HHS halts work at high-risk infectious disease lab following repeated safety violations
An HHS official confirmed the pause at Fort Detrick's Integrated Research Facility, which conducts risky research on deadly infectious diseases like SARS-COV-2 and the Ebola virus, began Tuesday at 5 p.m.
The facility, which is one of only a handful across North America, is part of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and is located at the U.S. Army base Fort Detrick, outside Washington, D.C. The research there studies treatment and prevention of deadly, "high-consequence" diseases such as Lassa Fever and Eastern equine encephalitis.
According to the HHS official who was willing to speak on the matter under the condition of anonymity, the pause stemmed from a lover's spat between researchers at the facility, which resulted in one of the individuals poking holes in the other's personal protective equipment (PPE). That individual has since been fired, the official indicated.
The HHS official added that the incident is just the latest example of safety incidents at the high-risk laboratory, which they blamed on a poor safety culture at the lab enabled by the previous Biden administration.
"NIH and HHS take the safety of our facilities and research very seriously," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said. "As soon as we found out about this incident, we took immediate action to issue the safety pause until we can correct the safety culture at this facility."
The latest incident, according to HHS, was preceded by a separate incident that occurred as recently as November.
The facility's director, Connie Schmaljohn, was placed on administrative leave following the incident. The HHS official familiar with the matter indicated Schmaljohn did not report the incident up the chain of command immediately, causing a delay in remedying the matter.
During this temporary pause, all research at the facility will come to a halt and access will be limited to essential personnel.
It is unclear how long the pause will remain in effect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
Draft MAHA strategy avoids new crackdown on food and farming practices
It also includes a note about how pesticide review guidelines are already 'robust' — something agriculture lobbyists and farm-state Republicans have been pushing for. The White House previously promised agriculture groups that the strategy would not include cracking down on pesticides and told food companies and lobbyists that it wouldn't allow the MAHA Commission to surprise them with new ingredient targets or regulations. Those moves have drawn the ire of MAHA advocates, who stress the importance of ridding the food supply of pesticides and have brought their concerns directly to the president this week. Food The strategy on food policy mirrors what HHS officials have already said publicly that they'd pursue: voluntary commitments from companies on the transition to natural food dyes, defining 'ultra-processed foods,' updating the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, reforming the 'generally recognized as safe' designation, requiring front-of-pack labeling, and ensuring safe and high-quality infant formula. HHS and the FTC will additionally be instructed to investigate and crack down on the marketing of ultra-processed foods to children and 'improve' the quality of foods offered to veterans and in hospitals. Vaccines According to the draft, HHS and the Domestic Policy Council will develop a framework for 'ensuring America has the best childhood vaccine schedule' and addressing injuries from vaccines. Kennedy and other anti-vaccine activists have alleged — despite scientific evidence to the contrary — that the dozens of shots received during childhood contribute to increased rates of chronic conditions like autism and ADHD in kids. The framework will also focus on 'ensuring scientific and medical freedom' and 'correcting conflict of interest and misaligned incentives.' Anti-vaccine groups like Children's Health Defense, which Kennedy founded before joining the government, claim that pediatricians are financially rewarded for ensuring their patients stick to the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule. The American Academy of Pediatrics has refuted that argument, and research shows most practices lose money on vaccinating patients. The draft report says HHS will collaborate with the National Institutes of Health's allergy and infectious disease center to 'investigate vaccine injuries with improved data collection and analysis.' The effort will include a new research program at the NIH Clinical Center that could expand nationwide. Some vaccine scientists have called on policymakers to boost federal funding for safety research to respond to dwindling public confidence in immunizations. While severe side effects are rare, the number of affected people can be significant when large populations are vaccinated.
