The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has decided to cancel a hefty $500 million (£376m) allocated for mRNA vaccine projects aimed at tackling respiratory viruses such as the flu and COVID-19. This move affects 22 initiatives spearheaded by well-known pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Moderna. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for his skepticism towards vaccines, stated his reasons for halting the funding involve concerns over the safety of mRNA technology.

Kennedy's assertion that "mRNA technology poses more risks than benefits for these respiratory viruses" has been met with backlash from doctors and health experts. They highlight that mRNA vaccines were pivotal during the COVID-19 crisis, leading to better control of the pandemic and saving millions of lives. Peter Lurie, a former FDA official, remarked that cancelling this funding risks the U.S. turning its back on effective tools needed for fighting future pandemics.

In response to the funding halt, Kennedy emphasized that he and his team "reviewed the science" and deemed the data insufficient to support mRNA vaccines against common respiratory illnesses. He plans to redirect funding toward "safer, broader vaccine platforms" that can withstand virus mutations. However, experts argue that viruses naturally mutate regardless of vaccination status, pointing out that annual flu virus changes occur irrespective of vaccines.

Dr. Paul Offit from the Vaccine Education Center has asserted that existing mRNA vaccines are remarkably safe and essential for preventing severe infections. The cancellation of this funding could leave the U.S. more vulnerable to future health crises, as mRNA technology has a quicker development timeline, crucial during urgent situations like pandemics.

Since taking charge, Kennedy has altered various aspects of how the health department handles vaccine regulations, even firing members of an advisory committee and reshaping its recommendations regarding vaccinations for children and pregnant women. These decisions create ripples of concern about the future of public health initiatives aimed at safeguarding Americans against infectious diseases.