As a polio survivor who was struck down just short of the Salk vaccine I view RFK Jr. with the deepest suspicion. I’ve never forgotten that morning when I woke up with a paralyzed leg. Every morning since then, when I roll out bed and stand up on my two good legs, I thank God that the worst was not visited on me.
RFK Jr., the tribune of anti-science, made a serious mistake when he signed on with the bureaucracy. Now he has to justify his answers. In the area of nutrition, he may have some success. But where vaccines are concerned, he’s holding a pair of deuces.
RFK, Jr is dangerously misguided. A few of his recommendations are worth considering such as banning pharmaceutical advertising and firing useless bureaucrats at HHS agencies. Nevertheless, if most of his policies are implemented, Americans wont be “healthy again,” instead they will be less healthy than they've been in many decades.
Still, Claire is mistaken to imply that most of the vaccine hesitancy plaguing American youth should be blamed on vaccine skeptics like Kennedy and his imbecilic ilk. Vaccine experts like the investigator Claire mentioned, Paul Offit, are also to blame.
The unfortunate reluctance of parents to vaccinate their children against childhood diseases stems in large part from the questionable recommendation from Offit and others that children younger than 11 years of age should be inoculated with the mRNA Covid vaccine (Pfizer and Moderna).
While there is no question that adults, especially older adults, derive substantial benefit from these vaccines, the risk to young children from Covid is vanishingly small. In this cohort, hospitalizations from Covid are rare and deaths from Covid are rarer still. The argument that the mRNA vaccine poses as great a risk to young children as the disease itself is a reasonable one even if its not certain.
Several European nations advised by experts every bit as competent and credentialed as Offit, do not recommend the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines for young children and they do not push for teenage boys to be vaccinated because of the rare but elevated risk for myocarditis in these children. Offit’s suggestion that children and teenagers should be innoculated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is a reasonable position but also highly debatable.
The medical establishment in which Offit is firmly ensconced, has lost tremendous credibility because of the poor job it has done talking about Covid. First, the experts insisted that the origin of the virus that causes Covid could not possibly have originated from a lab-leak. We now know that not only was the consensus view wrong but also that it was nefarious in origin.
More pertinent to Claire’s essay, that same establishment insists that we avert our eyes from the fact that the mRNA technology used to stimulate an immune response to the virus is very different from previous vaccine technologies that relied on dead or attenuated viruses to induce an antigenic response or, alternatively, relied on the introduction of specific proteins to induce that response (the Novavax Vaccine is a protein based vaccine).
It is not surprising that some parents of young children are hesitant to expose their children to a brand new vaccine technology. It is really unfortunate that some of these parents have been inspired by vaccine skeptics like RFK, Jr but also by the lack of credibility of Offit and his peers, to neglect vaccinating their children against childhood diseases. As non-experts it isn't surprising that these parents might conflate vaccines based on a new technology with vaccines based on a tried and true technology that has been around for decades and decades.
As it turns out, while eschewing childhood vaccines is a terrible mistake, skepticism about Covid vaccines for young children may be entirely reasonable. A recent paper by Akiko Iwasaki of Yale demonstrates that in rare cases Covid vaccination can inspire long-covid like symptoms in much the same way that Covid can lead to long Covid. More disturbingly, the authors demonstrated that the spike protein that cells are induced to produce through the introduction of mRNA persists in the body far longer than experts previously thought possible.
The consequences of the persistence of spike protein for such long periods of time are unknown but potentially troubling. One strong possibility is that the consequences include chronic inflammation or even genetic mutations. Patrick Soon-Shiong (the owner of the LA Times and inventor of arbraxane, a groundbreaking cancer drug) believes the persistence of spike protein might lead to cancer. Both Iwasaki and Soon-Shiong are highly regarded and well published investigators well within the confines of research respectability. You can find Iwasaki’s paper here,
The point is that experts like Offit have contributed to vaccine hesitatancy in the same manner as Kennedy and his fellow vaccine skeptics have. mRNA vaccines may someday revolutionize the treatment of cancer. Whether its worth exposing young children to a vaccine utilizing a new technology that may not be fully understood is an open question. One reason that parents may not trust Offit is that he doesn't understand the nuances of all of this or, if he does, he never talks about it.
