COVID-19 Vaccines Truth or Fiction?

If you are confused about COVID-19 vaccines, whether they are “good” or “bad”, effective or  ineffective, safe or unsafe, causing more deaths than COVID-19 itself, resulting in a new epidemic of “turbo cancer” or not, and whether you should consider getting an updated vaccine when they roll out around the country next month, this blog post is for you.

It will be helpful to your understanding if you read my blog from two posts ago entitled: “A (fairly) Comprehensive Review of What We Know, What We Think We Know and What You Should Consider about COVID-19,” but don’t worry if you don’t have time to do that, because I will pull pieces from that post into this one to help you out.

Let’s get the issue of conflicts of interest out of the way first:

1. I do not own any individual shares of any pharmaceutical company. The only individual stock that I hold is that of an oil and gas company. I specified “individual,” because I do have investments in mutual funds, but I have no idea what stocks are in them and they are managed by professional managers, not me and the managers do not consult with me on which funds to invest in.
2. I do not receive any payments from pharmaceutical companies (and never have) for advisory services, speaking engagements, participation on a board, research, or any other kind of service. You can verify this for yourself at openpaymentsdata.cms.gov.
3. I do provide information on a weekly radio show (The Doctors Roundtable segment of the Idaho Matters show on Boise State Public Radio with host Gemma Gaudette), but I receive no payments for doing so, and they do not influence or control what I say.
4. If you are reading this blog, you know that I make it free to everyone and do not charge any subscription fee to do so. I do not receive any advertising dollars or sponsorships for my blog or social media accounts.
5. I have absolutely zero interest in running for elected office or serving in any current or future administration, so my positions on COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines are not influenced by attempting to attract attention or curry favor with any current or future politician.
6. The only money even remotely related to COVID-19 I have made is the royalties off the book I published in 2023: Preparing for the Next Global Outbreak: A Guide to Planning from the Schoolhouse to the White House.

So, whether you get a COVID-19 vaccine or not makes no difference to me from a financial standpoint. All I want to do is give you information that is evidence-based that you can use to make your own decision and hopefully some tips for how you can evaluate claims being made so that your disinformation warning system goes off when it comes your way.

Two more points to be made before we dive in. First, not all COVID-19 vaccines are mRNA vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are, but the Novavax is not. Further, a number of countries have used non-mRNA vaccines (more on that below).

Second, let’s be sure we all have a common understanding as to what mRNA is. mRNA is not something we made synthetically until recently. It is naturally-occurring in every cell of our bodies and has been for all of creation. Our DNA that contains our genetic code is in the nucleus of our cells. I find that it helps to compare a cell to a freshly cracked egg that has been poured into a skillet. In this analogy, the yolk would represent the nucleus of the cell. That genetic material in the DNA in the nucleus contains the code (think of it like the recipe) of the precise instructions for how the cell should make its proteins. These proteins are vital for our cellular and bodily functions. The problem is that all the parts of the protein assembly plant within the cell are in the cytoplasm (think of that as the white part of the egg). So, how do we get the instructions in the genetic code of the DNA in the nucleus to the protein assembly plant in the cytoplasm? Answer: mRNA. mRNA can make a copy of those instructions for the particular protein that is needed directly from the DNA. Unlike the DNA, which cannot move between the nucleus and the cytoplasm, the mRNA can. mRNA takes that copy of the instructions (a transcript) and then travels to the cytoplasm to the protein-making factory so that those specific ingredients to make the protein can be assembled in precisely the correct order to end up with the functional protein that the cell needs. (By the way, the mRNA does not incorporate itself into or alter the DNA. Thus, the claims by certain prominent physician disinformation purveyors that mRNA is gene therapy is without any basis in biology or reality).

With that behind us, the most recent stir caused by RFK, Jr. as Secretary of HHS occurred on August 5, 2025 when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a press release entitled: “HHS Winds Down mRNA Vaccine Development Under BARDA” https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-winds-down-mrna-development-under-barda.html. Most readers will never have heard of BARDA – Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. BARDA was formed in 2006 to fund the research, development and stockpiling of vaccines and other treatments to respond to public health emergencies such as a chemical, biological, radiation, or nuclear attacks, as well as to prepare for pandemics (especially influenza viruses) and for other emerging infectious diseases.

