A $1.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to a controversial vaccine study has sparked intrigue and concern. Emails obtained by Rolling Stone reveal the behind-the-scenes dealings that led to this funding decision.
In October 2025, two Danish researchers, Peter Aaby and Christine Stabell Benn, faced a potential crisis. Their research, which had gained attention for its theory on vaccine effects, was under scrutiny. A group of Danish statisticians published a scathing analysis, questioning the duo's methods and findings.
Aaby and Stabell Benn, a married couple, are known for their theory suggesting vaccines have unknown impacts on the immune system. Their work, conducted in Guinea-Bissau, a West African nation, had gained traction among vaccine opponents. With their research under attack, the question arose: How could they continue funding their work amidst these doubts?
But just two days after the statisticians' critique, the couple found an unexpected ally in the U.S. government. Emails show that on October 3, Stabell Benn was in confidential discussions with HHS officials handpicked by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to obtain exclusive research funding.
Stabell Benn proposed a randomized controlled trial in Guinea-Bissau, where half of 14,000 newborns would receive a birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, while the other half would not. The aim was to study potential negative health effects, such as skin ailments or neurodevelopmental disorders.
The emails reveal a controversial policy shift underway. Kennedy was considering no longer universally recommending hepatitis B vaccinations, including the birth dose. Two of his most controversial appointees, Lyn Redwood and Stuart Burns, with a history of anti-vaccine activities, were instrumental in shepherding the grant through HHS.
Burns, a senior adviser to the CDC director, wrote to Stabell Benn, "This is a funding priority for CDC/HHS." The grant was awarded swiftly, despite ethical concerns raised by global public health experts. The study proposed not providing a potentially lifesaving birth dose to half of the newborn participants in a nation with high hepatitis B infection rates.
The emails provide a glimpse into Kennedy's approach to science and policy. He and his allies appear to be bypassing longstanding review practices to fund studies that may justify policy changes they favor. Dr. Daniel Jernigan, a former CDC director, criticized the grant process, saying it reflects Kennedy's "fishing" for evidence to support his agenda.
The study faced opposition from Africa CDC officials, who reportedly halted it due to ethical concerns. However, an HHS official stated the study would proceed once protocols were finalized. An HHS spokesman defended the study, citing its aim to address evidence gaps and inform global hepatitis B vaccine policy.
The Danish researchers, Stabell Benn and Aaby, did not respond to Rolling Stone's questions. They have previously defended their findings and integrity, claiming to have debunked critics' arguments.
Denmark has become a focus of the Trump administration, with its vaccination schedule and Greenland territory attracting interest. In January 2026, Kennedy announced the CDC would no longer universally recommend six childhood vaccinations, aligning the U.S. with Denmark's minimalist schedule. This change was met with criticism and concerns from U.S. and Danish experts.
Anders Hviid, a Danish vaccine scientist, believes Kennedy's real agenda is to "get rid of all the vaccines." An HHS spokesman denied this, stating Kennedy is "not anti-vaccine" and focused on restoring public trust.
Hviid was personally targeted by Kennedy after publishing a study finding no link between vaccine aluminum and chronic diseases, including autism. Kennedy demanded the study's retraction, but the journal refused.
Stabell Benn welcomed Kennedy's ascent, seeing him as a "catalyst" to question vaccine knowledge. Kennedy has praised Aaby and Stabell Benn's research, citing it to support his decision to stop U.S. funding for Gavi, a global vaccine alliance.
The claim that the DTP vaccine increased female mortality, attributed to Aaby and Stabell Benn's research, was investigated by Danish physician and journalist Charlotte Strøm. She discovered that Aaby had conducted an unpublished randomized clinical trial of the DTP vaccine in Guinea-Bissau, enrolling over 6,000 children.
Stabell Benn's delayed publication of partial results, under pressure from media scrutiny, claimed the data neither supported nor refuted their theory. The revelation that they withheld data for 14 years caused a scientific scandal in Denmark.
Aaby and Stabell Benn's hypothesis on vaccine effects became a key pretext for Kennedy's U.S. vaccine policy overhaul. Emails show Stabell Benn's conversations with Kennedy's associates coincided with the administration's deliberations on hepatitis B vaccine recommendations.
In June, Kennedy removed all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing them with like-minded individuals. The new ACIP committee's first meeting in September was chaotic, as members debated the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose recommendation.
Stabell Benn had submitted her funding request to HHS the day before the ACIP meeting. In an email to Lyn Redwood, she wrote, "Our biggest challenge is securing the funding." The Pershing Square Foundation had pledged $1.8 million, contingent on matching funds within a month.
HHS officials argued that U.S. screening adequately detects hepatitis B infections in pregnant mothers, leaving the decision to families when no infection is detected. Burns replied to Stabell Benn, calling her study a "funding priority."
Anders Hviid questioned the unsolicited nature of Stabell Benn's study, suggesting Kennedy's influence. Medical experts worldwide denounced the study for withholding a lifesaving intervention. Dr. Paul Offit called it Kennedy's "own Tuskegee experiment."
Most Danish doctors continue to follow the science, with hepatitis B hospital units urging the addition of hepatitis B vaccines to the vaccination schedule.
The emails raise questions about the influence of ideology and personal agendas in scientific funding and policy decisions.