Offit may be less complicit than RFK, Jr., but he is complicit.
Another concerning finding from Iwasaki’s paper is that at least in the idiosyncratic subset of patients she studied, the mRNA Covid vaccines inspired reactivation of latent Epstein Bar Virus (EBV).
Approximately 90 percent of Americans 18 years of age and older have been exposed to EBV. Youngsters between the age of 6-18 have an exposure rate of over 60 percent. The human immune system is very talented at keeping EBV in check which is why it rarely makes us sick. That's a very good thing because EBV is clearly associated with several cancers including various lymphomas, gastric cancer and potentially even breast cancer.
The fact that the mRNA vaccines might lead to EBV reemergence is troubling especially for children. Iwasaki also demonstrated that the vaccinated patients in her cohort were prone to excess production of tumor necrosis factor (TNF). TNF is a cytokine that causes chronic inflammation. Excess TNF production is the main feature of rheumatoid arthritis which is a chronic inflammatory disease.
None of this means that EBV reactivation occurs in all or even most vaccinated patients. Similarly, it doesn't mean that excess TNF production is a common outcome of mRNA vaccination. After all, Iwasaki was looking at a relatively rare cohort of patients who experienced long-Covid like symptoms as a result of the vaccine.
Nevertheless, her findings suggest potentially concerning consequences from these vaccines. All of this calls out for further research. But to experts like Offit, its a slam dunk that children should get these vaccines despite the newness of the technology and the fact that there's much to be learned. Offit seems oblivious to the fact that the risks associated with a brand new vaccine technology, especially the risks that might still be unknown, need to be measured against the fact that in children, Covid is, almost always an unpleasant but not a serious disease.
Is it any wonder that parents might be skeptical of getting their children vaccinated against Covid? Is it really surprising that this skepticism might give rise to a reluctance to get their kiddos vaccinated against childhood diseases?
Who's more complicit in inspiring vaccine hesitancy; the idiots like Kennedy who spout nonsense or the experts like Offit who are unwilling to to level with parents about the potential pitfalls of the mRNA vaccines?
Thank you for this deeply researched and compelling analysis. Your breakdown of the institutional failures surrounding RFK Jr.’s nomination is both damning and necessary. The silence of major medical associations and political leaders in the face of a blatant assault on public health is not just a failure of courage but a failure of responsibility. In a society that prizes expertise, watching experts and institutions retreat from their duty to defend evidence-based medicine is more than disappointing—it’s dangerous.
The lesson here is that cowardice in the face of misinformation enables its spread, with consequences that are both immediate and long-term. When public health policies are dictated by conspiracy theorists rather than scientists, the cost is measured in lives. The idea that institutions can stay neutral, or that professionals can avoid “politics” while their field is under attack, is an illusion. The refusal to challenge dangerous untruths is itself a political act—one that emboldens those who would dismantle decades of medical progress.
Yet, as bleak as this picture may seem, history reminds us that misinformation can be countered, and institutions can be reclaimed. The scientific community, the media, and civic leaders still have time to step up, reassert the primacy of facts, and refuse to yield to fear. The public’s trust in science may be shaken, but it is not beyond repair. If those who value truth and reason find their voices now, there is still a path forward—one that safeguards not just medicine, but the very principles of informed democracy.
Human nature being what it is, people ignore history’s reminders of that which we prefer not to be reminded—e.g. that the triumph of liberal democracy is not inevitable but unlikely.
I used to believe that history is a process, trending in the direction of some radiant future. But no: Liberal democracy is an unnatural condition—not humanity’s default setting.
History is, or ought to be, a reality check, and thus ends my catechism.
History may not offer perfect reassurances—every era has its own unique challenges, and past victories don’t guarantee future ones. However, history does remind us that even in times of widespread cowardice and misinformation, truth can prevail when enough people refuse to be silenced. While institutional failures can persist for years, they are not invincible.