While I don’t think that mRNA vaccines are perfect, I believe, and many other experts believe, that mRNA vaccines currently offer the best and quickest option for a vaccine in the event of a novel virus emerging (very likely an avian influenza virus) that is associated with high mortality and high transmission rates that end up overwhelming our hospitals. All you have to do is look at Operation Warp Speed, a phenomenal and unprecedented success, under the first Trump Administration to see what I mean. The average time to development of a vaccine before Operation Warp Speed was roughly 5 – 10 years. With Operation Warp Speed, vaccines were available in just under 12 months.

Now, personally, I think COVID-19 was bad, but I understand that some feel differently. However, relatively speaking, while COVID-19 caused a huge number of deaths, it was not a high mortality rate virus. Even a low mortality-rate virus can cause a lot of deaths if it is highly transmissible and infects enough people. As I mentioned in my blog post on a review of COVID-19, the case fatality rate for COVID—19 after the availability of vaccines and treatments was about 2.1% worldwide and 1.6% in the U.S. There are viruses that do cause disease outbreaks in other parts of the world, but may or may not have pandemic potential, that have mortality rates in excess of 80%. Probably the most serious virus that we know does have pandemic potential (because it has happened in the past) is the avian influenza virus, and we have been watching two new strains (clades) spread in the U.S. – one among cattle and one among wild birds. Both have the potential (and there have been actual cases) to spread to humans. Historically, avian influenza infections in humans have resulted in case fatality rates of 40 – 60%, with an average of about 50%. I understand that some people are very distressed by the fact that during the COVID-19 pandemic there were times they felt pressured to take a vaccine they didn’t want to receive. We should address those concerns and make plans for the next pandemic (because there will be one), but overreacting to that concern by further feeding vaccine mistrust and by cutting off funding and development of vaccines could be a very costly mistake. Let me explain.

The field of vaccinology is exploding. We are learning so much, so fast. That field of knowledge rapidly expanded during the pandemic because of all the research done on vaccines. We are learning about the associated immunity from vaccines, as well. We have a better, but still as of yet, incomplete understanding as to why some vaccines provide life-long protection, and others require boosting or frequently updated vaccines. We are learning much more about mucosal immunity (the immune protection that occurs at the mucosal barriers that are the borders between the body and the outside – e.g., the gut and the mouth and nose) – likely a key to being able to protect from developing infection. We are learning more about adjuvants that can themselves significantly boost the immune response to a vaccine. We are learning more about the importance of the correct interval between first and second doses of a vaccine. Our knowledge is exploding, and with that knowledge, we will be able to develop even better vaccines in the future, including potentially nasal vaccines that may not require needles and new ways to protect against infection that may not even require a vaccine.

We have known that some viruses are oncogenic (meaning that they can cause cancer), and now we know that one vaccine (HPV vaccine) can essentially eliminate aggressive cervical cancer in women, and yet, I see the target on its back based on some of RFK, Jr.’s comments. In just the past couple of years, we are now seeing the evidence that some viruses can be responsible for certain neurological conditions, such as the Epstein Barr Virus’ (EBV) role in the development of multiple sclerosis (MS), and we may have just identified a virus that causes or can contribute to the development of Parkinson’s Disease.

We need to be realistic about what vaccines can and cannot do, but at the same time, abandoning areas of vaccine research means lost opportunity to learn, lost opportunity to increase our response to novel threats, and potentially lost opportunities to prevent disease and complications of disease. We also now make the U.S. more vulnerable to bioterrorism. It is not lost on our enemies that trust in our government and in vaccines is decreasing and the opportunities that creates for them.

