The federal agency says it will mandate randomized, controlled clinical trials for vaccination of younger, healthy individuals
It’s been a confusing past few weeks in terms of what the general public’s access to COVID-19 vaccinations will be like in the future.
Public health experts have been verbally jousting with the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about moves its health officials made recently regarding the vaccines. This could put clinical laboratories on the front lines to help determine whether COVID cases—particularly severe ones—eventually rise as a result.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, who leads the agency’s vaccine oversight, announced on May 20 that the agency will require randomized, controlled clinical trials before approving COVID vaccines for healthy individuals under age 65.
“While all other high-income nations confine vaccine recommendations to older adults (typically those older than 65 years of age), or those at high risk for severe COVID-19, the United States has adopted a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework and has granted broad marketing authorization to all Americans over the age of 6 months,” Makary and Prasad wrote in NEJM.
Under the new framework, they noted, the agency expects that it will continue to approve vaccines for adults over 65 as well as younger people with health conditions that put them at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
The range of diseases is “vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression,” they wrote. “Estimates suggest that 100 million to 200 million Americans will have access to vaccines in this manner.”
In their NEJM commentary, FDA commissioner Martin Makary, MD (left), and Vinay Prasad, MD (right), wrote, “Moving forward, the FDA will adopt the following COVID-19 vaccination regulatory framework: On the basis of immunogenicity—proof that a vaccine can generate antibody titers in people.” (Photo copyrights: Wikimedia Commons.)
Former CDC APIC Member Pushes Back
The announcement drew criticism from public health and medical experts.
“The FDA guidance presented in the NEJM was not released in the Federal Register, did not invite comment, and provided only a general outline for COVID-19 vaccine licensure,” wrote pediatrician and vaccinologist Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, in a commentary for STAT. Edwards is a former member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes vaccine recommendations to the agency.
On June 9, in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that he’s removing all 17 current members of ACIP.
“The FDA mandate is to ensure safe and effective vaccines based on the clinical studies performed, but not to develop specific recommendations for their use,” Edwards added. “Providing recommendations on vaccine use for the civilian population is the mandate of the ACIP.”
Edwards contended that extensive data is already available on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. She stated that “there is no precedent for mandating continued placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials for vaccines that have already been licensed.”
New Policy Announcement Raises Questions
The New York Times notes that many questions remain about the specifics of the new policy and how broadly the vaccines will be available.
A likely scenario, the paper reported, is that health insurers will play a role as “gatekeepers by demanding medical documentation of an underlying condition before agreeing to cover the cost.” Without insurance coverage, people would likely pay approximately $140 per shot out of pocket.
This stands in contrast to European countries, where outreach campaigns target specific populations based on public health recommendations. according to Forbes. However, “in virtually all instances, COVID-19 vaccines can be gotten free of charge across Europe regardless of health or age status,” the article notes.
In their NEJM commentary, Prasad and Makary noted that adoption of the annual COVID-19 booster shot is already low. The CDC reported that 23% of Americans 18 and older received vaccinations in the 2024-2025 season, up slightly from 21.6% in 2023-2024.
Kennedy Steps In
On May 27, Kennedy announced in a video on X that the CDC would remove the COVID-19 vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. Previously, the CDC recommended the vaccine for everyone ages six months and older.
Kennedy was joined in the video by Makary and National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya MD, PhD.
However, CDC staffers were “blindsided” by the announcement, NPR reported, citing an agency official who requested anonymity.
“Hours after the post on X, CDC staffers received a directive from Secretary Kennedy—dated May 19, but sent May 27—rescinding the department’s 2022 acceptance of the CDC’s recommendations for the use of COVID shots in children and during pregnancy,” NPR reported.
It now appears that HHS has at least partially backtracked on Kennedy’s announcement.
The CDC’s immunization schedule now states that vaccination of healthy children should be a matter of “shared clinical decision-making” between the doctor and parent or patient.
“After confusing, mixed messages from leaders at HHS earlier this week, we are relieved to see today that the CDC updated its schedules for child and adolescent immunizations to allow families to maintain the choice to immunize their children against COVID in consultation with their doctor,” American Academy of Pediatrics president Susan Kressly said in a statement from the organization.
