On June 26, 2025, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the termination of U.S. funding to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, citing its failure to prioritise vaccine safety and its role in stifling dissent during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Letters from Australia article frames this decision as a bold rejection of "business as usual," accusing Gavi of treating safety concerns as a public relations issue rather than a health priority. This blog post argues that Kennedy's funding cuts are fully justified, supported by concerns about Gavi's transparency, safety oversight, and alignment with corporate interests, while addressing counterarguments from public health experts and situating the decision in the context of global health governance.

Kennedy's primary justification is that Gavi has neglected vaccine safety in its pursuit of universal vaccination. He specifically criticised Gavi's continued use of whole-cell DTP vaccines, which, while effective in low-income countries, are associated with higher rates of temporary side effects like fever and swelling compared to acellular DTaP vaccines used in wealthier nations. A 2023 study in The Lancet noted that whole-cell DTP vaccines, though effective, have a higher reactogenicity profile, raising questions about whether Gavi adequately balances safety and efficacy in resource-constrained settings. Kennedy's call for Gavi to consider "the best science available, even when it contradicts established paradigms" aligns with growing public scepticism about vaccine safety, particularly following the Covid-19 pandemic, where mRNA vaccines were linked to serious side effects like myocarditis, as even acknowledged by the CDC.

The Letters from Australia article highlights Kennedy's claim that Gavi treats safety issues as a "public relations problem." This is supported by posts on X, where users like @stopvaccinating argue that Gavi and the WHO have downplayed adverse events to maintain public confidence in vaccination campaigns. For example, Gavi's website emphasises its success in vaccinating over 1 billion children and preventing 18.8 million deaths, but it lacks detailed public reporting on adverse events or post-market surveillance in low-income countries. This opacity fuels distrust, justifying Kennedy's demand for greater accountability before further U.S. funding is provided.

Kennedy accuses Gavi of partnering with the WHO to recommend social media censorship of vaccine sceptics during the Covid-19 pandemic, stifling legitimate questions about vaccine safety. A 2021 New York Times report confirmed that social media platforms, under pressure from global health organisations, restricted content questioning Covid-19 vaccine efficacy, including posts by then-President Trump. This censorship extended to scientists like Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who was penalised for opposing certain vaccine mandates, as noted in the article. Such actions undermine scientific discourse and public trust, particularly when adverse events like myocarditis later emerged, validating some early concerns.

The funding cut can be seen as a response to Gavi's role in this censorship, valuing institutional narratives over open debate. A 2025 ZeroHedge article supports Kennedy's stance, arguing that global health bodies have chosen corporate interests over transparency, particularly given Gavi's ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has significant influence over WHO funding. Withholding U.S. funds, approximately $300 million annually, signals a demand for Gavi to restore trust through open, evidence-based practices.

Gavi's funding structure, heavily reliant on private entities like the Gates Foundation ($1.6 billion pledged in 2025), raises concerns about corporate influence. The Letters from Australia article describes Gavi as a "vaccine colonialism funding mechanism," launched by the Gates Foundation, WHO, UNICEF, and the World Bank at the World Economic Forum. Critics on X, such as @McCulloughFund, argue that Gavi's $12 billion AMC financing instrument prioritises vaccine industry profits over patient safety, including liability protections that shield manufacturers from compensating vaccine-injured individuals. Kennedy's decision to cut funding aligns with his broader MAHA movement, which seeks to challenge Big Pharma's influence, as seen in his dismissal of the CDC's vaccine advisory panel, riddled with conflicts of interest, per the article below.

Kennedy's call for Gavi to "re-earn the public trust" and justify its $8 billion in U.S. contributions since 2001 reflects a broader push for fiscal and scientific accountability. The U.S. faces a $2 trillion federal deficit, as noted in a 2025 New York Times article, making it prudent to scrutinise international aid programs. By halting funding, Kennedy pressures Gavi to adopt rigorous safety standards and transparent data collection, potentially benefiting global health by ensuring vaccines are both effective and safe. The article's mention of the new ACIP panel, including vaccine sceptics like Dr. Robert Malone, suggests a shift toward evidence-based reforms that could set a precedent for organisations like Gavi. Gavi defends its vaccine portfolio, stating that decisions align with the WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE), which conducts "rigorous, transparent" reviews. A 2025 Washington Post article notes Gavi's confidence in whole-cell DTP vaccines, which offer longer-lasting protection in high-risk settings despite temporary side effects. However, Kennedy's critique highlights a lack of public-facing data on adverse events, particularly in low-income countries where monitoring is weaker. The absence of robust post-market surveillance undermines Gavi's claims of transparency, justifying scrutiny until safety protocols are strengthened.