Flash back to March of 2020 when COVID-19 was spreading to more and more states. Now, let’s assume that instead, it was one of the current clades of the H5 avian influenza virus that had transmitted from birds to humans and had picked up the mutations that allow for efficient transmission between people. Avian influenza virus shares some features with SARS-CoV-2, e.g., the fact that both are spread by airborne transmission (I cover what this is in my review of COVID-19 blog post). However, we have reason to believe (i.e., there is supporting evidence, but not proof) that unlike COIVD-19, older adults might have more protection against severe illness from avian influenza than children because we have been exposed through infection and/or vaccination over the years to a shared component of the virus between the avian influenza H5 strains and the seasonal influenza viruses that come around annually. I point all of this out to say that if we were experiencing an avian influenza pandemic with a case fatality rate of even half what it has historically been (let’s say 25%) and children were getting severely ill as often or even more often that older adults, then imagine the panic. Further, it has been well established that schools are the source of spread of influenza virus epidemics that we experience each year. Our schools would be closed and our pediatric hospital capacity would soon be overwhelmed (as a hospital administrator, I can tell you that it is much more difficult to quickly surge (expand) pediatric capacity than it was for us to expand adult capacity as was necessary in late 2021 and early 2022 with COVID-19). I doubt too many people would be advocating for the “let it rip” strategy to get people infected so that we could get to herd immunity (I explain the concept of herd immunity in the review blog piece and in my book) if that meant 1 in 4 of those infected persons would die. Do you want a mRNA vaccine in months or a traditional vaccine in years, or do you just want to take your chances?

Of course, if the Secretary’s announcement is because of some new information that mRNA vaccines are a “cure that is worse than the disease” so-to-speak, perhaps this is the reasonable thing to do. Let’s see what he says:

“We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu. We’re shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.” (emphasis mine)

It is refreshing to know that HHS “reviewed the science” and “listened to the experts.” Let’s see who the experts were:

1. The first on the list is Martin Wucher, MSC Dent Sc. Never heard of him or his credentials, so I looked him up. The MSC Dent SC refers to a Master of Science in Dental Sciences. Now, I have worked with a lot of dentists, I go regularly to a dentist, dentists are very important to our oral and overall health, but I have never gone to or referred my patients to a dentist for vaccines and never called a dentist in the middle of the night to manage a critically ill patient with COVID-19. With the resources of our federal government, is he the best of the best of our experts that we hope might have a background in vaccinology, virology, infectious diseases, and public health to be able to help us critically evaluate the data on mRNA vaccines? Well, it is certainly possible for a dentist to get advanced education and training in these areas. So, let’s look at Dr. Wucher’s bio. His dental practice is described as “nutritional therapy and orthomolecular medicine.” Orthomolecular medicine is a fancy and legitimate-sounding name for alternative medicine that is based on a concept that disease reflects an imbalance of the nutritional environment. Certainly, we well recognize diseases that are a consequence of nutritional or vitamin deficiencies, but there are no infectious diseases that I can think of that can be addressed solely by nutritional therapy. The other tip-off is that I didn’t recognize his credentials, and I am guessing that you didn’t either, and that is because we don’t grant that credential in the U.S. So where is Dr. Wucher’s practice? Answer: Namibia, just outside of South Africa.
2. Bryam Bridle, Ph.D. Unfortunately, RFK, Jr. does not include any of the biographical information about these “experts” so that I can be confident that I have identified the right person, but I feel like the name is uncommon enough that I have probably have, especially as I look at his background. If so, he is an associate professor at the University of Guelph Ontario Veterinary College. He is a viral immunologist, so that is really good. According to his bio, he is working on a “research initiative aimed at modifying the research team’s optimized cancer vaccine platforms to target severe acute respiratory syndrome virus (SARS-CoV) – 2.” Now, the good part of this is that he obviously must not believe the nonsense being spread by a number of the prominent physician disinformation purveyors that the COVID-19 vaccines are causing cancer, in fact “turbo-cancer” (addressed below) if he uses SARS-CoV-2 in his vaccines in an attempt to prevent cancer. However, there is an obvious potential conflict of interest if he is developing a COVID-19 vaccine that I would assume he and the veterinary college would benefit from commercializing, but would also be benefitted by eliminating or reducing the competition from mRNA vaccines.
3. Steven Hatfill, M.D. Assuming that I have identified the correct Dr. Hatfill, and I think I did because the biographical information indicates he has been hired by HHS, he went to medical school at the University of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). He later pursued a Ph.D. program, but reportedly never completed it because he failed the thesis requirement. He was a strong advocate for the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, even though data continued to show that it was not effective, and in fact, more recent data showed that thousands of people were harmed. Also see Washington Post, “Scientist who was part of covid treatment controversy returns to HHS,” May 4, 2025.
4. Peter McCullough, M.D., Ph.D. – This is the first one on the list that I am familiar with and have followed fairly closely. According to multiple sources, his board certification was revoked for spreading disinformation, and one article indicates McCullough is currently listed as chief science officer of The Wellness Company, the owner of which was recently reported as also investing in an anti-vaccine dating site and launching a coffee brand for “anti-woke” consumers. The Wellness Company sells supplements, one of which is called “Ultimate Spike Detox.” It costs $89.99 for 120 capsules. https://www.namd.org/journal-of-medicine/3353-abim-revokes-certification-of-another-doctor-who-made-controversial-covid-claims.html. Obviously, Dr. McCullough’s supplement sales may create a potential conflict of interest.
5. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., on paper appears to be very qualified. He is a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, though I found that his interests have been focused on cancer, and saw nothing to suggest any of his research interests have related to vaccines or infectious diseases.
6. Kelly Victory, M.D. appears to be a trauma and emergency medicine specialist.
7. Matt Bain, M.D. There are too many physicians with this name for me to be confident that I have identified the right person.
8. James Thorp, M.D. I am assuming that this is a gynecologist who has been very outspoken against the COVID-19 vaccines, but I certainly could be mistaken. If so, here is a link to one of the fact checks addressing a number of his allegations, including his assertion that 350,000 – 400,000 people had died from the COVID-19 vaccines. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/james-thorp-false-claims-covid19-vaccines-harm-fertility-pregnancy-infant-survival-the-sentinel-report/.

