FDA vaccine official restricted COVID vaccine approvals against the advice of agency staff
The new memos from the Food and Drug Administration show how the agency's vaccine chief, Dr. Vinay Prasad, personally intervened to place restrictions on COVID shots from vaccine makers Novavax and Moderna.
Both vaccines were approved by the FDA in May after months of analysis by rank-and-file FDA reviewers.
But internal correspondence show Prasad disagreed with staffers who planned to approve the shots for everyone 12 and older, similar to previous COVID vaccines. The scientists had concluded the benefit from the vaccines and the risk of COVID-19 outweighed the risk of possible side effects, which are rare.
Instead Prasad decided the shots should be limited to those who face special risks from the virus— seniors or children and adults with underlying medical issues.
Prasad explained that the COVID vaccine benefits must be reconsidered in light of falling rates of death and hospitalization and the possibility for vaccine side effects. It's the latest in a series of vaccine restrictions imposed by officials working under Kennedy, who has long questioned the benefits of vaccines.
'Even rare vaccination related harms both known and unknown now have higher chance of outweighing potential benefits' Prasad wrote in a five-page memo explaining his decision.
COVID-19 remains a public health threat, resulting in 32,000 to 51,000 U.S. deaths and more than 250,000 hospitalizations since last fall, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most at risk for hospitalization are seniors and children under 2 — especially infants under 6 months.
Top FDA leaders are typically not involved in the review of individual products. Officials like Prasad can overrule staffers, but such cases are rare and often controversial.
News of the FDA documents was first reported by the New York Times.
Prasad was hired to lead the FDA's vaccine center in May, after the previous director, Dr. Peter Marks, was forced to resign over disagreements with Kennedy. An academic researcher specializing in cancer therapies, Prasad came to prominence during the pandemic for criticizing public health measures, including the FDA's approval of COVID boosters for healthy adults and children.
Since arriving at the agency he has worked with FDA Commissioner Mark Makary on new guidelines that will limit approvals of future COVID boosters to higher-risk Americans, mainly seniors and those with medical conditions like asthma and obesity.
Those limits match the terms FDA recently approved for Novavax's shot, Nuvaxovid and Moderna's mNexspike. Novavax's vaccine is the only protein-based coronavirus vaccine available in the U.S. Moderna's vaccine is an updated, lower-dose version of its existing mRNA-based vaccine.
The review team for the Novavax vaccine pointed to data from a study in 30,000 adults, concluding that 'the risk-benefit assessment for this vaccine technology remains favorable.'
FDA staff reached a similar conclusion for the Moderna vaccine, deeming it similar in safety and effectiveness to the company's original shot.
Last week, the FDA finalized new warning labeling about the risk of myocarditis, a rare form of heart inflammation, on shots from Moderna and Pfizer, the other maker of an mRNA-based shot for COVID.
In his 'override memo,' reversing FDA staff's decision on the Moderna shot, Prasad pointed to the ongoing risk of myocarditis and questions about its frequency. The agency ordered Moderna to conduct further studies of the risk as a condition for the approving its updated shot.
A spokesman for the administration said Prasad 'has raised serious concerns' about the issue.
'We will not ignore these risks and will ensure that the gold standard of science is used for any decisions,' said Andrew Nixon, in an emailed statement.
