CDC Commits $1.6M to the Contested Guinea-Bissau Hepatitis B Birth-Dose Trial — Funded From Global Health Security Money as Four Ethics Committee Members Resign

CDC Commits $1.6M to the Contested Guinea-Bissau Hepatitis B Birth-Dose Trial — Funded From Global Health Security Money as Four Ethics Committee Members Resign

October 13–14, 2026. Rolling Stone's Katherine Eban reports that the hepatitis B birth-dose trial in Guinea-Bissau — denounced by WHO in February 2026 and shelved, then revived — moved forward last month for a mundane reason: "$1.6 million in grant money needed by the Danish researchers conducting the study was expiring in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's budget." The trial plans to enroll 14,000 newborns and give the hepatitis B birth dose to only half, with the other 7,000 receiving it at 6 weeks (current practice in Guinea-Bissau, where the disease is endemic and the birth dose becomes standard only in 2028) — raising infection risks including cirrhosis and liver cancer for delayed-arm infants.

Key facts from the investigation:

• The money came from funds Congress designated for global health security — money that "could have been used to respond to the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo" (DRC Bundibugyo Ebola: 9,235 Cases, 4,444 Deaths — Kenya's Cluster Grows to 7 With First In-Country Transmission (3 Health Workers Infected)) — after officials in CDC's chief-of-staff office hunted for substitute funds before the Sept 30 deadline. An internal email: "If we don't obligate these funds by 9/30, we lose them." The Pershing Square Foundation (Bill Ackman) had previously pledged $1.8M.
• The University of Southern Denmark ethics committee voted 5–4 on Sept 30 after shortened deliberations driven by the funding clock; the dean gave final approval Oct 7. Four committee members resigned in protest. Member Stig Børsen Hansen, who voted no: "There was a clear connection between the deadline and us going straight to a vote... Working and reasoning under the pressure of knowing that people might lose their funding short-circuited the process. We reached a bad decision in a bad way."
• Guinea-Bissau says it has NOT approved the trial. After an Oct 9 Guardian report said authorities had signed off, health minister Quinhin Nantote denied this at a Tuesday (Oct 13) press conference, per Reuters, "saying that the study would require further review."
• WHO's February 13, 2026 statement criticized the design; the protocol was revised in August so that "Babies of mothers who are known to have hepatitis B, test positive, or whose status cannot be determined will not be randomized and will be offered the birth-dose vaccine promptly." Hepatitis B Foundation director Dr. Robert Gish says the revisions don't fix the problem: "Maternal screening alone cannot prevent transmission, and this study will leave infants vulnerable to exposure through undetected maternal infections, household contacts, or other routes of early childhood transmission."

Why it matters here: the trial was championed inside CDC by Stuart Burns, a senior advisor in the director's office and RFK Jr. ally¹, and its premise — that delaying the hepatitis B birth dose is an acceptable question to re-test — parallels the administration's domestic childhood-schedule push (Trump's Aug 10 Childhood-Vaccine Executive Order (18 Shots → 11, MMR Split) Draws a 31-Lawmaker Demand That CDC Director Schwartz Answer by October 16). Duke's Dr. Gavin Yamey: "It doesn't surprise me that the federal health leadership would take money away from where it is sorely needed and put it towards a study that is unrequired and deeply unethical." Ethicist Arthur Caplan: "$1.6 million would go a long way in Guinea-Bissau if you just vaccinated everybody."