Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
By Rob McGreevy
Americans today can feel like they are living in two different worlds: Pull up Fox and CNN at the same time, or skim X and then Bluesky, and you’ll see the same reality being perceived in two opposed lenses. Trump is a war criminal or he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize; Charlie Kirk’s death was a tragedy or he actually deserved it. Perhaps no issue encompasses this divide better than that of vaccines and, specifically, mRNA vaccines.
On August 5, the Trump Administration and RFK Jr.’s Health Department (HHS) announced that they were pulling back $500M of mRNA vaccine development funding. The data, HHS claimed, “show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like Covid and flu.” The August announcement said the funding would be shifted “toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”
The backlash was immediate, with critics calling the move anti-science and claiming that as a result, “people are going to die.”
The medical establishment has heralded mRNA vaccines, awarding some of their developers the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2023 and touting them as having quickly curbed the pandemic.
In one recent monologue, Andrew Huberman – the world’s leading health science podcaster – boasted about mRNA’s potential to go well beyond Covid: “What is important for me to say is that there is incredible work on non-COVID-related mRNA vaccines related to cancers and related to neurologic conditions and many genetic diseases and many, many things for which we would be absolutely foolish to ignore the technology.”
Yet much of the public – and many dissident scientists – don’t buy it, believing that the technology causes a range of severe health issues. The Trump Administration’s recent funding cuts show that those scientists are now in control.
So what’s the truth? What exactly does mRNA technology do? Is it a miracle or a threat? Is “misinformation” clouding the administration’s judgment, or is it justifiably challenging the medical establishment?
To find out, I spoke to numerous experts on both sides of the mRNA divide, including Paul Offit, one of the world’s leading experts on vaccines, and Robert Malone, a pioneer-turned-vocal critic of mRNA technology. In today’s extended deep-dive, we share the objective facts and both sides’ perspectives so you can make up your own mind.
This full report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
Thanks for reading, we know that was a long one, but we hope you enjoyed it. Now that we’ve given you both sides of the argument, we’re curious to hear your takes on mRNA vaccines and the future of the technology. Let us know your thoughts by replying to this email.
Dozens of you wrote in yesterday in response to our story on Jimmy Kimmel. Thanks for sharing your opinions. Check out a few of those replies below.
Ray wrote:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it’s a duck. When even Ted Cruz describes the FCC threatening not to approve the merger, and denying renewal of licenses issued to stations that carry Kimmel and others who voice anti-Trump views, we know we have censorship at work - which is the government using its power to suppress free speech. No moderate who examines both sides would come to any conclusion other than that this is at best the impact of cancel culture, and at worst true censorship.
Cancel culture was wrong and utterly reprehensible when the left started it (and the right wailed) and still equally wrong now that the right has found it useful. But this one veers into outright censorship because the government is putting the FCC’s thumb on the scale in order to silence voices the current government doesn’t like.
Jo Anne said:
Thanks for the great overview. I really appreciate Roca News as a source of balanced coverage.
Any company can fire anyone. Bad ratings, loss of advertisers, public outcry - it's all fair game. But when the government gets involved to control the narrative, that's censorship. FCC Chairman Carr's remarks were definitely a threat. And, you forgot to mention that Trump himself said:
"When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that's all they do. They're licensed. They're not allowed to do that."
"I mean they're getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away."
In contrast, President Obama was no fan of Fox News, and often criticized the network for its partisanship. But, he never made threats to use the FCC to take regulatory action to silence the network's political commentary. That's an important difference.
We're in new territory here, and it's scary.
And James from Oceanside wrote in:
I am conflicted.
I don’t think the government should have put pressure on the network to fire Kimmel. It wasn’t right when the Biden administration did it during COVID and the election and it isn’t right in this case. If the network wanted to fire Kimmel for his words then that is their prerogative. But it should not come from the government - we don’t want to live in that world.
I also struggle to feel sympathy for Kimmel. He went on TV and said people like me deserved to be left to die because we made a personal choice not to get the Covid shot. He didn’t lose his job for justifying our death. At that time people were losing their livelihoods just for questioning the government while he laughed and celebrated. Again, I struggle to sympathize but deep down I know it’s dangerous to let the government have this power over our free speech.
And lastly, if you’ve made it this far and still want to read more, check out our most recent stories below:
See you tomorrow,
Max and Max