Now, because the HHS supporting document does not provide the biographical information on this group of experts, I had to make educated guesses, in some cases, and that means I might have identified the wrong person, but other sources seem to be confirming the identities of at least some of these individuals. My point here is that you can do the same kind of research as I just did without any special scientific knowledge. One might assume if the credentials and reputations of this group were stellar and impressive that information likely would have been included. Furthermore, another strategy for evaluating credibility is to look at statements and actions that are internally inconsistent. Generally, when people are being sincere, clear-headed and truthful, their statements are internally consistent. In this case, on June 9, RFK, Jr. summarily dismissed all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices citing that at least a major factor in his decision was that the members had too many conflicts of interest. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/rfk-jr-acip-vaccine-advisory-committee-cbs-celine-gounder/. If that was not pretense, why not be extra careful to select “experts” who did not have such obvious potential conflicts of interest as I pointed out above?

On June 9, 2025, HHS released another press release titled: RFK, Jr.: HHS Moves to Restore Trust in Vaccines. In it, it states: … under my direction, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is putting the restoration of public trust above any pro- or antivaccine agenda.” That is certainly an encouraging statement, but then one must look to see if future words and actions match that. Given the outspokenness of some of these members expressing clearly strong anti-COVID-19 vaccine rhetoric on very public venues, at least one member with disciplinary action by the certifying board, why choose this group as the “experts” that you are going to shape U.S. vaccine policy if you are trying to restore the public trust? The fields of virology, vaccinology, immunology, infectious diseases and public health are replete with recognized experts, who have not been outspoken or taken public positions on this subject from which to choose a committee who could carefully sift through high quality data and provide the Secretary with recommendations and advice.

