New Cancer Vaccines Face an Old Foe: Vaccine Hesitancy
Chase Johnson of Cary, North Carolina, was only 31 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021—nearly a decade before the age at which regular mammograms are typically recommended. She had no family history of the disease, and her discovery of the lump was almost accidental: her dog, Cato, kept poking her chest with his nose, prompting her to get screened. Doctors found stage 2B triple-negative breast cancer, a rare and aggressive form of the diseaseasi. After undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, she was declared cancer-free in 2022, but her oncologist warned her that there was still a 40% chance the cancer would return. Haunted by that possibility, Johnson enrolled in a clinical trial at the Cleveland Clinic testing a new breast cancer vaccine developed in partnership with Anixa Biosciences. Early results have been encouraging: in nearly three-quarters of participants, including Johnson, the vaccine generated an immune response. “It’s just so promising and as a patient, it gave me a lot of hope,” said Johnson, now 37. “I feel much more protected having done it.” Now celebrating five years in remission, she says her anxiety has significantly decreased, though she admits she will always carry some low-grade fear. “But it’s definitely at a much lower level than it was before vaccination,” she said. “It’s given me a great, great amount of peace of mind.”
Johnson’s story comes at a moment of genuine breakthrough in cancer research. Over the past two decades, scientists have made steady progress in developing vaccines that can prevent or treat cancer. The vaccine Johnson received is not an mRNA vaccine, but researchers are particularly excited about the potential of mRNA technology, which uses synthetic genetic instructions to teach the immune system to recognize and destroy unique proteins found on cancer cells. Just last month, pharmaceutical giants Moderna and Merck announced that a personalized mRNA cancer vaccine, combined with an immunotherapy drug, had succeeded in a late-stage trial for skin cancer. The news raised hopes that a wave of new cancer vaccines could be just over the horizon, offering a powerful new tool against some of the most feared diseases in modern medicine. But the question now is whether Americans will be willing to take them. Many doctors and researchers are deeply concerned that vaccine misinformation—amplified by the Trump administration—and the resulting increase in vaccine hesitancy could blunt the impact of these new vaccines. In particular, they cite the false claim, which originated with mRNA COVID vaccines, that mRNA vaccines can super-charge tumors, creating so-called turbo cancer. Such misinformation has already eroded public confidence in established vaccines, and researchers fear the same dynamic could undermine the deployment of life-saving cancer vaccines.
Many point to the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine as a cautionary tale. Some strains of HPV, which is spread through sexual contact, can cause cancer of the cervix, vagina, vulva, penis, anus, mouth, throat, head, or neck. In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an HPV vaccine for girls and women ages 9 to 26, and three years later, the agency expanded approval to include boys and young men. Ideally, vaccination should occur before a person becomes sexually active, and the vaccine is both safe and extremely effective. But decades of misinformation, some of it spread by state and federal lawmakers, have reduced uptake. For four years in a row, vaccination rates for teenagers have not budged, and there is wide variation among states. “I don’t think we can overstate the impact that the pandemic and the misinformation and disinformation around vaccines has had on all vaccines, including HPV vaccine,” said Dannell Boatman, an assistant professor at the West Virginia University Cancer Institute. A 2024 study Boatman co-authored, funded by Merck, found that HPV misinformation on social media was most pervasive in user comments. “There were some really wild conspiracy theories about girls in India being killed with the HPV vaccine,” Boatman said. “We also were able to identify a lot of mistrust of authority.” Boatman expects a similar dynamic with breast cancer vaccines, especially since some people are already spreading misinformation that mammograms can cause cancer. She is hopeful, however, that an ongoing study on “inoculation theory” will help researchers combat false claims. The idea is simple: forewarn someone that they are going to be exposed to misinformation, then refute it or provide evidence about why it does not work.