One early example is the fight against the Catholic Church’s ban on heliocentrism. After Galileo was condemned in 1633, heliocentric theory was suppressed for over a century. Yet, scientists across Europe continued to quietly challenge the Church’s stance, and by the 18th century, Copernican astronomy was widely accepted, proving that institutional censorship could be eroded by persistent truth-seekers.
In the Soviet Union, Lysenkoism—a pseudoscientific rejection of genetics—was state policy for decades, leading to disastrous famines and the imprisonment of dissenting scientists. But in the 1960s, Soviet geneticists, despite fear of repression, pushed back through underground discussions and limited public advocacy. By the 1970s, Lysenkoism was officially abandoned, demonstrating that even authoritarian regimes cannot indefinitely suppress scientific truth.
Similarly, the tobacco industry’s misinformation campaign kept the dangers of smoking hidden for much of the 20th century. Scientists and whistleblowers faced industry-funded smear campaigns, but by the 1990s, relentless exposure by researchers and journalists forced major legal settlements and strict regulations. This reminds us that even when powerful interests control the narrative, persistence and evidence can break through.
These cases don’t mean that resistance always succeeds, nor that victory comes swiftly. But they do show that misinformation, no matter how deeply entrenched, can be challenged—and ultimately, overturned—by those willing to stand up to it.
Your moral argument seems right to me, Claire. It's fascinating that fear of immediate physical danger should be ridiculed, but not other kinds. I don't know how that relates to love of guns on the one hand, hatred of face masks on the other. In any case, seeing at the top of the essay a cartoon drawn by AI almost made me stop reading. Also, the many factual assertions (e.g. that RFK claims X): is it too much trouble to document them? They are all plausible, but perhaps only because "everybody" says they're true; particularly if AI has been used to gather them, some of them could be BS.
Hi David, I didn't post the links to all of them because I have an aesthetic aversion to text that's littered with hyperlinks--I think it looks cluttered--but perhaps it's worthy of a footnote; if you think so, I can add one. Is there a claim in particular which for which you'd like the source? (All of his claims about vaccines and disease will turn up immediately if you google the key terms--he wrote them in books, his Twitter feed, or on his website; or he said them on podcasts or on TV.) I never rely on AI for quoted text because I've found it hallucinates wildly when I ask it for citations like that.
Thanks Claire. I wasn't concerned about any particular claim. I don't need to verify any particular one to know that this fellow should not have any authority over public health. However, with an article in a "legacy" publication, perhaps there will still be fact-checkers. With blogs and newsletters, it seems the writers and readers have to be their own fact-checkers. Seeing sources (e.g. at the end of Heather Cox Richardson's letters) gives me some confidence
I briefly dated a guy in college who told me “my problem” was that I included courage in my expectations for men, and that was unrealistic. This was back in the early 90s. Then I solved for the question “how do you know if someone is courageous” by marrying a 🇬🇪 political refugee. I know a lot of people out on the streets protesting and calling their reps everyday, etc. But the institutions seem to think if they can just keep out of notice for 4 years everything will be ok and that they have no obligations beyond the preservation of the institution. From abroad (Canada) this is clearly cowardly and ludicrous. But Americans don’t seem to see it.
A useful continuation of Part I. You nailed the basic problem in Part I, and hit it again here:
"moral cowardice now passes almost unremarked." This has become the default setting for far too many people and institutions in our country. As you noted in Part 1, this probably stems from a failure to inculcate moral standards, which in turn stems from an inability (or outright refusal) to determine a factual basis for a moral code. And I don't know what to do about this, other than do my best to teach and to practice a moral code, thereby serving as an example in our family. Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. But we're facing a systemic failure, which is in the process of destroying us. We won't have to wait for AI to kill us off, we're doing it to ourselves.
As a polio survivor who was struck down just short of the Salk vaccine I view RFK Jr. with the deepest suspicion. I’ve never forgotten that morning when I woke up with a paralyzed leg. Every morning since then, when I roll out bed and stand up on my two good legs, I thank God that the worst was not visited on me.