In a June 1 interview with the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Makary confirmed that the recommendation to vaccinate “should be with the patient and their doctor.”
However, he also criticized ACIP as a “kangaroo court where they just rubber stamp every single vaccine put in front of them.”
NPR reports that the shamed Theranos founder/CEO is providing advice to Evans, but the startup denies that claim
Prison bars can’t block Elizabeth Holmes from finding her way back into the news spotlight. The disgraced founder and former CEO of Theranos is reportedly advising her partner Billy Evans on his new artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic startup company, named Haemanthus after the blood lily.
According to sources who spoke with NPR, Evans’ new company Haemanthus, Inc. is developing a blood testing device and has patented a process that uses Raman spectroscopy, which, according to NPR, “has been shown to help diagnose ALS, also called Lou Gehrig’s disease, as well as some forms of cancer. It has also been used to discover improvised explosive devices on battlefields.”
Evans has already raised millions of dollars for the fledgling startup, NPR reported, adding that a source claimed finances for the company have come from “mostly friends, family, and other supporters so far.”
According to Newsweek, Evans’ goal is to raise $50 million toward the development of a “medical testing product.”
The company will “do medical tests using bodily fluids,” Newsweek reported, adding, “An image of the alleged device published by The New York Times is eerily similar to Theranos’ ‘Edison’ testing machine.”
Elizabeth Holmes is currently housed in a federal facility in Bryan, Texas. Sources told NPR that she has been “providing advice” to Billy Evans, her partner, on his new AI/medical testing company Haemanthus, which denied those claims stating on X that Holmes “has no role, now or future.” (Photo copyright: Wikimedia Commons.)
Haemanthus Denies Holmes’ Involvement
Holmes has reportedly been providing insight to Evans throughout her prison term, though her role with his budding company is unclear, NPR noted.
As previously reported by Dark Daily, Holmes is “barred from receiving payments from federal health programs for services or products, which significantly restricts her ability to work in the healthcare sector.”
Haemanthus denied Holmes’ involvement with the company, claiming that she “has no formal role” and that “Haemanthus is not Theranos 2.0,” Fortune reported.
Previous lengthy posts by Haemanthus on social media platform X fully denied any involvement with Holmes but have since been deleted. The company now uses their platform to curtly retort the significance of Holmes’ involvement, leaning on their advancements and high standards. “Skepticism is rational. We must clear a higher bar,” they said. “When The NY Times contacted us, we invited them to see our lab, tech, and team. They declined. The headline was already written. Our reality inconvenient.”
Further posts on X showcase Haemanthus’ desire to have the same groundbreaking prowess Holmes clung to throughout her Theranos venture. The company claims to have developed “the world’s first AI-native sensors for health,” adding, “Our technology captures thousands of biomarkers simultaneously.”
And the Holmes Saga Continues
Haemanthus is comprised of about a dozen people, including individuals who “worked with Evans at Luminar Technologies, which develops sensor technology for autonomous vehicles, according to the company’s patent and Delaware incorporation paperwork,” NPR reported.
Holmes is currently serving an 11-year federal prison sentence for her role in fraud involving Silicon Valley startup Theranos, which boasted clinical laboratory blood-test breakthroughs that turned out to be riddled with faulty equipment and fraudulent results.
Though whistleblowers brought Holmes scheme to the light, she has never admitted wrongdoing for her actions and continues to claim her innocence. In May, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals denied her request for a rehearing of her case.
Clinical laboratories are particularly tasty targets for cybercriminals seeking the abundance of protect health information contained in patient electronic health records
Recent data from cybersecurity company Netwrix of Frisco, Texas, shows that 84% of healthcare organizations—including clinical laboratories and pathology groups—caught at least one cyberattack in the past year and “69% of them faced financial damage as a result.” That’s according to the company’s latest Hybrid Security Trends Report which notes that 24% of healthcare organizations are “fully cloud-based,” as opposed to just 11% of non-healthcare industries.
