By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The U.S. government, under the leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has cancelled nearly $500 million in contracts for mRNA vaccine development, a move celebrated by anti-vaccine advocates despite contradicting scientific evidence. Kennedy claimed the cancellation was due to the vaccines’ ineffectiveness against respiratory infections, a claim refuted by health experts like Michael Osterholm. The decision has been met with concern, as it jeopardizes the ability to combat future pandemics and undermines national security, as well as essential government investment in vaccine development.
Read the original article here
“This Is What We Voted For!” MAHA World Celebrates mRNA News (Experts Say It Will Kill People)
The crux of this whole issue seems to boil down to a profound celebration of ignorance. The sentiment, “This is what we voted for!” is being trumpeted by a segment of the population, which we’re tentatively calling MAHA (we can only guess at its actual meaning, but it’s clearly not aligned with sensible health practices). This group, fueled by a distrust of science and expertise, seems to be reveling in a situation that could have devastating consequences. Their denial of progress, especially in areas like mRNA technology, is particularly concerning. It’s the kind of sentiment that rejects even basic, non-mRNA vaccines.
This celebration is rooted in a specific kind of resentment, targeting those perceived as “the other.” The core argument seems to be that the “wrong” people are being hurt, and that’s somehow a victory. This aligns with a disturbing narrative that dismisses the value of scientific advancements, especially in the face of life-threatening diseases. The prospect of cutting-edge medical treatments, especially those involving mRNA technology, is being sidelined, and that’s where the danger lies.
The concerns revolve around potentially disastrous consequences, and the potential for a rise in preventable deaths. The removal of mRNA treatments is equated to removing life-saving tools like antibiotics. The consequences extend far beyond COVID-19. These technologies held the promise of advancements in treating a wide range of serious illnesses, including cancer. The denial of the value of mRNA vaccines boils down to a categorical misunderstanding that they alter our DNA.
The source of the problem seems to be the appointment of individuals who are, in the minds of many, unqualified and even actively detrimental to public health. The situation is viewed as a fundamental betrayal of public trust. This group has voted for a political agenda that directly opposes scientific advancements, putting people’s lives at risk in the process. And the reactions range from anger to despair.
The impact on those with legitimate medical concerns is significant. There are reports of misinformation, with claims of causation between vaccines and serious illnesses. This creates a climate of fear and distrust, making it even harder to promote public health measures. The situation is made worse by the promotion of pseudoscience and anti-vaccine propaganda, making the situation appear far more complex than it actually is.
The prevailing sentiment suggests that some individuals actively welcome the potential for harm. Their embrace of this situation seems to be fueled by a desire to see certain groups suffer, an “every man for himself” attitude. This sentiment is a direct threat to public health initiatives.
The article suggests that the US experiment may be over. The situation is viewed as a failed relationship. There’s a longing for separation, where the scientifically-minded can flourish without being held back by anti-science and anti-education sentiments.
The irony in the situation is palpable: The very people who reject science are likely to seek out medical care when their own health is threatened. The article shows that this attitude is selfish and ultimately self-defeating.
The loss of progress in the field of mRNA vaccines is the core loss here. It’s not just about Covid; it’s about the potential for future treatments for diseases like cancer. The article suggests a deeper question, where those in power appear to be intentionally abandoning health science to the detriment of the non-rich.