RFK Jr., the tribune of anti-science, made a serious mistake when he signed on with the bureaucracy. Now he has to justify his answers. In the area of nutrition, he may have some success. But where vaccines are concerned, he’s holding a pair of deuces.
I am thankful at least for your courage, Claire, in this most crucial hour.
I'm sure there's a Greek myth somewhere about the woman with courage but no power.
I see you more as an epistolary reincarnation of La Bouboulina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laskarina_Bouboulina
Not a myth at all!
You may not have formal power but you have the power of the pen and incredible things have sprung from that power.
Thanks for posting with associated links. Excellent. ‘March of Dimes’
RFK, Jr is dangerously misguided. A few of his recommendations are worth considering such as banning pharmaceutical advertising and firing useless bureaucrats at HHS agencies. Nevertheless, if most of his policies are implemented, Americans wont be “healthy again,” instead they will be less healthy than they've been in many decades.
Still, Claire is mistaken to imply that most of the vaccine hesitancy plaguing American youth should be blamed on vaccine skeptics like Kennedy and his imbecilic ilk. Vaccine experts like the investigator Claire mentioned, Paul Offit, are also to blame.
The unfortunate reluctance of parents to vaccinate their children against childhood diseases stems in large part from the questionable recommendation from Offit and others that children younger than 11 years of age should be inoculated with the mRNA Covid vaccine (Pfizer and Moderna).
While there is no question that adults, especially older adults, derive substantial benefit from these vaccines, the risk to young children from Covid is vanishingly small. In this cohort, hospitalizations from Covid are rare and deaths from Covid are rarer still. The argument that the mRNA vaccine poses as great a risk to young children as the disease itself is a reasonable one even if its not certain.
Several European nations advised by experts every bit as competent and credentialed as Offit, do not recommend the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines for young children and they do not push for teenage boys to be vaccinated because of the rare but elevated risk for myocarditis in these children. Offit’s suggestion that children and teenagers should be innoculated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is a reasonable position but also highly debatable.
The medical establishment in which Offit is firmly ensconced, has lost tremendous credibility because of the poor job it has done talking about Covid. First, the experts insisted that the origin of the virus that causes Covid could not possibly have originated from a lab-leak. We now know that not only was the consensus view wrong but also that it was nefarious in origin.
More pertinent to Claire’s essay, that same establishment insists that we avert our eyes from the fact that the mRNA technology used to stimulate an immune response to the virus is very different from previous vaccine technologies that relied on dead or attenuated viruses to induce an antigenic response or, alternatively, relied on the introduction of specific proteins to induce that response (the Novavax Vaccine is a protein based vaccine).
It is not surprising that some parents of young children are hesitant to expose their children to a brand new vaccine technology. It is really unfortunate that some of these parents have been inspired by vaccine skeptics like RFK, Jr but also by the lack of credibility of Offit and his peers, to neglect vaccinating their children against childhood diseases. As non-experts it isn't surprising that these parents might conflate vaccines based on a new technology with vaccines based on a tried and true technology that has been around for decades and decades.
As it turns out, while eschewing childhood vaccines is a terrible mistake, skepticism about Covid vaccines for young children may be entirely reasonable. A recent paper by Akiko Iwasaki of Yale demonstrates that in rare cases Covid vaccination can inspire long-covid like symptoms in much the same way that Covid can lead to long Covid. More disturbingly, the authors demonstrated that the spike protein that cells are induced to produce through the introduction of mRNA persists in the body far longer than experts previously thought possible.
The consequences of the persistence of spike protein for such long periods of time are unknown but potentially troubling. One strong possibility is that the consequences include chronic inflammation or even genetic mutations. Patrick Soon-Shiong (the owner of the LA Times and inventor of arbraxane, a groundbreaking cancer drug) believes the persistence of spike protein might lead to cancer. Both Iwasaki and Soon-Shiong are highly regarded and well published investigators well within the confines of research respectability. You can find Iwasaki’s paper here,
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v1
The point is that experts like Offit have contributed to vaccine hesitatancy in the same manner as Kennedy and his fellow vaccine skeptics have. mRNA vaccines may someday revolutionize the treatment of cancer. Whether its worth exposing young children to a vaccine utilizing a new technology that may not be fully understood is an open question. One reason that parents may not trust Offit is that he doesn't understand the nuances of all of this or, if he does, he never talks about it.