Outside researchers have noted that cases of the heart condition tend to resolve quickly and are less severe than those associated with COVID infection itself, which can also cause myocarditis.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Beshear on potential White House bid: ‘I'll think about it after next year'
Gov. Andy Beshear (D-Ky.) said he'll consider a 2028 White House bid in an article published Friday while seething over the 'big, beautiful bill' backed by Republicans in Congress. 'Two years ago, I wouldn't have considered [running for president]. But if I'm somebody who could maybe heal and bring the country back together, I'll think about it after next year,' Beshear told Vanity Fair. The Kentucky governor's term ends in 2027 and he's pledged to complete his tenure in office before launching another political bid for a higher office. Fellow party members Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-Pa.) have also been listed as potential contenders for the presidency as Democrats look to claw back the executive branch after their November loss. Political pundits have suggested the GOP-authored spending package will have a significant impact on midterm elections and cycles that follow as Americans grapple with the possibility of losing their healthcare coverage, a top issue for Beshear. 'What the Republican majority is getting wrong is that the American people don't view health care in a partisan way. They want to be able to see their doctor when they need to, and they want their neighbor to be able to see their doctor,' Beshear, Kentucky's former attorney general, said in the interview. 'No state will be able to compensate for the level of devastation that this bill would cause. What they're doing is immoral, and it's certainly not Christian,' he added. The legislation is set to remove millions from Medicaid and introduce stricter work requirements for food stamp benefits and other social services. However, Beshear said in order to break through on the cuts, Democrats will need to help voters conceptualize the ongoing impact of the bill. 'If Democrats say this bill is going to increase food insecurity, their point's not going to get through. If they say people are going to go hungry, it will,' he said. 'And we have to explain not just what we disagree with in this bill, but why. And my why is my faith. The parable of the fishes and the loaves is in every book of the gospel. My faith teaches me that in a country that grows enough food for everyone that no one should starve.'
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Out of sight, out of mind: Without federal support, brain injury survivors will be left behind
Unlike a broken bone, a brain injury is often invisible. We can't see the cognitive struggles, the lost memories or the chronic pain. But for millions of Americans with brain injury, the impact is lifelong and profound. Every day is an exercise in rebuilding your life, your relationships and future. Federal programs have made the journey of life with brain injury a bit more manageable. But now, that support is under serious threat. Budget proposals and the Office of Management and Budget's leaked passback document outline catastrophic cuts to health programs across the board. Among them: the elimination of nearly every federal initiative supporting people with brain injuries. Decades of investment in prevention and treatment could vanish with the stroke of a pen. These programs aren't wasteful spending. They are an important investment for people living with brain injury — now and in the future. These proposed cuts would dismantle the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's HEADS UP program, which trains coaches, parents and athletes to recognize concussions before they cause permanent damage. They would collapse the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems, the nation's gold standard for providing care and advancing recovery for survivors with moderate to severe brain injuries. We would also lose the National Concussion Surveillance System and end the collection of critical data showing where injuries are happening and how many lives are at risk. Funding cuts for these programs put all of us at risk. Funding cuts mean a teenage football player sustains a preventable second concussion because his school had no access to proper return-to-play guidelines. A veteran with a blast injury loses access to a rehabilitation specialist trained to address cognitive impairments. Families already stretched thin by caregiving responsibilities lose the tiny but crucial grants that kept their loved ones living independently at home. Brain injury does not just happen to 'other people.' More than 64 million Americans have sustained at least one traumatic brain injury (TBI) in their lifetime and millions have suffered from non-traumatic brain injuries like stroke, aneurysm or a lack of oxygen. Federal investment in brain injury research and care is modest. In 2024, TBI research funding was an estimated $194 million, which is just $3.03 per person living with a TBI — barely the cost of a cup of coffee. That figure pales in comparison to the estimated $76.5 billion annual cost of TBI in the United States for emergency care, hospitalization, lost productivity, disability and social services. Cutting these programs isn't fiscal responsibility. It's public health malpractice. Eliminating programs like HEADS UP, the National Concussion Surveillance System and the Core State Injury Prevention Program will roll back decades of progress. These cuts will create a world where more people are suffering from the effects of brain injury, and we will have a lessened ability to identify and help those in need. It is not realistic to assume that states will be able to pick up the cost of these programs, so many will likely go away with no backup plan for continuity. This should not be a political issue. For decades, programs that support brain injury prevention, research and treatment have received bipartisan support because the need for them is undeniable. Brain injuries don't discriminate by party, race, income or geography. Brain injury can strike suddenly — a slip on the ice, a collision on the field, a car crash, a roadside bomb in combat — and alter lives forever. Brain injury should be thought of as a chronic health condition. Many survivors struggle with persistent effects such as memory loss, depression, behavioral changes and physical disabilities, which can quietly erode their ability to work, study or maintain relationships. Worse, brain injury dramatically increases the risk of developing devastating conditions later in life, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and stroke. Without continued research, education and community-based supports, many survivors will simply fall through the cracks. Eliminating federal brain injury programs would worsen these public health crises while stripping hope from those who need it most. The Brain Injury Association of America calls on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to reverse course. We urge Congress to reject these devastating cuts to brain injury programs. Investing in brain injury services and research saves lives, saves money and upholds America's promise to care for its most vulnerable citizens. America made that promise decades ago, when it began building the vital network of programs that exist today. That promise must not be broken now. Not when so many lives and futures depend on it. Rick Willis is president and CEO of the Brain Injury Association of America.