The political landscape has made this work even more urgent. Before he joined the Trump administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed complaints and lawsuits against Merck, the maker of the HPV vaccine, and claimed on social media that the “vaccine appears to be increasing the risk of cervical cancer in vaccinated age groups just as COVID vaccines raise the risk of COVID.” Early in his tenure, Kennedy dismissed all 17 members of the HHS vaccine advisory panel, replacing some of them with vaccine skeptics. Under his leadership, HHS also altered the child vaccine schedule for certain diseases, including HPV. So far, those changes have been blocked in federal court. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said Kennedy’s appointment spurred the creation of the Vaccine Integrity Project, a partnership between the center and the American Medical Association that tries to bolster public trust in vaccines. The project has published evidence reviews of some of the vaccines criticized by the Trump administration. “To a young parent today who wants to do the right thing, they want to protect their child, they’re so confused because they hear from the leaders in public health in their government talk about these vaccines killing people,” Osterholm said. “The credibility of 80 years of public health work of vaccines in this country is threatened because of confusion.” In May, the center published an evidence review showing that HPV vaccines are not associated with serious side effects and reduce the risk of cervical cancer by 80% in individuals vaccinated by age 16, and by 66% in people vaccinated after 16.
The resistance to the HPV vaccine has long been fueled by conservative lawmakers who associate it with teen sex, and that pattern is now repeating with newer vaccine technologies. Last year, 78% of U.S. teenagers ages 13-17 had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine, and 63% had completed the full series. But in some conservative-leaning states, the rates were much lower: the complete vaccination rate in Mississippi was only 31%, with Oklahoma at 46%, Kentucky at 50%, Arkansas at 52%, and South Carolina at 55%. At the other end of the spectrum were Rhode Island at 85%, Hawaii at 82%, and Massachusetts at 80%. Some states, including Alabama and Oregon, have made recent efforts to boost their HPV vaccine rates. But others, including Iowa, have enacted laws limiting access. Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds in May signed a law prohibiting Iowans under 18 from consenting to vaccinations related to sexually transmitted diseases and infections, including HPV. Idaho Democratic state Rep. Brooke Green said anti-vaccine sentiment is increasing among residents of her state and among her legislative colleagues. As a survivor of breast cancer, Green is excited about the prospect of new cancer vaccines, but she fears that rising hesitancy could be a hurdle to widespread adoption. She noted that Idaho Republicans introduced a bill this year that would have established a two-year moratorium on mRNA immunizations for children and pregnant women. Similar bills were introduced in at least a dozen other states, though none were enacted. This year, lawmakers in 34 states introduced 209 bills seeking to loosen vaccination rules, limit access to certain kinds of vaccines, or sow doubt about their safety, according to a recent analysis by The New York Times. “We are seeing several attempts to address some of the scientific tools that are used to create vaccines, mRNA vaccines and so forth,” Green said. “As a cancer patient, these are life-saving tools that are helping us.”
Green’s message is both a warning and a plea. “I’m thrilled to see these new innovative advancements in medicine for these vaccines. Now, is it going to be widely accepted?” she asked. “There will be some hesitation and some pushback. But look at the flip side: ‘Do you want breast cancer or do you not? Do you want skin cancer? Do you not?’” The stakes are enormous. If the new cancer vaccines live up to their promise, they could transform oncology, offering patients like Chase Johnson a chance to live without the constant fear of recurrence. But medical breakthroughs are only as effective as their uptake, and the misinformation environment has created a deep credibility gap. The challenge for public health officials is not just to develop these vaccines, but to convince a skeptical public that they are safe, effective, and necessary. As Johnson’s experience shows, the emotional and physical toll of cancer is devastating, and anything that can reduce the risk of recurrence is invaluable. Yet without a concerted effort to rebuild trust in science and public health institutions, the same forces that have undermined the HPV vaccine could prevent the next generation of cancer vaccines from reaching the people who need them most. For now, Johnson—who marked five years in remission this summer—remains a testament to the promise of cutting-edge research. “I think I’ll always have some sort of low-grade anxiety about it,” she said. “But it’s definitely at a much lower level than it was before vaccination. It’s given me a great, great amount of peace of mind.” That peace of mind, for thousands of future patients, may depend on whether America can learn the lessons of the HPV vaccine and reject the misinformation that threatens to undermine the next medical revolution.