The selection of this group appears to be based on a bibliography for a book called TOXIC SHOT: Facing the Dangers of the COVID Vaccines. One would think that just from the title of the book, it is pretty clear what bias this group is coming to the table with, especially since there doesn’t appear to be anyone else on this list of experts other than the authors of this book. You can see this reference in the data document that is referenced in the HHS press release at https://zenodo.org/records/15787612. It is at the top of the list of references.

Further, it seems a bit insincere for RFK, Jr. (and also NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya – see his opinion piece in the Washington Post August 12, 2025) to attribute the termination of funding for mRNA vaccines to the loss of public trust without acknowledging their own out-sized influence on that deepening loss of public trust and promoting the spread of disinformation.

Now personally, I believe that people can be mistaken and learn from those mistakes and therefore, even if these members had previously spread misinformation or disinformation, they might now be on the right track given that we have so many more high-quality medical studies, much more data, and we have gained significant new knowledge about the disease and the vaccines. I also believe that potential conflicts of interest can oftentimes be managed when fully disclosed. I also believe that doctors who have been disciplined can go through the steps to be rehabilitated and safely reintroduced to the practice of medicine.

If the 181-page attachment of studies that support the decision to stop the investments into mRNA research were high-quality, peer-reviewed studies that clearly demonstrated that “these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu,” then that trumps everything and these other matters related to this group of experts don’t matter much. So, is that what the science shows when we examine that list of references? No.

Most of the papers referenced are studies conducted in test tubes and petri dishes. That can be important early information to inform subsequent studies in laboratory animals and then humans, but we often find that these results do not hold up in humans, and indeed, where tested, these did not hold up. Part of the problem is that it is easy to get much higher levels of a drug into a test tube or petri dish than you can safely get in the blood of a human. This was the big problem with ivermectin showing promising results in a test tube, but failing to be effective at doses that were safe in humans. Second, most of these studies tested the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that comes from the virus, not from vaccination. Many studies have failed to separate out the effects of spike protein resulting from infection, which contains other proteins as well and is produced in much higher amounts for much longer periods of time than the spike protein that results from vaccination. We saw that many of the effects attributed to the spike protein and suggested to have resulted from the vaccine occurred in patients who were not vaccinated or who got infected prior to the time in which vaccines were available to the public. Rather than offer proof that the vaccine is dangerous, these studies contributed to the dangers of the SARS-CoV-2 causing natural infection.

A common strategy that I have observed by those who spread disinformation is to either avoid providing references so that their claims are difficult to refute, or, as in this case, flood the audience with a long list of studies that almost no one is likely to read and evaluate. Also, they will often claim that the study states one thing, when in actuality, it states the opposite.

For example, in reference number 16, the authors actually state: ”vaccines were efficacious against the Delta variant, especially reducing the severity of the disease.”

In reference number 26, the authors actually state: “several of these vaccines have proved to avoid severe disease symptoms.”

Reference number 48 is a study of a segment of the spike protein from the virus that was demonstrated to produce the toxic effects. The authors did not study vaccines or even mention them in the article.

There are many other specific examples I could provide. Some of these studies expressly state that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination far outweigh the risks of complications from infection, including a review article that dir. ectly compares infection with vaccination and concludes that vaccination is “the more favorable option for protection.” What I want you to know is that we cannot trust this information coming out of this administration at face value. However, you also don’t have to have a deep understanding of the science and data interpretation. Just check some of the studies like I did, and go to the conclusion section to see if the authors say the same thing as what the person or persons citing the study says. You can also search the document for certain terms like vaccines, vaccination, etc.

Besides studies whose conclusions are limited because they used in vitro (in test tubes or in petri dishes as opposed to actual human beings) or in silico (computer simulations) methodologies, and others that used only laboratory mice (as opposed to actual humans – like with test tube and petri dish studies, we often find that encouraging findings in mice don’t pan out in humans), some of the study methodologies are suspect because they injected spike protein directly into the blood stream or even directly into the brains of laboratory animals – routes of vaccination that are never used in humans.