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine revolution
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made a dizzying amount of changes to federal health agencies in his first six months as HHS secretary, with yesterday's decision to revive a childhood vaccine safety panel that anti-vax groups sought being the latest in a long list. Why it matters: Kennedy has upended years of vaccine policy and cut biomedical research funding, and experts worry his revisions could result in a less vaccinated population and more disease outbreaks and deaths. "I see a potential here for the dramatic reduction in vaccine access for this country," said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. With all the rapid changes, it can be hard to track what Kennedy has done so far. Here are the actions that stand out for their impact. 1) Kennedy removed all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices in June, saying a "clean sweep" was necessary to "reestablish public confidence in vaccine science." Two days later, Kennedy named new members to ACIP, including some who have expressed anti-vaccine views or who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which proposed letting COVID-19 spread among young, healthy people to reach herd immunity faster. Public health experts are concerned that the new ACIP could alter the routine infant and childhood vaccination schedule or restrict vaccines even further. 2) Kennedy straddled the line between recommending vaccinations and endorsing ineffective treatments during the Texas measles outbreak. He wrote in a Fox News op-ed that "vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity." But he included an important qualifier: "The decision to vaccinate is a personal one." Kennedy has also cited aerosolized budesonide, clarithromycin and vitamin A as "very effective" treatments for measles. There's no scientific evidence that aerosolized budesonide and clarithromycin treatments are beneficial, or that vitamin A can prevent or treat measles. 3) Kennedy announced in May that the CDC was changing its recommended immunization schedule and no longer recommending COVID shots for healthy children or pregnant women, citing a "lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children." 4. This month, Kennedy canceled $500 million in federal research contracts to develop new mRNA vaccines, in order to shift funding toward "safer, broader vaccine platforms." Scientific consensus is that mRNA vaccines are safe and effective. Scientists worry that halting research could result in fewer medical breakthroughs and less preparation for future pandemics. 5) In July, Kennedy proposed overhauling the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a federal court system that helps protect vaccine makers from liability and allows patients to receive compensation from vaccine injury claims. He could choose to change the official vaccine injury table, which could lead to more lawsuits. Or he could eliminate the court altogether, which could mean more lawsuits in the civil system and result in vaccine makers becomingliable for damages. 6) Kennedy pledged at an April Trump administration Cabinet meeting to investigate and find the root causes of autism by September, and later announced he's establishing an autism disease registry system. This is despite studies showing that increased levels of autism are likely due to improved screenings and earlier detection. Public health experts are concerned that Kennedy may still try to say there's a link between vaccines and autism, despite research showing no link. 7) HHS adopted a recommendation from the new ACIP panel to remove mercury-containing compound thimerosal from flu shots. Anti-vaccine groups have claimed thimerosal is linked to autism, though that claim has been widely discredited. The other side: "In just six months, Secretary Kennedy has taken bold, thoughtful steps to restore trust in public health and put families at the center of our decision-making," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement. "From strengthening vaccine oversight to expanding transparency and rethinking how we respond to chronic disease, his focus has been on delivering real outcomes for the American people — guided by evidence, transparency and the public interest." What we're watching: Some public health experts are concerned that Kennedy's actions are laying the groundwork for further restrictions on vaccines, which could result in more disease outbreaks in the U.S.
