NIH Advisory Board Warns RFK Jr.'s Vaccine Injury Clinic Could Undermine Hospital's Trust

Image: Ars Technica · Source

The NIH Clinical Center's advisory board expresses concern that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine injury clinic and its politicized debut may harm the hospital's reputation and public confidence in its research.

At a recent meeting of the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Center Research Hospital advisory board, chair Jack Leslie delivered a sharp reprimand of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., cautioning that Kennedy's anti-vaccine activism and the launch of his vaccine injury clinic could damage the longstanding trust in the institution. Leslie acknowledged the seriousness of vaccine injuries and emphasized NIH's commitment to their study, noting that severe adverse reactions, while rare, must be taken seriously and treated with respect.

The controversy centers on a surprise ribbon-cutting ceremony for Kennedy's vaccine injury clinic held at the NIH hospital. The event featured patients seated behind placards labeled "vaccine injured" and included high-profile political figures from the Trump administration, but lacked clarity that the clinic protocol was still undergoing scientific and ethical review and that it functioned within an existing NIH vaccine evaluation center established decades ago.

Jonathan Green, the hospital's CEO, confirmed that the NIH has decades of ongoing research into vaccine safety and efficacy. He described Kennedy's clinic as a new protocol rather than an independently funded or separate entity, underscoring that it requires rigorous approval before enactment.

Leslie criticized the event's optics, saying that prelabeling patients as "vaccine injured" presupposes conclusions not yet reached by research and that this risks alienating both patients and the public. He warned that if the research eventually finds evidence of harm, skeptics will dismiss it as biased by Kennedy's known position against vaccines; if no harm is found, the clinic itself will be seen as disingenuous. This loss of credibility, Leslie emphasized, could extend beyond vaccines to other hospital research, undermining confidence essential to the Clinical Center's role as a trusted research institution.

The board voted unanimously to endorse Leslie's statement, reinforcing the message that scientific inquiry at the NIH Clinical Center must remain impartial to maintain public trust. The situation highlights tensions between political advocacy and scientific research in health institutions.