“Phishing was the most common type of incident experienced on premises, similar to other industries. Account compromise topped the list for cloud attacks: 74% of healthcare organizations that spotted a cyberattack reported user or admin account compromise,” the Netwrix report notes.
Phishing, where cybercriminals send fake emails and texts to unsuspecting employees that trick them into providing private information, continues to be one of the most prevalent cyberthreats experienced by healthcare organizations and often serves as the catalyst for much larger and more dangerous cyberattacks.
This is particularly dangerous in clinical laboratories where as much as 80% of protected health information (PHI) in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) is laboratory test results and other personal medical data.
“Protected health information (PHI) is one of the most expensive types of data sold on darknet forums, which makes healthcare organizations a top target for cybercriminals, said Ilia Sotnikov (above), security strategist and VP of user experience at Netwrix, in the report. Clinical laboratory patient electronic health records are particularly weighted toward PHI. (Photo copyright: Netwrix.)
Don’t Open That Email!
Typical phishing scams begin with innocent-looking emails from companies that appear to be legitimate and often contain language that implies urgent action is needed on the part of the user. These emails can be very convincing, appear to originate from reputable companies, and usually instruct users to open an attachment contained in the email or click on a link that goes to a known company website. However, the site is a fake.
Once the harmful file attachment is opened, users will be directed to download fake software or ransomware that attempts to capture the user’s personal information. When visiting a malicious website, consumers will often receive pop-ups with instructions for updating information, but the true purpose is to harvest personal data.
Never provide any personal information to an unsolicited request.
If you believe the contact is legitimate, initiate a contact with the organization using verified data, usually via telephone.
Never provide any passwords over the phone or in response to an unsolicited Internet request.
Review any accounts, such as bank statements, often to search for any suspicious activity.
“Healthcare workers regularly communicate with many people they do not know—patients, laboratory assistants, external auditors and more—so properly vetting every message is a huge burden,” said IT security expert Dirk Schrader, VP of security research at Netwrix, in the report. “Plus, they do not realize how critical it is to be cautious, since security awareness training often takes a back seat to the urgent work of taking care of patients. Combined, these factors can lead to a higher rate of security incidents.”
Top 10 Brands Faked in Phishing Scams
Phishing emails often appear to be from legitimate companies to lull the recipient into a false sense of security. In a January 22 report, Check Point Research (CPR) announced its latest Brand Phishing Ranking for the fourth quarter of 2024. The report reveals the brands that were most frequently impersonated in phishing attacks by cybercriminals for the purpose of stealing personal information from consumers.
According to the CPR report, 80% of disclosed brand phishing incidents occurred within just 10 brands (listed below with each brand’s percentage of phishing attacks). They are:
According to the report, fraudulent domains “replicated official websites to mislead shoppers with fake discounts, ultimately stealing login credentials and personal information. These fraudulent sites replicate the brand’s logo and offer unrealistically low prices to lure victims. Their goal is to trick users into sharing sensitive information, such as login credentials and personal details, enabling hackers to steal their data effectively.”
Steps Clinical Labs Can Take to Protect Patients’ PHI
Clinical laboratories and pathology groups can take precautions that minimize the risk of allowing cybercriminals access to their patients’ PHI.
“A core defense strategy is to minimize standing privileges by using a privileged access management (PAM) solution. Another is to implement identity threat detection and response (IDTR) tools to quickly block malicious actors using compromised credentials,” said Ilia Sotnikov, security strategist and VP of user experience at Netwrix, in the report.
The threat of phishing scams is a lingering issue that everyone in healthcare should be aware of and take necessary precautions to recognize and prevent having one’s PHI stolen. Clinical laboratory management should constantly remind lab personnel and contractors to be vigilant regarding fake emails and texts from well-known brands that ask for private information.
The ASBMB story notes that nanopore technology depends on differences in charges on either side of the membrane to force DNA or RNA through the hole. This is one reason why proteins pose such a challenge.