Time Magazine
3 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Cutting mRNA Research Could Be Our Deadliest Mistake Yet
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced it will wind down funding for mRNA vaccine development—which could prove to be one of the costliest, deadliest decisions HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will make during his tenure. HHS has already scaled back access to and recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines—a decision experts are deeply concerned about—and Kennedy's frequently misinformed views on vaccines continue to fan the flames of anti-vaccination attitudes. Now, Kennedy's failure to fully explore the potential of mRNA vaccines could stagnate research that has the potential to save millions of lives around the world. The dark cloud of COVID-19, one of the deadliest infectious disease outbreaks in history, can hardly be thought of as having a silver lining. But the nearest thing to a glimmer of a positive would be that the fast development of COVID-19 vaccines helped prevent many more deaths and led to rapid progress in our understanding and use of mRNA technology. This greater understanding is now being explored as potential preventions or therapies for a wide range of diseases, from H5N1 bird flu and HIV to cancer. Terminating 22 mRNA projects will not only directly set back research on mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases including flu; it will also arguably have negative knock-on effects for researchers the world over exploring personalized treatments for noncommunicable diseases like cancer. Early research on some novel uses of mRNA is promising. For example, a preliminary trial of an mRNA HIV vaccine found that 80% of participants generated neutralizing antibodies, which in theory could help block HIV—pending further research and development. A melanoma mRNA vaccine, when combined with existing treatment, reduced the risk of death or disease recurrence by nearly 50%. (The vaccine is currently being tested further in a full scale Phase 3 clinical trial). Even more amazingly, personalized vaccines—where vaccines are created specifically for an individual using information from their cancer to optimize their immune response—using mRNA technology have even been proposed as a universal vaccine adaptable for all cancers. Read More: The CDC Shooting is a Dark Sign for Science and America Much of the research on personalized mRNA cancer vaccines is in some way indebted to gains in knowledge made from COVID-19 research, and it stands to reason that pulling such a large amount of funding from mRNA projects will slow down further progress in these areas. Approximately $500 million worth of research funding would almost certainly have advanced the scientific community's fundamental understanding of how, and to what extent, mRNA technology works and how it could be applied to prevent and fight disease. Also problematic is the manner in which HHS under Kennedy conveys their decisions. In announcing the funding withdrawal, HHS states it 'will focus on platforms with stronger safety records and transparent clinical and manufacturing data practices.' This implies that mRNA vaccines have not been properly or transparently tested—which is not true. The safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has been demonstrated in numerous studies and systematic evidence reviews. Like pretty much all vaccines and treatments, mRNA vaccines are not without side effects, but evidence shows that any adverse events are nearly always mild and short-lived. COVID-19 vaccines have already saved millions of lives globally, with mRNA vaccines accounting for a significant majority of all doses administered in many countries. Kennedy's claim that 'mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits' is almost farcical in light of scientific evidence. Moreover, the whole purpose of clinical research is to test whether new scientific innovations—like novel applications of mRNA into different diseases—are safe and effective in the first place. Kennedy has long spoken of how we need more evidence and testing on mRNA vaccines, and so it is painfully ironic that he is pulling funding for research which would enable the scientific community to do just that. Read More: An mRNA Melanoma Vaccine Shows Promise Perhaps most concerning is the caliber of evidence upon which decisions with such massive implications are being made. In an HHS announcement of the termination of mRNA projects, Kennedy claims 'the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.' The truth is, initial vaccines and booster doses have been shown to be very effective against reducing infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. Kennedy does not even provide links or citations to systematic reviews or meta-analyses in reputable journals, the gold standard methods for scientific evidence. Rather, he simply links to an online evidence review which cherry picks studies searching only for the harms—and not the overall safety, effectiveness, or cost-benefit analysis—of the mRNA vaccines. The report does not describe the methods used to select and review studies, nor does it appear itself to have been peer-reviewed by other scientists. It almost certainly wouldn't be publishable in a scientific journal, yet it is being used as evidence to justify the fate of half a billion dollars of research funds. This is another example of how fringe viewpoints on mRNA technology, instead of the best available scientific evidence, are under Kennedy and HHS becoming the new mainstream. The U.S. has been at the forefront of developing mRNA technology for the past few decades, from the Nobel Prize-winning research of professors Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman at the University of Pennsylvania on mRNA, to the key role of U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies in vaccine production and rollout. Perhaps other countries, companies, and funding sources will offset this funding loss and lead the development of mRNA vaccine innovations. Large investments are already being made in the U.K. and China, for example. That would be to the detriment of U.S. scientific innovation and progress. Kennedy is right to scrutinize the potential overreach of the pharmaceutical industry, and to ensure their research and development is ethical and transparent. However, his seemingly personal war against "Big Pharma" and ideological opposition to mRNA risks stunting research that could one day help prevent the next pandemic or even provide cures for hitherto incurable cancers.
