Can RFK Jr. go to pull out mRNAs -to become a huge miscalculation?

MRNA vaccines were announced as a medical diva that saved life during a pandemic, but now the US is being distracted by their research.

US Minister of Health Robert F Kennedy -Jelling has canceled 22 projects – worth $ 500 million (376 million pounds) for financing – for combating infections such as Covid and Flu.

Does Kennedy have the most famous skeptical vaccine in the country – does it make a monumental miscalculation?

Professor Adam Finn, a vaccine researcher at the University of Bristol, says it is “a little”, but the discarding technology of “stupid” and possibly a “catastrophic mistake”.

Let’s figure out why.

Kennedy says he has considered the science of mRNA vaccines, concluding that “these vaccines show cannot effectively protect against upper respiratory tract infections such as Covid and Flu.”

Instead, he said, he would move financing to “safer, wider vaccine platforms that remain effective, even if the viruses are mutated.”

So are the safe vaccines of the mRNA? Are they effective? Will there be other vaccine technologies better?

And one more question is where the vaccine vaccines should fit into the pantheon of other vaccine technology – because there are many:

• Inactivated vaccines Use a source virus or bacterium, kill it and use it to train your immune system – such as the influenza’s annual reception
• Weakened vaccines Do not kill an infectious agent, but make it weaker, so causes a soft infection – such as the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella)
• Combine vaccines Use pieces of protein or sugar from an error, so it launches an immune response without causing infection – such as meningitis types
• MRNA vaccine Use a genetic code fragment that temporarily instructs the body to do parts of the virus, which responds to the immune system, reacts to this

Everyone has the advantages and disadvantages, but Professor Finn claims that we have “flipped out” mRNA vaccines during a pandemic with the exception of other approaches, and now has a adjustment process.

“But the pendulum is still waving that MRNA is useless and has no value and should not develop or understand better, it is equally nonsense, it has done great things,” he says.

The statement that the vaccines of the mRNA do not protect against the upper respiratory tract infections such as COVID and the flu “just”, – says Professor Andrew Palord from the Oxford vaccine group, who soon leaves the head of the joint vaccination and immunization committee (JCVI).

It has been shown that vaccines provide protection – preservation of people alive and in the hospital – in both clinical trials, and then during intensive monitoring of how vaccines were performed when they were deployed worldwide.

In the first year of vaccination during the COVID pandemic, it was estimated that only the vaccine. Nearly 6 million lives.

A small number of cases of inflammation of the heart – called myocarditis – especially in young people – occurred against this.

“Very rare side effects should be balanced compared to the great benefit of technology,” says Professor Palord.

The pandemic was an era when the world was once focused on COVID, and the vaccine performance was intensively controlled. There is an opinion that they have done mostly more useful than harm.

But that doesn’t mean they are the perfect technology.

MRNA vaccines train the immune system to navigate only one protein from all the virus. If this protein in the caronus changes or mutates, then the body’s protection decreases.

We saw the consequences of this – immunity, and vaccines need to be updated.

One of the theoretical arguments is that the other approach to the vaccine – for example, the use of the whole virus – will give better protection, because the immune system will be more oriented.

However, Professor Palord says that the vaccines against mRNA worked better than inactivated in the fight against COVID.

He says it probably comes down to how they are produced – and the fact that the process of destroying the virus also “changes viral proteins, so less stimulation is observed compared to the vaccines.”

The need for vaccines upgrade is not a failure of mRNA technology, which can be easily resolved by turning from one technology to another – instead, this is the main nature of some viruses.

The same vaccines against the lone or HPV (human papilloma virus) have been effective for decades and have no signs of refusal, since the genetic codes of the virus are more stable in each case.

But some viruses live in eternal stream.

For example, the flu is not one virus – but instead of constantly changing the target. At any time, one voltage will be in the rise and most likely will cause problems in winter.

Influenza influenzed the influenza given to adults is updated every year – as well as a living vaccine given to children as a nasal spray. The future form of mRNA flu vaccine will work the same.

“The point is to keep up with the options, all technologies, not just about MRNA,” says Professor Palord.

There is a legitimate scientific question about which vaccine technology is used for any disease.

What causes concern about scientists is that the pulling of mRNA -studies means that we will not have such vaccines when we need to do what no other technology can.

The professor says: “I do not think there is evidence that they are much better for protection, but where RNA -technology – the streets ahead of everything else, responds to the outbreaks.”

The world is highly drilled when preparing new flu vaccines each year. But even then, there is a six -month decision to make a decision on new flu strains, growing a vaccine on the scale of chicken eggs, and then spread it. New vaccines take even longer.

But with mRNA you can have a new vaccine in six to weeks, and then in a few months tens or hundreds of millions of doses.

Some of the projects that the US financing in the US were preparing for pandemic influenza. This virus, H5N1, destroys bird populations and goes into a wide range of other animals, including American animals.

“It doesn’t make sense, and when we get a human flu pandemic, it can be seen as a catastrophic mistake,” says prof.

But the consequences of the United States that turn away from mRNA research may feel more widely.

What impact does this step have on the confidence in modern vaccines, mRNA or another? How does this affect the world when the US is one of the most influential countries in medical research? And will it affect other types of mRNA -technologies, such as cancer vaccines – or using an approach to treat rare genetic diseases?

Professor Palord raises another question after RFK JR moving: “Does all endure us when the huge market turns back to RNA?

“This is one of the most important technologies that we will see in this century in the field of infectious diseases, biotherapy for rare diseases and critically for cancer. This is the message I am worry.”