By openly targeting Washington,Pasteur Institute breaks with his usual reserve. In a statement dated January 28, 2026, the institute describes a dangerous health drift coming from the United States, affecting research, vaccine policy and international action, without yet measuring all the consequences.
The organization speaks of “attacks” on biomedical research, global public health and vaccination, and asserts that this strategy amounts to “playing with fire”, a completely unprecedented position for a scientific institution.
Institut Pasteur attacks the new American vaccine doctrine
In its text, the institute describes a series of decisions considered unprecedented: themes, such as infectious diseases or women’s health, would have been “excluded from research projects eligible for public funding”. The dismantling of the Agency for International Development (USAID) and “the decision to leave the World Health Organization (WHO)” complete this decline. According to a modeling published in The Lancet“American disengagement could cause the deaths of 14.1 million people by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of 5“. The exit of the United States from the WHO, recorded on January 22, 2026, reinforces this scenario of excess mortality.
For the Pasteur Institute, this action “further demonstrates a global deficit in understanding the world we live in, where populations are closely interconnected and where the lack of disease control in certain areas can easily lead to the spread across the world of previously controlled or new infections.”.
New American vaccine doctrine: what the Pasteur Institute denounces
In the vaccination field, the institute recalls that “since January 5, 2026, American authorities no longer recommend universal vaccination of children with several essential vaccines“. This concerns hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococci, influenza and rotaviruses, left to the discretion of clinicians and parents in a shared decision-making framework.
For hepatitis A, two-dose programs show an effectiveness “greater than or equal to 95%” “between 3 and 5 years” after vaccination and would have led to a drop of “95.5% in hepatitis A cases between 1996 and 2011”. Vaccination against hepatitis B would have prevented “37 million cases of chronic infections” and “7 million deaths”. Against meningococcus, vaccination remains “the most effective means”. The Pasteur Institute recalls that vaccination has already “helped save hundreds of millions of lives throughout history“.
Additionally, a reduction in vaccination coverage in the United States could leave the population vulnerable to the arrival of foreign strains, while facilitating the spread of cases to other nations, as has already occurred during travel to the Middle East. And the Pasteur Institute points to a greater risk of spread linked to the next football World Cup: “This risk is all the more concerning given that the United States will soon co-host the FIFA World Cup, a mass gathering event“.
Vaccination, autism and misinformation according to the Pasteur Institute
Finally, the institute denounces the fact that “since November 19, 2025, the (CDC) website (…) indicates that it is not scientifically proven that childhood vaccination does not cause autism“, while”such a statement, intended to sow confusion, is factually false“. The Pasteur Institute thus recalls that numerous studies conclude, on the contrary, that there is no relationship between vaccination and autism. It therefore accuses the American authorities of spreading fake news: “Thus, the CDC contradicts the scientific consensus on the subject, established by the most recognized experts, at the cost of research over several decades, thereby sowing doubt and itself becoming an actor of disinformation..
Dangerous decisions in more than one way
Affirming its “determination to fight against all forms of disinformation by continuing its scientific research, recalling reliable established facts and demonstrating the virtues of rationality”, the Pasteur Institute considers that these American decisions are dangerous because they propagate lies which can discourage parents from vaccinating their children; they put ideological considerations above scientific consensus and they tend to make people believe that an international scientific consensus, based on a multitude of rigorous studies, would have the same weight as an unfounded opinion. “This situation contributes to the destruction of the intellectual and ethical milestones which underpin the very principles of progress, human protection and our democracies.” judges the Institution.