Public health experts like Dr. Paul Offit call Kennedy's decision "reckless and deadly," accusing him of spreading misinformation about vaccine safety. A 2025 Common Dreams article labels Kennedy a "conspiracy theorist," citing his history of promoting unproven claims, such as vaccines causing autism. Yet, Kennedy's focus on specific issues, like the lack of placebo-controlled studies for some vaccines, reflects legitimate scientific questions. A 2023 BMJ study noted gaps in long-term safety data for mRNA vaccines, lending credence to calls for further research. Kennedy's funding cut pressures Gavi to address these gaps rather than dismissing them as misinformation.

Kennedy's decision reflects a broader surge in vaccine scepticism, fuelled by the Covid-19 pandemic's controversies, including rushed vaccine rollouts and perceived censorship. Kennedy's MAHA movement, seeks to reform health policy by prioritising patient safety and challenging institutional biases, as seen in his overhaul of the CDC's ACIP panel.

Globally, Gavi's model raises questions about "vaccine colonialism." Critics argue that its reliance on Western funding and pharmaceutical partnerships values corporate interests over local health systems, as noted in a 2024 Al Jazeera critique of global health governance. By cutting funding, Kennedy signals a shift toward demanding accountability from international health bodies, aligning with populist sentiments in the U.S. that value national interests amid economic constraints.

The funding cut has several implications:

Public Trust: Kennedy's move amplifies calls for transparency in vaccine safety, potentially forcing Gavi to improve adverse event reporting and engage with critics.

Domestic Policy: The new ACIP panel's focus on reviewing vaccine schedules, as noted in the article, could influence global standards, encouraging Gavi to adopt more rigorous safety protocols.

Political Dynamics: The decision aligns with the Trump administration's broader push for deregulation and scepticism of global institutions.

Future steps include independent audits of Gavi's safety protocols, investment in local health infrastructure in low-income countries, and public engagement to examine vaccine scepticism issues.

In conclusion, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to cut U.S. funding to Gavi is justified by concerns over vaccine safety, transparency, and corporate influence. Gavi's lack of robust adverse event reporting, its role in pandemic-era censorship, and its ties to the Gates Foundation fuel distrust, support Kennedy's call for accountability. While critics warn of dire consequences for global child health, alternative funding models and Gavi's recent pledges mitigate immediate risks. The decision aligns with a broader movement to reform health policy, valuing patient safety and public trust. By pressuring Gavi to address safety concerns and engage in open scientific discourse, Kennedy's funding cut serves as a necessary challenge to a system that has, at times, chosen institutional agendas and Big Pharma's interests over individual health.

https://lettersfromaustralia.substack.com/p/rfk-jr-cuts-funding-to-gavi-for-treating

"Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy jr has cut all US funding to Bill Gates' vaccine funding organisation Gavi, saying "business as usual is over" because Gavi had treated safety issues as a public relations problem.

"In its zeal to promote universal vaccination, Gavi the Vaccine Alliance has neglected the key issue of vaccine safety. When vaccine safety issues have come before GAVI, it has treated them not as a patient health problem, but as a public relations problem," Kennedy said in a video statement posted to X (Twitter).

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, GAVI partnered with the World Health Organization to recommend best practices for social media companies to silence dissenting views and to stifle free speech and legitimate questions during that period.

"GAVI should consider the best science available, even when that science contradicts established paradigms. It should define success not just in terms of the number of vaccines delivered, but on their rigorously measured overall impacts.

"I call on GAVI to re-earn the public trust and to justify the $8 billion dollars that America has provided in funding since 2001. Until that happens the United States won't contribute more to GAVI. Business as usual is over."

The statement was played at the Gavi pledging event where Gates Foundation chief executive Mark Suzman solicits billions of dollars in public tax money from developed nations to pay for vaccine and mRNA industry promotion across third-world nations.

Suzman immediately complained about the US withdrawal, claiming millions of "preventable deaths" would occur "if Congress allows" the US to cut its funding.

"If Congress allows this to happen, the consequences will be devastating", he said in a statement.

The US committed $300 million to Gavi in the funding bill for fiscal year 2025, but nothing has been earmarked for the group in the 2026 fiscal year, as the Epoch Times reports here, archived here.

Gavi raised $9 billion in pledges this year including $1.6 billion from the Gates Foundation, Suzman said in his statement.

Australia will give $386 million of your taxes to Gavi from 2026 to 2030, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Friday.

