Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. (with ChatGPT assistance)
Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Cell Biology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy,
Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ
Draft for Substack · 19 June 2025
In a recent dialogue, my colleague Hal asserted:
“Since mRNA vaccine studies are mRNA studies, the headline is accurate and not misleading, certainly not misinformation.” (8/31/2025/1)
At first glance, this sounds reasonable. After all, mRNA vaccines use mRNA, so why shouldn’t they fall under the umbrella of “mRNA research”? But this reasoning commits a subtle categorical mistake.
1. The Key Distinction
The essential point is this:
mRNA vaccine studies are not the same as mRNA studies. (8/31/2025/2)
mRNA studies span the full range of investigations into messenger RNA—its biology, mechanisms, functions, and roles in health and disease.
mRNA vaccine studies focus narrowly on applying synthetic mRNA to stimulate immune responses.
Thus, canceling funding for mRNA vaccine studies does not equate to canceling mRNA research writ large. To conflate the two is to risk “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”
2. Why the Distinction Matters
This distinction is not academic hairsplitting—it goes to the heart of today’s polarized vaccine debates.
mRNA vaccines are not effective for all patients. (8/31/2025/3)
Ignoring this fact fuels much of the current medico-political controversy around mRNA vaccines. (8/31/2025/6)
Until the biomedical community finds a reliable way to identify who will benefit and who may suffer adverse effects, the debate will continue endlessly, producing more heat than light.
3. A Way Forward: Personalized Vaccinology
Fortunately, there is a scientifically plausible path forward:
Current biomedical technology has the capacity to identify patients who will benefit from mRNA vaccines and those who will not. (8/31/2025/7)
One such emerging method is the RNA QR code technology I have proposed in the Human Transcriptome Project [1]. This approach leverages the entire transcriptomic “fingerprint” of an individual’s cells to predict responses to interventions—including vaccines.
If adequately funded, this technology could mature within 5–10 years. It would allow clinicians to classify patients before vaccination, reducing risks, enhancing trust, and ending the futile back-and-forth over blanket pro- vs. anti-vaccine positions.
4. The Take-Home Message
Most of the current online debates about mRNA vaccines stem from neglecting a simple principle:
Canceling mRNA vaccine research is not the same as canceling mRNA research.
mRNA vaccines are not universally effective.
The controversy will persist until we develop precision methods to match vaccines to patients.
The real question, then, is not whether to be “for” or “against” vaccines, but whether we are ready to fund the science needed to make vaccines truly safe and personalized.
Reference:
[1] Ji, S. (2025). Announcing the Human Transcriptome Project: Unlocking the Hidden Language of Our Cells.
https://622622.substack.com/p/announcing-the-human-transcriptome
I am trying to reach you. I am a reporter and author and seek clarification for a pending article on ethnic weapons. I see where the US military announced that the code had been "cracked " for ethnic weapons via RNA, in a 1970 article here--https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Special-Topics/Future-Warfare-Writing-Program/Non-Fiction/Ethnic-Weapons/ My questions revolve around what implications, if any, point to mRNA vaccines. My US number is 770 520/8357. Thank you! Janet Phelan