Montana lawmakers are considering a groundbreaking proposal that would make the state the first in the United States to ban the use of mRNA vaccines in humans. The bill, introduced by State Representative Greg Kmetz and supported by other Republican legislators, seeks to prohibit the administration of vaccines utilizing mRNA technology, including those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna for COVID-19.
Despite the extensive research confirming the safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines, the proposed legislation is rooted in concerns that have been widely debunked by the scientific community. A central claim in the bill is that mRNA vaccines could integrate into human DNA and be passed on to future generations. However, scientific research has established that mRNA, which differs structurally from DNA, cannot alter genetic material. The process required for such integration would necessitate an enzyme called reverse transcriptase, which is not present in these vaccines. Furthermore, regulatory agencies, including the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, have affirmed that the small residual DNA fragments sometimes found in vaccines cannot enter human cell nuclei or modify DNA.
The bill also raises concerns about “shedding,” a term commonly associated with live-virus vaccines, where weakened viruses can sometimes be excreted and potentially spread to others. However, this concept does not apply to mRNA vaccines, as they do not contain live viruses or viral particles. The fears surrounding shedding in this context are scientifically unfounded.
Since their debut, mRNA vaccines have been instrumental in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, credited with saving millions of lives alongside non-mRNA vaccines such as Oxford-AstraZeneca. A 2024 study published in The Lancet estimated that between December 2020 and March 2023, these vaccines prevented approximately 1.6 million deaths among adults over 25 within the World Health Organization’s European region.
The rapid development and deployment of mRNA technology have been widely recognized as a medical breakthrough, leading to the awarding of the 2023 Nobel Prize in Medicine for advancements in this field. Beyond COVID-19, researchers are now using mRNA technology to develop personalized vaccines targeting diseases such as brain, bowel, and skin cancer. Experts argue that restricting mRNA vaccines could significantly hinder progress in treating these and other illnesses, including infectious diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, and Zika.
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus supporting mRNA vaccines, opposition to their use has persisted. Kmetz has previously introduced legislation aimed at limiting their impact, including a 2023 bill that sought to prohibit blood donations from individuals who had received a COVID-19 vaccine. The latest proposal continues a pattern of legislative efforts that contradict established medical research.
The safety of mRNA vaccines has been extensively studied due to the sheer number of doses administered globally. By mid-2021, approximately 298 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines had been distributed in the United States alone. During that period, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) recorded just over 340,500 reports of adverse effects, with 92 percent classified as mild reactions such as headaches or localized pain. More severe reactions were rare, and most affected individuals recovered fully.
Multiple studies have reinforced the benefits of mRNA vaccines, even among young children. A 2024 study found that the advantages of these vaccines outweighed any risks for children aged six months to four years. Likewise, a 2023 study in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that mRNA vaccines remained highly effective in protecting against the Omicron variant, regardless of age, gender, or underlying health conditions.
Given the strong scientific backing for mRNA vaccines, medical experts and health officials have voiced concerns about the Montana bill. State medical officer Douglas Harrington has warned that such legislation could disrupt medical advancements and public health initiatives. Additionally, a legal review has raised questions about whether the proposed ban would violate the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state legislation in certain areas, including vaccine regulation.
While the bill is still in the early stages of consideration, its implications have already sparked significant debate. If passed, it could set a precedent for other states and further fuel misinformation surrounding mRNA technology. As the legislative process unfolds, the discussion will likely continue to center on the balance between state authority, scientific evidence, and public health priorities.