Contentious hearing on bill to ban gene‑based vaccines draws medical experts, tribal leaders and dozens of personal testimonies

Representative Greg Kmetz opened House Bill 3 71 describing a proposal to prohibit administration of gene‑based vaccines (defined in the bill to include mRNA products such as the COVID‑19 shots) in Montana and characterizing vaccine manufacturers as shielded from liability. "This bill only bans vaccines that have an mRNA base," Kmetz said, arguing citizens need protection from what proponents described as unmitigated risks.

A long line of proponents offered personal anecdotes and medical claims that the committee and opponents repeatedly said require independent verification. Dr. Christine Drivdahl Smith, a Miles City family physician, cited VAERS numbers and published studies she says document injuries, and she urged immediate legislative action. "Gene‑based vaccines are the most destructive and lethal medical products that have ever been used in human history," she testified (verbatim as provided). Other proponents described myocarditis, strokes, cancers and other injuries that they attributed to mRNA vaccines and asked the legislature to ban the products. Many proponents asked the committee to consider VAERS data and other non‑peer‑reviewed material as evidence.

Opponents included the state medical officer Douglas Harrington, Montana Medical Association leadership, tribal health representatives, hospital and nursing associations, pediatricians, pharmacists, the Montana Bioscience Alliance, and multiple clinical researchers. Harrington told the committee several key claims in the bill are false: "The statement that mRNA vaccines can integrate into the human genome and be passed on to the next generation is false," he said, and he added that mRNA vaccines do not shed. Harrington and other medical witnesses warned the bill language is overly broad and would block existing licensed gene‑based vaccines (for example, hepatitis B) and prospective therapies such as mRNA cancer vaccines and treatments for genetic diseases. They also warned the proposal would interfere with the patient‑provider relationship and could criminalize standard medical practice.

Scientific experts explained differences between passive safety systems such as VAERS and active surveillance systems that evaluate causation. Epidemiologists and immunologists testified that VAERS is a publicly accessible passive reporting tool that cannot by itself establish causation, and they pointed to large post‑marketing surveillance systems that continue to monitor vaccine safety. Several clinical witnesses emphasized established benefits of available vaccines, and tribal health witnesses stressed that vaccines saved lives during the pandemic and that restricted access could harm vulnerable populations.

The hearing included many emotional personal narratives and contentious exchanges between proponents' claims and scientific witnesses. Committee members heard both claims of individual harms and technical rebuttals; witnesses on both sides asked the committee to weigh personal accounts against published, peer‑reviewed evidence and public‑health data. The committee took testimony but did not vote on HB371 at the hearing's close.