Dr. Malone Backs Kennedy’s Decision to Terminate mRNA Vaccine Development

By Adam Garrie, Louis Conte, and Staff of The MAHA Report

On August 5, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) will terminate 22 mRNA vaccine development investments totaling around $500 million. Kennedy explained that mRNA vaccines were not effective against viruses impacting the upper respiratory tract.

Legacy media reactions were swift and critical. But Dr. Robert Malone, who was recently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at HSS, took a different tack. In an interview for an article in The Epoch Times, and on his Substack, Dr. Malone spelled out problems with the mRNA vaccinations, citing a new study revealing a high statistical potential for such vaccines to cause myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, an inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart.

Drawing on work by Dr. Malone and others, Kennedy has laid out the scientific case against mRNA vaccines. He has said HHS intends to invest in a new generation of vaccines that do not use mRNA technology. While new vaccines will never be mandated, a position confirmed multiple times by President Trump and Kennedy, it remains the goal of HHS to provide safe vaccines for those who elect to take them.

Dr. Malone, one of the joint patent holders who invented modern mRNA technology, has long spoken out against the use of such technology to treat respiratory illnesses such as Covid. In his recent Substack article, titled, “Global Data Bombshell: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Top List of Drugs Most Often Reported with Heart Inflammation,” Malone cites a study by Korean scientists Dr. Jaehyeong Cho, Dong Keon Yon and colleagues at Kyung Hee University. The study found that 76.16% of causes of myocarditis, found in a sample size of over 35 million records, were linked to mRNA Covid vaccines. For pericarditis, the figure was 88.15%.

But legacy media has not touched such a narrative and such science, preferring to parade out vaccine orthodoxy figures such as Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota. A familiar talking head during the pandemic, on his first sound bite during a recent PBS interview with Geoff Bennett, Osterholm took aim at Kennedy’s HHS decision to terminate the development of 22 mRNA vaccines. He said in the 50 years he had been on the front lines of public health “this was the most dangerous public health decision” he had ever seen.

Osterholm claimed that the mRNA vaccines slowed the Covid pandemic, even though HHS has published scientific studies demonstrating the opposite. Meanwhile, The New York Times referred to mRNA vaccines as “mainstream,” which is not the case: these vaccines remain highly experimental while their efficacy over time has been discredited.

Osterholm made no mention of the findings of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, which shows that federal health agencies downplayed the risk of myocarditis from Covid vaccines. PBS never asked Osterholm about those findings or about documented injuries caused by the mRNA vaccines.

Who is Michael Osterholm?

As director of CIDRAP, Osterholm was a key player in the federal government’s response to Covid-19. Not surprisingly, he has been funded by old-guard vaccination funders such as the Gates Foundation and the W.H.O. In the event of another pandemic, Osterholm claims that mRNA technology will be able to create a vaccine in about one year. Given his track record on Covid 19, Osterholm would likely plan another lockdown cycle while we all wait (again) for another mRNA vaccine.

In his recent interview on PBS, Osterholm did not mention that Kennedy envisions battling a virus outbreak with antiviral drugs that are immediately available to dispense to the population.

Most astonishingly, USA Today published a hyperbolic opinion piece by Rex Huppke headlined, “RFK Jr. defunds mRNA vaccine research. His anti-vax policies will kill people.” More spin.

How many times does one have to tell legacy media that Kennedy is not anti-vax? In fact, he and HHS intend to invest in a new generation of vaccines that do not use mRNA technology.

mRNA vaccines were developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, although no experiments on humans were conducted at that time. In the early 2000s, scientists began exploring using the mRNA vaccines as a treatment for patients with late-stage cancer, although this too remained theoretical in nature. Many scientists refuse to refer to mRNA treatments as “vaccines” due to substantial differences between mRNA therapeutics and traditional vaccines, which contain either a live or inactivated virus specimen.

Limited human trials of mRNA vaccine technology were conducted in the 2010s, although none of the products produced at that time were authorized for the general public.

The first mRNA vaccines administered to the general public were granted emergency use authorization in late 2020. This included the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine and a similar vaccine from the mRNA pharmaceutical firm Moderna.

“Millions of people, maybe even you or someone you know, got the Omicron variant despite being vaccinated because a single mutation rendered the vaccine ineffective,” Kennedy said. “Measles is a very common virus. But if you're looking at the science and consulting top experts, the NIH, FDA, and HHS have determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses.”

But rather than debate Dr. Malone and Kennedy on the basis of their science, the legacy media is once again stuck on a tired, fear-mongering tune featuring men like Osterholm forever game to whip the public into a frenzy.

Take-aways

• Despite the complaints by old-guard vaccinologists promoted widely in the legacy media, Kennedy’s explanation of the scientific basis for cancelling 500 million dollars in contracts to develop more mRNA vaccines is sound and in the best interest of the health of Americans.
• The legacy media has promoted the views of individuals who support mRNA vaccines without ever questioning whether they have conflicts of interest. However, there are voices of reason, such as Dr. Malone, who supports the decision to move resources to vaccine development programs that are safer, more effective, and do not carry the now clearly established risks of mRNA vaccines.