NIH Governance: Board Chair Questions Reputation of New Vaccine Injury Clinic

Six minutes. That is the duration of the rebuke delivered by Jack Leslie, chair of the board overseeing the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Center Research Hospital, during a recent regularly scheduled meeting. Leslie set the agenda aside to address the opening of a vaccine injury clinic by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., warning that the initiative could tarnish the institution's standing.

The hospital, often referred to as the "house of hope," serves patients with rare conditions and those who have exhausted other treatment options. Leslie argued that Kennedy's anti-vaccine activities pose a risk to this reputation. He acknowledged that some members might prefer he remain silent, but stated that staying quiet would be a failing for the advisory board. "But I think that that would be a failing as an advisory board if we were silent," Leslie said.

The criticism centered on a recent ribbon-cutting ceremony where Kennedy made a surprise appearance. The event featured a panel of individuals who say they were hurt by vaccines. These speakers sat behind placards reading "vaccine injured" while conversing with Kennedy and other high-ranking officials from the Trump administration.

Leslie clarified that his objection was not to the scientific study of vaccine harms. He noted that serious reactions are rare but real, and that people who believe they have been injured should be taken seriously. However, he viewed the ceremonial aspect of the launch as the primary issue.

Jonathan Green, the hospital's CEO, supported this perspective during the meeting. Green stated that the NIH has researched vaccine safety and efficacy for decades and that this work continues. He described the new clinic as just one more individual "protocol" at the hospital rather than a major structural change.

The new clinic operates without additional funding or extra clinic space. It joins an existing NIH center that already studies vaccine injuries. Green’s description contrasts with the high-profile nature of the launch, presenting the addition as a modest part of ongoing research rather than a new department.

Leslie’s remarks frame the issue as a matter of institutional reputation for a facility serving vulnerable patients. Green’s comments highlight the practical footing of the clinic within existing research structures. The board’s position reflects a distinction between the public ceremony and the clinical reality of the new protocol.