Both Suzman and Wong claimed without evidence in their statements that Gavi's injections have saved millions of lives. Their statements ignored the existence of the vaccine injured.

Gavi says on its website that it has extracted $12 billion since 2020 for their AMC financing instrument that pays for vaccines, transport, syringes and storage, plus liability insurance to protect the industry from compensating people they harm.

Gavi is a vaccine colonialism funding mechanism launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos 25 years ago by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organisation (which Gates also funds), UNICEF and the World Bank.

Zerohedge has the story here, archived here, original by the Epoch Times here.

KENNEDY'S NEW ACIP BOARD MEETS RESISTANCE

This week saw the first meeting of the new, tougher vaccine advisory committee, after HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy jr sacked the entire 17 members of the previous committee, which had been riddled by conflicts of interest.

Professor Martin Kulldorf threw down the challenge immediately at roll call in his introduction as the session began, saying he was astonished at the lack of ethics and science during covid.

"I'm Martin Kulldorf, I've worked on vaccine safety for over 20 years," he said.

"I used to be a professor of medicine at Harvard University and at Harvard'a Brigham and Women's hospitals until I was fired. I did not take the covid vaccine because I already had immunity, superior immunity from having had covid.

"I was astonished that universities threw away two and a half thousand years of knowledge about infection acquired immunity when they very unscientifically and unethically fired people for not having taken the covid vaccine."

Dr Kulldorf went on to say he had opposed halting the Johnson & Johnson covid vaccine for the elderly, even though the viral vector RNA vaccine (analogous to AstraZeneca) had caused clots in younger women, because there had been a shortage and the elderly were dying.

Dr Kulldorf was one of three doctors who created the Great Barrington Declaration.

The first half of the seven-hour meeting was dominated by covid vaccine statistics and covid hospitalisation numbers.

Panel members including Dr Robert Malone and Dr Retsef Levi asked questions on how health officials were collecting data, what time interval they were using to monitor from injection to adverse event, whether aggregating figures meant they were missing batch variability and whether they were picking up injuries effectively.

Dr Sarah Meyer gave an update on the CDC's covid vaccine safety monitoring which she insisted was extensive and rigorous. Her powerpoint slides are here.

Disturbingly she continued the claim that there are no new safety concerns with the covid vaccines other than myo/pericarditis and that no excess deaths are attributable to the products.

Dr Meyer said a study focusing on mRNA compared 17,631 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to the background rate of deaths in the general population from December 2020 to January 2023.

It found the observed to expected death ratio was below one in the post-vaccination period of 42 days.

"These findings suggest no association between covid-19 vaccination and mortality," she said (see: 02:40:00 on).

Dr Meyer said CDC studies found no increased risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, birth defects or infant death when the covid vaccines were given in pregnancy. (see timestamp 02:35:00 on Rumble)

THE BUREAUCRACY WILL FIGHT REFORM

Dr Adam MacNeil, the deputy branch chief for Epidemiology, Respiratory Viruses Branch at the CDC, and Dr Christopher Taylor, an expert on CDC respiratory disease data, also presented studies backing up the establishment mantra of "safe and effective", that injecting pregnant women with covid vaccines is the best way to protect newborns from severe covid disease and that babies are hospitalised on a par with adults aged 50 to 64 for covid.

They sounded like they were really pushing the idea that covid vaccines are crucially important for the safety of pregnant women and infants, when it has already been established that children are at statistically near-zero risk of serious illness or death from covid, and that injecting mRNA gene therapy products into pregnant women is both risky and unnecessary.

It appears they were pushing back against Kennedy's May announcement that the CDC would no longer recommend routine covid vaccines for healthy children or pregnant women.

It's clear from listening to their presentations, that the staff working within the agencies at the CDC who collect and collate the data have a bias in favour of covid vaccines which colours the way they structure their investigations, which in turn affects the outcome.

The bureaucracy is going to fight change.

There is a dispute among experts as to what the effect of these vaccines has been, and it is clear from the hostility and pushback shown at this first meeting that Secretary Kennedy has a lot more firings to do before the agencies will approach data collection with a fair and open mind.

The meeting concluded with comments from the public, most of which were loaded with hostile and shrill submissions from doctors insisting vaccines are a miracle of science that save millions of lives, and demanding the reinstatement of the former ACIP panel.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has now chosen to publish its own independent vaccine schedule, declaring the ACIP process no longer credible, as AJMC reports.

The former Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an influential organ that shapes the US national vaccine schedule, had never recommended against any vaccine – even those later withdrawn for safety reasons.