One question keeps pulling me back: what warnings were raised early in the pandemic, and what happened to them?
In May 2020, Robert Gallo emailed Francis Collins, then director of the US National Institutes of Health. Gallo was not a peripheral commentator. He was among the scientists credited with identifying HIV as the cause of AIDS, he discovered the first known human retroviruses, and he had spent decades inside the hardest problems in viral immunology.
His message was direct. Drawing on 36 years of experience with glycosylated spike proteins and neutralising antibodies, he warned that it would be a mistake to put “most eggs in that basket.” He raised three concerns: antibodies might be short-lived, neutralising antibody measurements might not reliably represent actual protection, and antibody responses could sometimes create hazards.
He did not say spike-based vaccines could never work. He explicitly acknowledged that they might. His warning was about overreliance on one antigen, one immunological strategy and one interpretation of protection.
That distinction matters.
What Gallo Was Actually Warning About
I do not think the importance of this email lies in claiming that Gallo predicted every subsequent vaccine complication. That goes beyond what the document establishes.
I think its significance lies in something more fundamental. One of the world’s most experienced virologists was telling NIH leadership that an antibody-dominated, spike-focused strategy carried serious uncertainties. He was asking whether enough alternatives were being kept open.
The first concern, antibody durability, was justified. Post-vaccination antibody responses declined substantially within months, and protection against infection waned, particularly as new variants emerged.
But I have to be precise here. Protection against severe disease proved more durable than protection against infection. Neutralising antibodies partially correlated with protection, especially against acquiring infection, even though they were never a complete measure of immunity. Systemic T cells, memory B cells, innate responses but weak mucosal immunity and the characteristics of the circulating variant all mattered.
So I would not say Gallo’s second warning was vindicated in the simplistic sense that neutralising antibodies were meaningless. They were not. I would say the pandemic exposed the danger of treating an antibody titre as though it were equivalent to comprehensive clinical protection.
An impressive laboratory number cannot tell me what is actually happening inside a human immune system.
Image by Jessica Rose - @JesslovesMJK
The Strategy We Did Not Properly Explore
Gallo was not merely criticising the dominant approach. He was proposing an alternative.
He and several colleagues argued that existing live vaccines, particularly the oral polio vaccine, might temporarily stimulate innate immunity against an unrelated virus. The proposal was published in Science as “Can existing live vaccines prevent COVID-19?”.
The idea was not that oral polio vaccine would provide specific immunity to SARS-CoV-2. It was that a live attenuated vaccine might place the innate immune system into a heightened state of readiness, a phenomenon sometimes described as trained immunity.
This interests me because severe COVID was repeatedly associated with a delayed or ineffective early antiviral response. If interferon activity failed to contain the virus promptly, replication could run ahead of the powerful inflammatory response that arrived later. By that stage, the immune response could become part of the disease rather than simply its solution.
An intervention capable of strengthening early innate defence was therefore a biologically credible question to investigate. It was not an established treatment, and oral polio vaccine carried rare but genuine risks, particularly in countries where circulating poliovirus had been eliminated. I cannot responsibly describe it as a missed cure.
But I can ask why the underlying strategy was not explored more aggressively. Why was there no broader portfolio encompassing innate immunity, mucosal immunity, cellular immunity and multiple viral targets alongside spike-directed vaccines?
That was the real meaning of not putting every egg in one basket.
The Difference Between a Warning and Proof
I also think we need to handle the safety question with discipline.
There were earlier preclinical reasons for caution. A 2012 SARS coronavirus vaccine study found pulmonary immunopathology in vaccinated animals after viral challenge. That was an animal study of earlier SARS vaccine candidates. It was a warning demanding careful safety assessment, not proof that authorised COVID-19 vaccines would produce the same outcome in humans.
The same principle applies to autoimmunity.
From early in the pandemic, I was interested in whether interactions between spike, ACE2 and the immune system could contribute to inflammatory or autoimmune disease in susceptible people. That remains an important research question, particularly in post-COVID illness and reported post-vaccination syndromes.
If there is a suspicion of immune-mediated injury, we need pathology, tissue studies, longitudinal immune profiling and carefully matched epidemiological data. We need autopsies when deaths are unexplained and need investigators prepared to examine uncomfortable possibilities without deciding the answer in advance.
This is where I believe the scientific system has been weakest. It has forced the public into a false choice between declaring the vaccines completely safe and declaring them responsible for every subsequent illness. Neither position is scientifically credible.
The correct response to uncertainty is investigation.
The Institutional Failure
The released correspondence is often described as part of Anthony Fauci’s “diary,” but it is more accurately an archive of emails obtained through freedom-of-information processes. That does not diminish its importance. It only means I need to describe the evidence accurately.
The email proves that Gallo raised these concerns with Collins. It does not, by itself, prove that Collins ignored him or that no discussion followed. I would need further correspondence, meeting records and decision documents to establish that.
What the subsequent response does show is that spike-based platforms became overwhelmingly dominant. Public messaging increasingly presented vaccination as the central route out of the crisis, while distinctions between protection from infection, transmission, severe disease and death were repeatedly blurred.
I believe that was a strategic mistake.
The vaccines provided meaningful protection against severe disease, especially in the earlier phases of the pandemic. Acknowledging that does not require me to pretend that durability, repeated dosing, variant escape or adverse effects were irrelevant. Equally, acknowledging adverse events does not justify claiming that every concern raised in 2020 has now been proved.
The intellectual failure was the loss of calibrated uncertainty.
What This Should Teach Us
I keep coming back to Gallo’s phrase about most eggs in one basket because it holds the central lesson.
Pandemic preparedness cannot depend upon a single antigen, a single platform or a single laboratory marker. I want future strategies to include antiviral treatment, mucosal protection, innate immune support, broader vaccine targets and serious investigation of host susceptibility. I also want independent pathology and long-term safety surveillance capable of identifying rare or delayed problems.
Most importantly, I want credible scientific disagreement preserved rather than treated as an obstacle to public confidence.
Trust is not created by concealing uncertainty. It is created when institutions demonstrate that they actively searched for the ways their preferred strategy might fail.
Gallo offered that warning in May 2020. I do not regard his email as proof that every later concern was predictable. I regard it as evidence that the central strategic risk was visible from the beginning.
The question I am left with is not whether he was right or wrong. It is whether our institutions were still capable of listening when an experienced scientist told them that they might be placing too much faith in one idea.
Vejon COVID-19 Review is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
