NIH Agency to Scrub Words From Website; Epstein’s Genes; $2B WHO ‘Alternative’

Staff at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have been told to scrub the words “biodefense” and “pandemic preparedness” from the institute’s website, as the NIH director outlined a plan for the institute’s restructuring late last month. (Nature)

And the chances of winning an NIH research grant plunged in 2025, with bread-and-butter R01 grants falling from 7,720 in 2024 to 5,885 in 2025. (Science)

An exposé in Rolling Stone details the unusual path to CDC approval for the controversial $1.6 million research grant to study the hepatitis B birth dose in Guinea Bissau.

More than a decade ago, researchers working in the lab of geneticist George Church were asked to prioritize genetic sequencing for Jeffrey Epstein, triggering an internal crisis among staff and at least one resignation. (STAT)

After pulling out of the World Health Organization, the Trump administration is now proposing to spend $2 billion a year on an alternative. (Washington Post)

In her first address to FDA staff, Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD, said she will scrutinize RSV shots and antidepressants in pregnancy. (STAT)

And the New Yorker reports on a Los Angeles couple that took advantage of lax regulatory rules to open their own “surrogacy agency,” with questionable motivation.

Former Michigan Medicine dean Marschall Runge, MD, PhD, allegedly failed to disclose financial ties to industry in at least 12 journal articles. (Michigan Daily)

A CMS investigation into sexual abuse allegations at St. Peter’s Health in Montana revealed a systemic failure to report such incidents. (Montana Free Press)

Researchers have detailed exactly how adenovirus-based COVID shots led to unusual blood clots and uncontrolled bleeding. They appear to trigger “rogue” antibodies in people with an unlucky genetic susceptibility, leading to a cascade of damaging events. (Science)

Men’s Health has republished all of the CDC webpages that still remain deleted.

Scientists and medical experts are turning to TikTok to counter misinformation, leveraging some of the same strategies as anti-science influencers. (Nature)