Aletho News

NIH Pulls Plug on ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ Research — Will mRNA Products Be Next?

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 11, 2025

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will no longer fund research on “vaccine hesitancy” and strategies for increasing vaccine uptake, The Washington Post reported Monday.

According to Science, the NIH sent notices canceling or reducing grants to the affected researchers, stating:

“It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize research activities that focus on gaining scientific knowledge on why individuals are hesitant to be vaccinated and/or explore ways to improve vaccine interest and commitment.”

NIH will terminate at least 33 vaccine hesitancy grants, Science reported. Nine other grants will be modified or reduced.

The terminations came after NIH, on behalf of interim director Matthew Memoli, asked each of its institutes to develop a list of ongoing and future vaccine hesitancy grants.

Science reported that the agency is considering taking similar action for research related to mRNA products.

Of the terminated grants, 14 were funded by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases — the agency formerly led by Dr. Anthony Fauci — and focused on vaccines for COVID-19, chickenpox, mpox (formerly monkeypox), HPV and a hypothetical gonorrhea vaccine.

“The project appeared on the list because one of its aims ‘is to evaluate health care worker’s [sic] and potential patient’s attitudes towards acceptance of a gonorrhea vaccine if one is developed,’” Science reported.

Other canceled grants targeted modeling of disease outbreaks or “promoting vaccine uptake among racial minority groups or understanding why some parents are reluctant to accept childhood and adolescent vaccines.”

Memoli is temporarily leading the NIH pending the confirmation of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor of health policy, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration and President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead NIH.

NIH did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Grants targeted ‘vaccine-hesitant’ minority and conservative communities

The Defender previously reported on multiple taxpayer-funded grants, including some awarded by the NIH, that funded research on decreasing vaccine hesitancy and increasing HPV vaccine uptake.

The Defender obtained the grant information through a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in 2023 and 2024

One set of documents, obtained in 2023, revealed that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a $4.7 million grant to a scientist — and paid consultant for Merck — to conduct research on how to increase teen uptake of the HPV vaccine. Merck manufactures Gardasil, the only HPV vaccine available in the U.S.

In 2024, the grant’s principal investigator, Noel Brewer, Ph.D., a psychologist and professor in the Department of Health Behavior at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, was appointed to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine recommendations.

FOIA documents Children’s Health Defense (CHD) received in 2024 revealed that HHS issued $4 million to fund the development of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool designed to “inoculate” social media users against HPV vaccine “misinformation” posted on social media.

Other documents CHD received in 2023 revealed that HHS granted $600,000 for research on how to increase HPV vaccine uptake among Black teens, and that NIH granted $519,399 for a four-year study on a smartphone tool to increase HPV vaccine uptake among adolescents whose parents are “vaccine-hesitant.”

The NIH also funded such studies overseas. FOIA documents CHD received in 2024 showed that NIH awarded $340,000 to test psychological tactics aimed at persuading South African fifth-graders and parents to accept the HPV vaccine.

In 2023, documents showed that the CDC had issued hundreds of millions of dollars in grants since 2021 for the development of “culturally tailored” pro-vaccine materials and for the training of “influential messengers” to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines to communities of color in each U.S. state.

The CDC also funded “Chair Care,” a New Mexico program that trained and paid hairstylists as “trusted messengers” that would target the state’s Hispanic, Black, Native American and conservative populations, who were shown to have the lowest vaccine uptake and highest “vaccine hesitancy.”

‘Vaccine hesitancy’ research targeted personal choice not to vaccinate

Toby Rogers, Ph.D., a fellow at the Brownstone Institute for Social and Economic Research, welcomed the NIH decision to stop such studies. He questioned the premise of the “vaccine hesitancy” research — and the concept of “vaccine hesitancy” itself.

“There’s no such thing as ‘vaccine hesitancy,’” Rogers said. “The term itself is completely Orwellian. It was likely coined by an expensive Big Pharma PR firm. The purpose of the term is to cast aspersions on parents who do proper research on the risks of medical interventions,” Rogers said.

According to Rogers, studies like those being discontinued were likely backed by pharmaceutical companies to ascertain how to increase vaccine demand.

“Studies on so-called ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and ‘overcoming vaccine hesitancy’ are thinly disguised marketing studies on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry,” Rogers said. “Big Pharma makes plenty of money. American taxpayers should not be paying for marketing studies on behalf of one of the most vile industries on Earth.”

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher said it is inappropriate for the NIH to allocate resources to study people’s personal health choices.

“The purpose of studying vaccine hesitancy is to find ways to increase vaccine uptake in individuals that have made the personal choice to not vaccinate with a particular product,” Hulscher said. “The federal government should simply respect their choice and not waste valuable resources and taxpayer money on trying to change their minds.”

Internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker said that during the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts to address “vaccine hesitancy” resulted in gimmicks intended to increase uptake of the COVID-19 shots — and punish those who declined vaccination.

“During COVID, we had health officials combating ‘vaccine hesitancy’ with bribes of lottery tickets, donuts, even free beer, and meting out punishments such as being fired from one’s job. Medical practice surrounding vaccines descended to a disgracefully unethical state during COVID,” Baker said.

mRNA research grants next on NIH’s chopping block?

According to Science, the NIH may also curtail grants for mRNA vaccine research.

Citing an internal NIH memo sent March 6, Science reported that Memoli “has requested information on NIH’s investment in mRNA vaccines research,” including ongoing or planned grants and contracts, and collaborations with outside partners.

NIH institutes and programs were asked to respond by this week.

Hulscher drew parallels between mRNA research and “vaccine hesitancy” research.

“Vaccine hesitancy will remain high as a result of the federal government authorizing and mandating experimental modified mRNA injections that are suspected to have killed, injured or permanently disabled over a million Americans. The longer this disaster remains unacknowledged, the harder it will be to regain the trust of Americans,” Hulscher said.

According to the Post, it is “unclear” whether HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “had a role, directly or indirectly, in the move to cancel these grants.”

HHS oversees federal health agencies, including NIH and the CDC.

‘Vaccine hesitancy’ grants funded ‘psychological manipulation programs’

Scientists and doctors quoted by the Post expressed concern over the NIH’s planned cuts of “vaccine hesitancy” research.

Manoj Sharma, Ph.D., a professor of social and behavioral health at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who received a previous CDC grant for vaccine hesitancy research, told the Post, “There is an urgent need to enhance vaccine acceptance behavior, especially due to the potential resurgence of measles and COVID-19 still looming.”

But for Baker, “This statement exemplifies the real goal of these studies, which is not to study behaviors, but to drive behaviors in a predetermined direction.” He added:

“‘Vaccine hesitancy’ grants do not fund scientific inquiry so much as psychological manipulation programs. They reject freedom of choice in favor of a predetermined behavior. It is a form of coercion. Coercion, be it subtle or obvious, is the opposite of informed consent.

“Informed consent is absolutely central to the ethical practice of medicine. NIH should not fund research that undermines the ethical practice of medicine.”

Hulscher suggested that NIH resources previously earmarked for “vaccine hesitancy” studies “should be allocated to proper safety testing of the entire childhood vaccine schedule, where there are currently no products licensed based on long-term placebo-controlled trials.”

Other experts suggested that these resources could be used to rectify harms related to the promotion — or mandate — of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic.

“The money saved from cancelling these studies should instead be paid to independent researchers who are documenting the experiences of the millions of Americans injured by vaccines,” Rogers said.

“The grant money would be better used to produce a historical document of the abuses of informed consent during COVID, than to continue these psychological manipulation programs disguised as scientific inquiry,” Baker said.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

March 17, 2025 - Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, HPV vaccine, NIH, United States