Vaccines Work. Period?
Sanders, Kennedy, and the Dangers of Collapsing Nuance in Public Health
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Cell Biology
Rutgers University
September 22, 2025
On September 9, 2025, at a press conference in Washington, D.C., Senator Bernie Sanders issued a simple and emphatic declaration:
“Vaccines work. Period.” (9/22/2025/1)
In the same breath, Sanders suggested that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as Secretary of Health and Human Services, has been spreading the opposite message:
“Vaccines do not work.” (9/22/2025/2)
But here lies the problem. To the best of the evidence, Kennedy has never said this. Instead, his position is far more nuanced:
“Vaccines do not work for every patient.” (9/22/2025/3)
1. False Disjunction Bias in Public Health Debates
When Sanders collapsed Kennedy’s (9/22/2025/3) into (9/22/2025/2), he committed what I have elsewhere called a False Disjunction Bias: the logical error of turning a nuanced position into a polar opposite.
(9/22/2025/1): Universal affirmation.
(9/22/2025/2): Universal negation.
(9/22/2025/3): Conditional qualification.
The difference may appear subtle, but its public health consequences are profound. The erasure of nuance fuels polarization, silences constructive dialogue, and leaves the public trapped between “all-or-nothing” extremes.
2. Why Nuance Matters in Medicine
Medicine has always recognized variability. Not every patient responds to the same drug, the same diet, or the same surgical intervention. Vaccines are no exception.
For the majority, vaccines are safe and effective.
For a minority, genetic, metabolic, or immunological differences may lead to adverse outcomes or reduced efficacy.
To conflate (9/22/2025/3) with (9/22/2025/2) is to ignore this biological reality. And to ignore variability is to risk undermining public trust in science itself.
3. Toward a Third Path: Personalized Vaccinology
Instead of reducing the debate to “pro-vaccine” vs. “anti-vaccine,” we should recognize a third path:
Pro-vaccination (Sanders) → Public health gains from broad immunization.
Anti-vaccination (Kennedy’s critics allege) → A dangerous oversimplification.
Personalized vaccination (Kennedy’s nuanced point, amplified) → Tailoring vaccines to those who benefit most, while identifying those at risk.
Emerging tools—such as RNA QR code technology [1]—make this third path feasible. By screening individual gene-expression patterns before vaccination, it may soon be possible to identify patients at risk of adverse reactions, avoiding both blanket mandates and blanket rejections.
4. Conclusion
The Sanders–Kennedy exchange is not just a war of words. It is a window into the challenges of 21st-century public health communication.
Sanders (9/22/2025/1) speaks to the urgent need for confidence and clarity.
Kennedy (9/22/2025/3) highlights the biological variability that demands nuance.
The mistake comes in collapsing (9/22/2025/3) into (9/22/2025/2), thereby erasing the space where science, ethics, and trust could converge.
If we can resist the false disjunctions, we can move toward a more intelligent future—one where vaccines work, not just in principle, but in practice, for every patient who needs them.
👉 Takeaway for Readers: The future of vaccine policy is not about choosing between Sanders and ‘alleged’ Kennedy. It’s about transcending false disjunctions and embracing personalized, evidence-based strategies that protect both the majority and the vulnerable minority.
NO, NEVER EVER HAS ANY VACCINE HELPED ANYONE, EVERY SINGLE JAB IS DESIGNED TO KILL, AND BECAUSE OF OUR CLEAR DIVISION ON THIS, I AM LETTING YOU GO…JUST KEEP GOING SPREADING DISINFORMATION, THE INFORMATION YOU ARE PUTTING OUT IN THIS NEW WORLD WILL BRING KARMA TO YOUR LIFE, AND NOT IN A GOOD WAY!