” and socialization of those vulnerable to death from Covid-19.
“Maintaining” [lockdown] Measures before vaccines become available will be unfortunate and disproportionately harmful and cause irreparable damage. declaration I said. “People who are not vulnerable should be allowed to resume their lives as normal soon.”
The statement was widely criticized for oversimplifying the protection of vulnerable people. The vaccine will be available in December 2020 in just two months.
In a June 2024 X post, Bhattacharya said she supports the withdrawal of regulatory approvals for the marketing of Covid mRNA vaccines. He initially hesitated to sign on a petition asking for a move, but was convinced that doing so would lead to a “test evidence of clinical trials” to see if some patient groups would still benefit from the vaccine.
McCurry is not an anti-vaccine, but in June 2021, he suggested that parents should “think twice” before giving a COVID vaccine to a healthy child. In the article, he also said he was unaware of a single case of a healthy child who died of Covid-19. However, scientific research at the time reported that healthy children died from the virus.
Three experts, including two who closely monitored the growth of the US anti-covid vaccine movement, said they believed opposition to mRNA-related research could affect others under the HHS umbrella, including the FDA, which regulates drug and treatment approval.
“We are confident that companies will continue to invest in mRNA research. What’s important is whether the FDA will continue to approve mRNA vaccines,” said a former NIH official. “For me, that’s a big problem, because when there’s a collaborative effort to erase anything related to mRNA vaccines, obviously support for research is just one aspect.
Another former official who worked on rolling out the Covid-19 vaccine during the Biden administration said he had never seen evidence suggesting that the FDA would take a unilateral stance on approval of drugs and treatments using mRNA technology.
The person pointed out that Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s Center for Biological Evaluation and Research, responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of products, including vaccines, was still at his job. Previous officials said they believe Marks will effectively serve as a “guardrail” to protect the drug approval process against politicization.
The Guardian asked the FDA about its location regarding the mRNA vaccine review and whether the location is currently under review. The Guardian also asked the FDA to comment on concerns among scientists about whether such vaccines will continue to be approved by the FDA. The FDA did not respond directly to the questions.
In a statement, he said: “The FDA is a science-based regulatory body that evaluates the safety and efficacy of all products based on the data submitted by the sponsor and the totality of available scientific evidence. Vaccination decisions are personal.
The Guardian contacted drug industry lobbying groups Pfizer, Moderna, Merck and Fulma to ask whether the obvious distrust of the Trump administration’s mRNA vaccine is an area of concern. No one answered the Guardian question.
“We don’t know when our shoes will fall. As vaccine researchers, we are all very nervous about what will happen with fundraising,” said a New York scientist who spoke anonymously. “There’s no plan. It’s the elimination of strong technology against economic insanity and the future pandemic. It’s a weird nightmare.”
Any hints? Contact stephanie.kirchgaessner@theguardian.com or contact us about the signal at 646-886-8761.
