Guinea-Bissau Police Seize Hepatitis B Vaccines in Raid on Researchers
Officers searched offices linked to a contested study that would withhold birth doses from 7,000 newborns
By AXY War & Crime Desk ·
Key points
- Police in Guinea-Bissau raided offices linked to vaccine researchers on Monday and seized hepatitis B vaccine doses.
- The study at the centre of the dispute would deny hepatitis B vaccines to 7,000 newborns during their first six weeks.
- The WHO called any study that denies the vaccine to participants unethical and said it exposes newborns to serious harm.
- Ethics approvals were issued, but the health minister said reports that the trial would move forward are “not even remotely true.”
Police in Guinea-Bissau raided the offices of controversial vaccine researchers on Monday and seized doses of hepatitis B vaccine, according to officials who announced the search on Facebook. The researchers have been praised by Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US Health and Human Services secretary. The social media post, which was translated from Portuguese, said judicial police carried out the search as part of work to establish the facts about the vaccines.
The announcement said the search involved “investigative procedures aimed at clarifying the circumstances related to the said batch of vaccines.” It also said that seizing the immunisations did not point to “irregularities in the quality, safety, or effectiveness of the vaccines.” The post did not say who had been questioned, whether anyone had been charged, or why the batch was being examined. Those details were not in the material available for this report.
Who the researchers are
The offices belong to, or are linked to, the Bandim Health Project. The group was founded in 1978 by anthropologist Peter Aaby. It is now co-led by his wife, Christine Stabell Benn, an epidemiologist. For decades the project has studied childhood health in Guinea-Bissau, a small West African country with a long record of public health research, and its work has drawn both praise and sharp criticism.
That history matters here because the group has become the centre of a fight over one study in particular. Researchers who take part in African trials often work alongside local health ministries, and the question of who decides what counts as ethical care for a newborn is never simple. In this case, the disagreement is not about whether hepatitis B vaccines work. It is about whether a trial should delay them for some babies.
The study at the centre of the dispute
The research on African newborns was supported by $1.6 million from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, known as the CDC. That money was matched by the Pershing Square Foundation and the Bluebell Foundation, bringing the total to $3.2 million. The source material does not say how the funds were divided between the groups or what the project was spent on.
The study was redesigned over the summer. Even so, the source says it would still deny hepatitis B vaccines to 7,000 newborns during the first six weeks of life. In plain terms, these babies would not receive the shot that health authorities normally give at or soon after birth. Instead, they would be part of a trial that compares outcomes between groups.
That design is the core of the objection. A trial that withholds a proven preventive treatment from one group of infants is a serious ethical step, and most research rules require that participants not be denied a treatment that is already known to work. Whether the redesign addresses that concern is exactly what is being disputed.
Why hepatitis B matters for newborns
Hepatitis B is a virus that attacks the liver. The source says about one in five adults in Guinea-Bissau carry the virus. For people with chronic infection, the disease can be deadly. The source says it kills between 15% and 25% of people with chronic infections, and that it can cause liver cancer and liver failure.
Babies are especially at risk. Infants who catch the virus early in life are far more likely to develop a lasting infection than adults are. The source says that vaccination within 24 hours of birth is safe and highly effective at preventing illness. That is why a delayed first dose is a concern for health officials, and why the timing of the shot is central to the debate.
For a family in a country where many adults already carry the virus, the question is practical. A newborn who does not receive the vaccine in the first days of life faces a risk that could last for decades. For the parents of the 7,000 babies in question, the trial design would decide whether their child got the shot early or waited.
Ethics approvals and the government’s position
The Bandim Health Project recently posted a letter of approval for the trial from Guinea-Bissau’s national ethics committee, which sits within the ministry of public health. The letter is dated 14 July and was signed by the committee’s president, Mouhammed Djicó Ould Ahmed. A research ethics committee in Denmark also approved the study earlier this month. The source notes that the Danish committee had to change its rules in order to consider a clinical trial of this kind.