“Think of a cell as a miniature city, with proteins as its inhabitants. Each protein-resident has a unique identity, its own characteristics, and function. If there was a database cataloging the fingerprints, job profiles, and talents of the city’s inhabitants, such a database would undoubtedly be invaluable!” said Behzad Mehrafrooz, PhD (above), Graduate Research Assistant at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in an article he penned for the university website. This research should be of interest to the many clinical laboratories that do protein testing. (Photo copyright: University of Illinois.)
How the Maglia Process Works
In a Groningen University news story, Maglia said protein is “like cooked spaghetti. These long strands want to be disorganized. They do not want to be pushed through this tiny hole.”
His technique, developed in collaboration with researchers at the University of Rome Tor Vergata, uses electrically charged ions to drag the protein through the hole.
“We didn’t know whether the flow would be strong enough,” Maglia stated in the news story. “Furthermore, these ions want to move both ways, but by attaching a lot of charge on the nanopore itself, we were able to make it directional.”
The researchers tested the technology on what Maglia described as a “difficult protein” with many negative charges that would tend to make it resistant to flow.
“Previously, only easy-to-thread proteins were analyzed,” he said in the news story. “But we gave ourselves one of the most difficult proteins as a test. And it worked!”
Maglia now says that he intends to commercialize the technology through a new startup called Portal Biotech.
Detecting Post-Translational Modifications in the UK
In another recent study, researchers at the University of Oxford reported that they have adapted nanopore technology to detect post-translational modifications (PTMs) in protein chains. The term refers to changes made to proteins after they have been transcribed from DNA, explained an Oxford news story.
“The ability to pinpoint and identify post-translational modifications and other protein variations at the single-molecule level holds immense promise for advancing our understanding of cellular functions and molecular interactions,” said contributing author Hagan Bayley, PhD, Professor of Chemical Biology at University of Oxford, in the news story. “It may also open new avenues for personalized medicine, diagnostics, and therapeutic interventions.”
Bayley is the founder of Oxford Nanopore Technologies, a genetic sequencing company in the UK that develops and markets nanopore sequencing products.
The news story notes that the new technique could be integrated into existing nanopore sequencing devices. “This could facilitate point-of-care diagnostics, enabling the personalized detection of specific protein variants associated with diseases including cancer and neurodegenerative disorders,” the story states.
In another recent study, researchers at the University of Washington reported that they have developed their own method for protein sequencing with nanopore technology.
“This opens up the possibility for barcode sequencing at the protein level for highly multiplexed assays, PTM monitoring, and protein identification!” Motone wrote.
Single-cell proteomics, enabled by nanopore protein sequencing technology, “could provide higher sensitivity and wider throughput, digital quantification, and novel data modalities compared to the current gold standard of protein MS [mass spectrometry],” they wrote. “The accessibility of these tools to a broader range of researchers and clinicians is also expected to increase with simpler instrumentation, less expertise needed, and lower costs.”
There are approximately 20,000 human genes. However, there are many more proteins. Thus, there is strong interest in understanding the human proteome and the role it plays in health and disease.
Technology that makes protein testing faster, more accurate, and less costly—especially with a handheld analyzer—would be a boon to the study of proteomics. And it would give clinical laboratories new diagnostic tools and bring some of that testing to point-of-care settings like doctor’s offices.
Researchers intend their new AI image retrieval tool to help pathologists locate similar case images to reference for diagnostics, research, and education
Researchers at Stanford University turned to an unusual source—the X social media platform (formerly known as Twitter)—to train an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can look at clinical laboratory pathology images and then retrieve similar images from a database. This is an indication that pathologists are increasingly collecting and storing images of representative cases in their social media accounts. They then consult those libraries when working on new cases that have unusual or unfamiliar features.
The Stanford Medicine scientists trained their AI system—known as Pathology Language and Image Pretraining (PLIP)—on the OpenPath pathology dataset, which contains more than 200,000 images paired with natural language descriptions. The researchers collected most of the data by retrieving tweets in which pathologists posted images accompanied by comments.
“It might be surprising to some folks that there is actually a lot of high-quality medical knowledge that is shared on Twitter,” said researcher James Zou, PhD, Assistant Professor of Biomedical Data Science and senior author of the study, in a Stanford Medicine SCOPE blog post, which added that “the social media platform has become a popular forum for pathologists to share interesting images—so much so that the community has widely adopted a set of 32 hashtags to identify subspecialties.”