Offit may be less complicit than RFK, Jr., but he is complicit.
Another concerning finding from Iwasaki’s paper is that at least in the idiosyncratic subset of patients she studied, the mRNA Covid vaccines inspired reactivation of latent Epstein Bar Virus (EBV).
Approximately 90 percent of Americans 18 years of age and older have been exposed to EBV. Youngsters between the age of 6-18 have an exposure rate of over 60 percent. The human immune system is very talented at keeping EBV in check which is why it rarely makes us sick. That's a very good thing because EBV is clearly associated with several cancers including various lymphomas, gastric cancer and potentially even breast cancer.
The fact that the mRNA vaccines might lead to EBV reemergence is troubling especially for children. Iwasaki also demonstrated that the vaccinated patients in her cohort were prone to excess production of tumor necrosis factor (TNF). TNF is a cytokine that causes chronic inflammation. Excess TNF production is the main feature of rheumatoid arthritis which is a chronic inflammatory disease.
None of this means that EBV reactivation occurs in all or even most vaccinated patients. Similarly, it doesn't mean that excess TNF production is a common outcome of mRNA vaccination. After all, Iwasaki was looking at a relatively rare cohort of patients who experienced long-Covid like symptoms as a result of the vaccine.
Nevertheless, her findings suggest potentially concerning consequences from these vaccines. All of this calls out for further research. But to experts like Offit, its a slam dunk that children should get these vaccines despite the newness of the technology and the fact that there's much to be learned. Offit seems oblivious to the fact that the risks associated with a brand new vaccine technology, especially the risks that might still be unknown, need to be measured against the fact that in children, Covid is, almost always an unpleasant but not a serious disease.
Is it any wonder that parents might be skeptical of getting their children vaccinated against Covid? Is it really surprising that this skepticism might give rise to a reluctance to get their kiddos vaccinated against childhood diseases?
Who's more complicit in inspiring vaccine hesitancy; the idiots like Kennedy who spout nonsense or the experts like Offit who are unwilling to to level with parents about the potential pitfalls of the mRNA vaccines?
Thank you for this deeply researched and compelling analysis. Your breakdown of the institutional failures surrounding RFK Jr.’s nomination is both damning and necessary. The silence of major medical associations and political leaders in the face of a blatant assault on public health is not just a failure of courage but a failure of responsibility. In a society that prizes expertise, watching experts and institutions retreat from their duty to defend evidence-based medicine is more than disappointing—it’s dangerous.
The lesson here is that cowardice in the face of misinformation enables its spread, with consequences that are both immediate and long-term. When public health policies are dictated by conspiracy theorists rather than scientists, the cost is measured in lives. The idea that institutions can stay neutral, or that professionals can avoid “politics” while their field is under attack, is an illusion. The refusal to challenge dangerous untruths is itself a political act—one that emboldens those who would dismantle decades of medical progress.
Yet, as bleak as this picture may seem, history reminds us that misinformation can be countered, and institutions can be reclaimed. The scientific community, the media, and civic leaders still have time to step up, reassert the primacy of facts, and refuse to yield to fear. The public’s trust in science may be shaken, but it is not beyond repair. If those who value truth and reason find their voices now, there is still a path forward—one that safeguards not just medicine, but the very principles of informed democracy.
How exactly does history remind us of that? What historic parallels do you have in mind?
Human nature being what it is, people ignore history’s reminders of that which we prefer not to be reminded—e.g. that the triumph of liberal democracy is not inevitable but unlikely.
I used to believe that history is a process, trending in the direction of some radiant future. But no: Liberal democracy is an unnatural condition—not humanity’s default setting.
History is, or ought to be, a reality check, and thus ends my catechism.