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Doctors weigh in on whether or not bubbly drinks can relieve migraines
For the 39 million Americans who suffer from migraines, finding effective relief can be a constant struggle – leading many to test out old wives' tales. Some claim that applying potato slices to the forehead helps kill the complex headaches, while others submerge their feet in hot water in a desperate search for relief. Another remedy? Sipping soda, particularly Coke, is said to cure migraines. But does it really work? Dr. Kay Kennis, a general practitioner in England and a trustee for the Migraine Trust, pointed out that caffeine is the main substance in sodas that may help some migraine sufferers. 'The caffeine in Coke can act as a nerve disruptor, [as] a substance that affects nerve activity,' the expert told Fox News Digital. 'For some, that disturbance works in a positive way.' Kennis added, 'There are some painkillers that people take for migraine that have caffeine – and some do respond well to that – but we don't fully know why.' Caffeine can be a trigger for migraines as well, said the doctor, who advised that too much caffeine consumption can cause 'a worse situation in the long run.' 3 People turn to the old wives' tales that soda, particularly Coke, for a migraine cure. tongpatong – 3 'The caffeine in Coke can act as a nerve disruptor, [as] a substance that affects nerve activity,' Dr. Kay Kennis, a general practitioner and a trustee for the Migraine Trust, said. 'For some, that disturbance works in a positive way.' Maria Vitkovska – Blake Livingood, a doctor of natural medicine (DC) based in North Carolina, also noted the impact of caffeine during an interview with Fox News Digital. Caffeine can impact blood flow to the brain, he said, which may provide relief. 'Caffeine can constrict blood vessels and change blood flow to the brain, which might help if your headache is related to dilation of those vessels,' he said. 3 According to Kennis, caffeine can also be a trigger for migraines, advising that too much of it can cause 'a worse situation in the long run.' – 'But the idea that soda actually cures or prevents migraines – no, it doesn't.' 'Watermelon can give you good electrolytes and improve blood flow, especially if you sprinkle a little salt on it, which also happens to taste great.' Livingood also acknowledged the viral 'McMigraine' remedy that claims sipping Coke and eating McDonald's fries is an effective solution. 'If you look at those ingredients – salt, caffeine, and sugar – they can have an impact on blood flow to the head,' he said. 'That's partly why grabbing fries with your soda sometimes seems to help. The salt in the fries, the sugar and the caffeine combined can change circulation and electrolytes.' But he said there are much healthier ways to get those benefits, ranging from fruit to nuts to organic coffee. 'Organic coffee is a better caffeine source,' Livingood recommended. 'Watermelon can give you good electrolytes and improve blood flow, especially if you sprinkle a little salt on it, which also happens to taste great.' The health expert has also seen success in using magnesium to prevent migraines. He said electrolytes and sodium are key components in prevention and recovery as well, in addition to potassium. Livingood also advised migraine sufferers to try mined salt and sea salt instead of regular table salt. 'Any form of salt can impact blood flow and electrolytes, but there are better sources,' he said. 'Sprinkling good-quality salt on watermelon or nuts or even adding a pinch to your water is a healthier way to get those minerals.' Norbert Heuser, an entrepreneur and author of the book 'Coffee Addiction & Caffeinism,' also told Fox News Digital he doesn't recommend relying on sugary beverages for migraine relief. 'Migraines are complex and often tied to inflammation, dehydration, toxins like heavy metals and chemicals, or even environmental stressors such as EMF [electromagnetic radiation] from cell phones, WiFi and other sources,' the health and wellness advocate said. Heuser added, 'The high sugar content and artificial additives in sodas and energy drinks can actually make these underlying issues worse over time. It's a quick fix that ignores the root causes – and may even fuel them.'