The health minister of Guinea-Bissau’s transitional government, Quinhin Nantote, disputed reports that the trial would move forward. Speaking to the Guardian in Portuguese on Thursday, he said: “This is not even remotely true.” The source does not say which reports he was responding to, or whether the ministry had taken any formal step to stop the study.
The two positions can look contradictory. A letter of approval from an ethics committee suggests a study may go ahead, while a minister’s denial suggests it will not. Analysts who follow research ethics say that in cases like this, the answer usually depends on which authority has the final say over the country’s health programme, and whether the ministry has formally withdrawn its support. That is a question the material available here does not settle.
Response from the World Health Organization
The World Health Organization, or WHO, has taken a firm position. Tarik Jašarević, a WHO spokesperson, said that any study that would deny the vaccine to participants was “unethical and exposes newborns to serious and potentially irreversible harm.” He described hepatitis B vaccination at birth as an “essential public health intervention.”
Jašarević also said the WHO’s country office in Guinea-Bissau and its partners have been advising the ministry of health on the planned introduction of the hepatitis B vaccine. They have also been assessing the potential impact of the study. That role places the agency in the middle of the dispute, not only as a critic but as an adviser to the government that must decide what happens next.
Why the case matters beyond one country
The raid and the study matter for three reasons. First, they involve a public health programme for newborns, the group least able to protect itself. Second, they involve money from the United States government and private foundations, which makes the study part of a wider cross-border research effort. Third, the researchers have been praised by Kennedy, whose department oversees US public health agencies, including the CDC. The source does not describe what Kennedy said about the researchers, so readers should not assume his position on this specific study.
Health research in West Africa has a long history of foreign-funded trials that raise questions about consent, fairness and who benefits. Those questions tend to become sharper when a trial touches a treatment that is already standard in wealthy countries but not yet fully available in poorer ones. Guinea-Bissau is a case in point, and the dispute is likely to be watched closely by other ministries that host similar studies.
What to watch next
Several questions are still open. The first is what the police investigation finds about the batch of vaccines it seized. The officials who announced the raid said seizing the doses did not point to problems with quality, safety or effectiveness, but they did not say what the investigation is meant to establish.
The second is whether the ministry of health formally halts the trial or confirms that it can go ahead. The health minister’s denial is clear, but the ethics approvals already on the record are also clear. A written decision from the ministry would settle the matter in a way that statements to the press cannot.
The third is whether the study’s design changes again. Public health officials and ethics experts will be looking for evidence that the 7,000 newborns would not be denied a vaccine that the WHO calls essential. For now, the source material shows that the question remains unresolved and that the vaccines themselves are at the centre of a police inquiry.
Questions and answers
Why did police raid the vaccine researchers in Guinea-Bissau?
The officials’ Facebook post said judicial police carried out “investigative procedures aimed at clarifying the circumstances related to the said batch of vaccines.” The post did not give further details about the reasons for the search.
What is the study that is causing the dispute?
The study looks at African newborns and was supported by $1.6 million from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, matched for a total of $3.2 million. The redesigned study would still deny hepatitis B vaccines to 7,000 newborns in their first six weeks of life.
Why does the WHO object to the trial?
WHO spokesperson Tarik Jašarević said any study that would deny the vaccine to participants is unethical and exposes newborns to serious and potentially irreversible harm. He called birth vaccination against hepatitis B an essential public health intervention.
Will the trial go ahead?
Ethics committees in Guinea-Bissau and Denmark approved the study, but Guinea-Bissau’s health minister Quinhin Nantote said reports that the trial would move forward are “not even remotely true.” The source material does not confirm a final decision.
Topics: Guinea-Bissau, hepatitis B vaccine, Bandim Health Project, Robert F Kennedy Jr, World Health Organization, newborn vaccination, clinical trial ethics
Sources: The Guardian World RSS