Finally, before we go into the data ourselves, one more common-sense clue that what we are experiencing is politically and ideologically motivated and not in fact based on science and evidence. The rest of the world is not following our lead. I have a lot of respect for the UK Health Security Agency. It’s technical briefs that were regularly issued throughout the pandemic were much higher quality and informative reports that those of the CDC. They are not abandoning or recommending abandoning mRNA vaccines. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is an excellent public health organization and puts out excellent information. They are not recommending abandoning mRNA vaccines. The Israeli CDC, part of the Israeli Ministry of Health is similarly not abandoning mRNA vaccine technology. None of these organizations, nor the WHO, has endorsed, supported or shared the views of our HHS and this panel of “experts.” The science is the science. If these vaccines were not effective and if they were not relatively safe, we would be seeing similar conversations and actions across the globe. This is the first time in history that I can think of that the world is not following our lead on matters relating to medicine, health and science. That should be more reason for us to be skeptical.

So, let’s evaluate RFK, Jr.’s statement ourselves since his supporting data doesn’t really support his claims. As a reminder, here is what he states in the HHS press release: “…the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu. We’re shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”

The first thing that I would note from this language is the phrase “upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.” It is an interesting way to describe these two viral infections, because it is not the “upper” (which refers to the nose and throat) respiratory tract infection that kills people from either illness. The SARS-CoV-2 virus and influenza viruses do make their entry through the upper respiratory tract, however, unless the body’s immune system is able to contain the infection, it will progress down to the “lower” (lungs) respiratory tract, and this is when people get critically ill, and even die during the acute phase of COVID-19 or influenza. For COVID-19, that process takes about a week. That is why vaccinations give your body a head-start and an increased chance of preventing severe disease.

Here is the chronology of antibody response from a study of 30 patients who developed COVID-19 (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7129952/):

Remember, the SARS-CoV-2 virus can make its way down the respiratory tract to settle into the lungs and cause severe disease in as soon as a week. What you see from above is that the body’s antibody response takes about three days for the body to recognize the foreign invader and develop antibodies to it. However, it can be up to two weeks before the antibody response is fully ramped up. This is the advantage of being vaccinated prior to being infected with the virus. With vaccination, we have the opportunity to generate an antibody response prior to exposure, and therefore, the body can respond quicker and with a higher level of antibodies that better enable the virus to be contained in the upper airway.

Now, assuming that what I have just told you is true, then we should see that vaccinated persons have a much lower rate of developing severe disease and death. Is that what the data show us? Here are some examples of data taken from different points in the pandemic (these are the data from the CDC, though I think these have been removed from the website, at least I can’t find them):

Here is a graph showing the rate of hospitalization for COVID-19 in the U.S. by vaccination status. It is very clear that throughout this period from the end of January, 2021 through the end of November, 2021 at all points the rate of hospitalization was orders of magnitude higher in the unvaccinated relative to the rate in those fully vaccinated.

Here is a graph prepared by CDC staff for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that shows the rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status in the U.S. for the period of April 4, 2021 through October 30, 2021. The fall of 2021 is when we were seeing the Delta variant become predominant in the U.S. You can read from the CDC staffer’s notes that in October of 2021, an unvaccinated person had 5 times the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 compared to fully vaccinated persons (which means that the vaccine did in fact reduce the chances of being infected) and 14 times the risk of dying from COVID-19.

Here is another graph that at the period from where those above ended to April 1 of 2023 and plots the COVID-19 weekly death rate in the U.S. by vaccination status. Again, you can see that at all points, your chance of dying from COVID-19 was lower if you were vaccinated than if you were unvaccinated.

Now, I could take you through all the science of this, and some of the many studies demonstrating the same findings, but as they say, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Further, I want you to be able to look at data and sources that you can find and understand on your own, if you are not trained in science or statistics yourself. You don’t need me to tell you whether the Secretary’s statement: ”the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID” is true or false; you tell me. In fact, if you have a middle schooler or high school student, show them these graphs and see how they interpret them.

I will write more on this subject in my next blog piece, including addressing the statement from the Secretary that: “We’re shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”