History may not offer perfect reassurances—every era has its own unique challenges, and past victories don’t guarantee future ones. However, history does remind us that even in times of widespread cowardice and misinformation, truth can prevail when enough people refuse to be silenced. While institutional failures can persist for years, they are not invincible.
One early example is the fight against the Catholic Church’s ban on heliocentrism. After Galileo was condemned in 1633, heliocentric theory was suppressed for over a century. Yet, scientists across Europe continued to quietly challenge the Church’s stance, and by the 18th century, Copernican astronomy was widely accepted, proving that institutional censorship could be eroded by persistent truth-seekers.
In the Soviet Union, Lysenkoism—a pseudoscientific rejection of genetics—was state policy for decades, leading to disastrous famines and the imprisonment of dissenting scientists. But in the 1960s, Soviet geneticists, despite fear of repression, pushed back through underground discussions and limited public advocacy. By the 1970s, Lysenkoism was officially abandoned, demonstrating that even authoritarian regimes cannot indefinitely suppress scientific truth.
Similarly, the tobacco industry’s misinformation campaign kept the dangers of smoking hidden for much of the 20th century. Scientists and whistleblowers faced industry-funded smear campaigns, but by the 1990s, relentless exposure by researchers and journalists forced major legal settlements and strict regulations. This reminds us that even when powerful interests control the narrative, persistence and evidence can break through.
These cases don’t mean that resistance always succeeds, nor that victory comes swiftly. But they do show that misinformation, no matter how deeply entrenched, can be challenged—and ultimately, overturned—by those willing to stand up to it.
Your moral argument seems right to me, Claire. It's fascinating that fear of immediate physical danger should be ridiculed, but not other kinds. I don't know how that relates to love of guns on the one hand, hatred of face masks on the other. In any case, seeing at the top of the essay a cartoon drawn by AI almost made me stop reading. Also, the many factual assertions (e.g. that RFK claims X): is it too much trouble to document them? They are all plausible, but perhaps only because "everybody" says they're true; particularly if AI has been used to gather them, some of them could be BS.
Hi David, I didn't post the links to all of them because I have an aesthetic aversion to text that's littered with hyperlinks--I think it looks cluttered--but perhaps it's worthy of a footnote; if you think so, I can add one. Is there a claim in particular which for which you'd like the source? (All of his claims about vaccines and disease will turn up immediately if you google the key terms--he wrote them in books, his Twitter feed, or on his website; or he said them on podcasts or on TV.) I never rely on AI for quoted text because I've found it hallucinates wildly when I ask it for citations like that.
Thanks Claire. I wasn't concerned about any particular claim. I don't need to verify any particular one to know that this fellow should not have any authority over public health. However, with an article in a "legacy" publication, perhaps there will still be fact-checkers. With blogs and newsletters, it seems the writers and readers have to be their own fact-checkers. Seeing sources (e.g. at the end of Heather Cox Richardson's letters) gives me some confidence
I briefly dated a guy in college who told me “my problem” was that I included courage in my expectations for men, and that was unrealistic. This was back in the early 90s. Then I solved for the question “how do you know if someone is courageous” by marrying a 🇬🇪 political refugee. I know a lot of people out on the streets protesting and calling their reps everyday, etc. But the institutions seem to think if they can just keep out of notice for 4 years everything will be ok and that they have no obligations beyond the preservation of the institution. From abroad (Canada) this is clearly cowardly and ludicrous. But Americans don’t seem to see it.
A useful continuation of Part I. You nailed the basic problem in Part I, and hit it again here:
"moral cowardice now passes almost unremarked." This has become the default setting for far too many people and institutions in our country. As you noted in Part 1, this probably stems from a failure to inculcate moral standards, which in turn stems from an inability (or outright refusal) to determine a factual basis for a moral code. And I don't know what to do about this, other than do my best to teach and to practice a moral code, thereby serving as an example in our family. Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. But we're facing a systemic failure, which is in the process of destroying us. We won't have to wait for AI to kill us off, we're doing it to ourselves.