New Documents Reveal a Controversial Vaccine Study’s Unusual Path to CDC Approval

Rolling Stone

by Maria Fontoura

February 21, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

A recent investigation has uncovered irregularities in the ethics review of a Danish-led grant proposal for a controversial hepatitis B vaccine study in Guinea-Bissau. The study aimed to examine potential negative effects of administering a birth dose of the vaccine, despite its decades of proven safety. However, concerns were raised about the rushed and unconventional approval process by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Instead of following standard scientific review protocols, which can take up to a year, the proposal was fast-tracked within 10 days, bypassing key divisions and sparking internal alarms among CDC staff. The grant request, worth $1.6 million, proposed enrolling over 14,000 infants in Guinea-Bissau, where hepatitis B is prevalent, with only half receiving the vaccine. This lack of full protection for participants raised ethical concerns, as did intense pressure from senior officials to approve the study. Rolling Stone obtained documents showing the proposal was routed directly from the director’s office to grant management without proper vetting, leading some CDC employees to refuse involvement due to fears of inadequate human research protections. The study became a focal point of controversy, with global health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) expressing significant concerns about its scientific justification and ethical safeguards. Prominent figures, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., were linked to the proposal, further fueling public scrutiny. Despite these criticisms, lead researcher Christine Stabell Benn defended the study’s ethics, emphasizing compliance with Guinea-Bissau’s national policies and approval by local ethics committees. This case highlights the tension between advancing scientific knowledge and ensuring ethical research practices, particularly in vulnerable populations. The rapid approval process and lack of transparency have sparked questions about the CDC’s decision-making and its potential impact on public trust in vaccines. As cultural debates around vaccine safety and policy continue to grow, this study serves as a critical reminder of the importance of rigorous oversight and accountability in scientific research.

Verticals

cultureentertainment

Originally published on Rolling Stone on 2/21/2026