pull down to refresh

America Is Abandoning One of the Greatest Medical Breakthroughs - NYT Opinionwww.nytimes.com/2025/08/18/opinion/mrna-vaccines.html
304 sats \ 4 comments \ @Scoresby 5h HealthAndFitness
Every once in a while, I come across something that makes me wonder whether I'm completely delusional.
The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced it would wind down 22 mRNA vaccine development projects under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, halting nearly $500 million in investments. This decision undercuts one of the most significant medical advances in decades, technology that could protect millions more from the threats ahead. This decision undercuts one of the most significant medical advances in decades, technology that could protect millions more from the threats ahead.
Here's some economist, public commenter kind of people:
Project Warpspeed was probably the most consequential and unqualified success of Trump's first term, and mRNA vaccines one of the most exciting medical advances of the 21st century. But this time, Trump 2.0's anti-vax HHS Secretary (Kennedy) is cancelling all federal funding for 22 active mRNA development initiatives. There just aren't enough facepalm gifs for all this stupidity. source
If these kind of claims are true, wouldn't it make sense for every health-tech investor on earth to throw money at this tech? If the mRNA revolution is going to cure cancer and all this stuff, that sounds pretty darn lucrative. If mRNAs are "one of the most significant medical advances in decade" and "one of the most exciting medical advances of the 21st century" how is it possible that removing government funding "kills" them?
In 2021, cancer-specific medical spending surpassed $187 billion worldwide source
Oncology Market Size to Exceed USD 521.60 Billion by 2033. source
Clearly, there is a lot of money to be made in "curing cancer," yet somehow the recent RFK decision to remove government funding is going to result in a massive setback. Why wouldn't it do the opposite? Instead of an investor (the US gov't) who doesn't seem to care that much about results, we are now going to have private investors who are highly interested in outcomes. Unless I completely misunderstand how markets are supposed to work, this should result in better results. What am I missing?
archived version
write
preview
related posts
112 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 3h
If these kind of claims are true, wouldn't it make sense for every health-tech investor on earth to throw money at this tech? If the mRNA revolution is going to cure cancer and all this stuff, that sounds pretty darn lucrative. If mRNAs are "one of the most significant medical advances in decade" and "one of the most exciting medical advances of the 21st century" how is it possible that removing government funding "kills" them?
See, you're thinking with logic. That's your problem.
What we are witnessing is a coordinated effort to sway public opinion to continue the gravy train that the drug companies have been living on for who knows how long.
Last week I was listening to a clip from NPR where they were clutching their pearls about this topic and they had a great chance to dispute RFK's actual reasoning. What did they do instead? Lied about him and smeared his character.
That sort of stuff may work on people that already don't like someone but it is very weak to me. If someone is so wrong that it is as absurd(this is what critics of RFK say), you shouldn't attack them. You should refute them. The problem is they can't.
Now, I'm not defending RFK. I disagree with him on several things but the point here is one I don't disagree with. The US government has been printing money for these companies long enough. Not to mention the protections they have against lawsuits from victims from their products. Most people still have no clue that companies can't really be sued for the damages their products cause.
This whole anti-vax things really annoys me. RFK and anyone that even hints that they have a brain is called anti-vax. Its absolutely absurd. The insinuation is that there is only two positions. Vaccines are safe and they are dangerous and don't work. Imagine thinking every medicine is "safe". Whatever that means. Its absurd. Most treatments have trade-offs. People like RFK have been asking touch questions for decades and the responses to them tell me that they are on to something. There's a sick relationship between industry and the regulators.
What is most funny to me is that the media has smeared RFK for being anti-vax and is still doing this. Now with this announcement which cuts funding for MRNa, we learn that traditional vaccines are not being cut. Hmm, that's weird. He's not cutting that. Seems like an anti-vax guy would do that. Well, every time I have ever seen RFK he says he is not anti-vax. He just wants the truth out there and for people to have choices and the power to hold the industry accountable. See, that sounds reasonable. Not crazy. We can't have that. RFK is a nut.
Bottom line though. RFK is a dude. He doesn't matter. I don't care about him at all. He's just the guy that shows us the game. How you are attacked if you threaten the system. When you see the system attack someone like him you know they are on to something.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 1h
I agree, if it's good there is money to be made and government involvement is not needed.
Another issue is whether RFK is consistent. If he says nay to the government funding of some medical research, but yay to the government funding of other medical research, then it's not libertarianism, but political games.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4h
Careful, if you ask a talking head to think too hard they might call you a conspiracy theorist
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 5h bot
https://xcancel.com/JesseJenkins/status/1952866676724158833
reply