NIH Board Chair Jack Leslie Rebukes Kennedy Over New Vaccine Clinic

Jack Leslie, chair of the board overseeing the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center Research Hospital, told colleagues this week that the new vaccine injury clinic launched by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. poses a risk to the institution. Leslie spoke during a regularly scheduled board meeting, shifting the focus from standard agenda items to the recent ceremony.

The secretary’s office opened the clinic with a ribbon-cutting event that featured a panel of individuals claiming vaccine-related harm. Those panelists sat behind placards labeled "vaccine injured" and spoke with Kennedy and other senior Trump administration officials. Leslie noted that the hospital is frequently described as a "house of hope" for patients with rare conditions who have exhausted other treatment options.

Leslie argued that the board has a duty to voice concerns, even if it is unpopular to criticize the secretary. "But I think that that would be a failing as an advisory board if we were silent," he said. He emphasized that his objection was not to the scientific study of vaccine harms, but to the specific manner of the clinic's introduction.

The hospital's chief executive, Jonathan Green, supported Leslie's assessment during the same meeting. Green stated that the NIH has researched vaccine safety and efficacy for decades. He described the new clinic as a single "protocol" within the existing research framework rather than a major structural change.

Both leaders pointed out that the new clinic does not come with additional funding or dedicated space. The NIH already operates a center that studies vaccine injuries, meaning the new entity fits within the existing operational footprint. Green confirmed that the research work continues as it has for the past few decades.

Leslie maintained that serious reactions to vaccines are rare but real, and that patients who believe they have been injured should be taken seriously. However, he believed the high-profile nature of the launch created a specific reputational challenge for a facility that serves some of the most vulnerable patients in the country.

The comments from the board chair and the hospital CEO highlight a distinction between the public ceremony and the practical reality of the clinic's operations. The clinic operates as a modest addition to ongoing research, lacking the extra budget or physical expansion that might suggest a major shift in hospital resources.