“It’s a very active community, which is why we were able to curate hundreds of thousands of these high-quality pathology discussions from Twitter,” Zou said.
“The main application is to help human pathologists look for similar cases to reference,” James Zou, PhD (above), Assistant Professor of Biomedical Data Science, senior author of the study, and his colleagues wrote in Nature Medicine. “Our approach demonstrates that publicly shared medical information is a tremendous resource that can be harnessed to develop medical artificial intelligence for enhancing diagnosis, knowledge sharing, and education.” Leveraging pathologists’ use of social media to store case images for future reference has worked out well for the Stanford Medicine study. (Photo copyright: Stanford University.)
Retrieving Pathology Images from Tweets
“The lack of annotated publicly-available medical images is a major barrier for innovations,” the researchers wrote in Nature Medicine. “At the same time, many de-identified images and much knowledge are shared by clinicians on public forums such as medical Twitter.”
In this case, the goal “is to train a model that can understand both the visual image and the text description,” Zou said in the SCOPE blog post.
“Pathology is perhaps even more suited to Twitter than many other medical fields because for most pathologists, the bulk of our daily work revolves around the interpretation of images for the diagnosis of human disease,” wrote Jerad M. Gardner, MD, a dermatopathologist and section head of bone/soft tissue pathology at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., in a blog post about the Pathology Hashtag Ontology project. “Twitter allows us to easily share images of amazing cases with one another, and we can also discuss new controversies, share links to the most cutting edge literature, and interact with and promote the cause of our pathology professional organizations.”
The researchers used the 32 subspecialty hashtags to retrieve English-language tweets posted from 2006 to 2022. Images in the tweets were “typically high-resolution views of cells or tissues stained with dye,” according to the SCOPE blog post.
The researchers collected a total of 232,067 tweets and 243,375 image-text pairs across the 32 subspecialties, they reported. They augmented this with 88,250 replies that received the highest number of likes and had at least one keyword from the ICD-11 codebook. The SCOPE blog post noted that the rankings by “likes” enabled the researchers to screen for high-quality replies.
They then refined the dataset by removing duplicates, retweets, non-pathology images, and tweets marked by Twitter as being “sensitive.” They also removed tweets containing question marks, as this was an indicator that the practitioner was asking a question about an image rather than providing a description, the researchers wrote in Nature Medicine.
They cleaned the text by removing hashtags, Twitter handles, HTML tags, emojis, and links to websites, the researchers noted.
The final OpenPath dataset included:
116,504 image-text pairs from Twitter posts,
59,869 from replies, and
32,041 image-text pairs scraped from the internet or obtained from the LAION dataset.
The latter is an open-source database from Germany that can be used to train text-to-image AI software such as Stable Diffusion.
Training the PLIP AI Platform
Once they had the dataset, the next step was to train the PLIP AI model. This required a technique known as contrastive learning, the researchers wrote, in which the AI learns to associate features from the images with portions of the text.
As explained in Baeldung, an online technology publication, contrastive learning is based on the idea that “it is easier for someone with no prior knowledge, like a kid, to learn new things by contrasting between similar and dissimilar things instead of learning to recognize them one by one.”
“The power of such a model is that we don’t tell it specifically what features to look for. It’s learning the relevant features by itself,” Zou said in the SCOPE blog post.
The resulting AI PLIP tool will enable “a clinician to input a new image or text description to search for similar annotated images in the database—a sort of Google Image search customized for pathologists,” SCOPE explained.
“Maybe a pathologist is looking at something that’s a bit unusual or ambiguous,” Zou told SCOPE. “They could use PLIP to retrieve similar images, then reference those cases to help them make their diagnoses.”
The Stanford University researchers continue to collect pathology images from X. “The more data you have, the more it will improve,” Zou said.
Pathologists will want to keep an eye on the Stanford Medicine research team’s progress. The PLIP AI tool may be a boon to diagnostics and improve patient outcomes and care.
