A major figure in precision oncology, Prof. Wafik ElDeiry, director of the Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University and vice-dean of its faculty of medicine, delivered a dense and unvarnished debriefing. Invited by FranceSoir, the oncologist looks back on three decades of research, his recent work on the Spike protein and the P53 pathway, and the controversies that followed his positions on mRNA vaccines against COVID19. “ We must let science do its work, with freedom of thought and the free exchange of ideas”, he insists. « This is not how science should work“ when under pressure.
Video interview in english subtitled in French.
P53 pioneer turned drug discoverer
A clinician-researcher “with both feet in care and research“, ElDeiry made a name for himself in the 1990s at Johns Hopkins by identifying the WAF1 gene, a key player in the response to the P53 tumour suppressor. “It has become central to understanding how cells stop dividing to repair damage and avoid turning into cancer” he says. His lab then linked the activation of P53 to the expression of “death receptors“ exploited by innate immunity to eliminate tumor cells after chemo or radiotherapy.
This thread led him, 18 years ago, to a screening that resulted in a small molecule, now known as dordaviprone (ANK201). “It has just been approved by the FDA as the first targeted treatment for a diffuse median glioma H3K27mutated, an aggressive brain tumor in children and adults”, he said. “I didn’t wake up one day thinking: I’m going to discover a drug for brain cancer. But that’s what we experienced ».
COVID19, Spike and P53: Asking the Questions, Even the Hard Ones
As early as 2020, his team became involved in COVID work at Brown, drawing on their expertise in innate immunity. In particular, they observe pharmacological effects that, according to them, could influence the viral infection. But it is above all his line of research on the interactions between the Spike protein and P53 that exposes him to controversy. “In 2024–2025, we published preliminary data suggesting an attenuation of P53 activity by Spike in cellular models, evaluated by reporter genes, endogenous targets and sensitivity to chemotherapy”, he explains, adding that these observations should, in his view, be integrated into the “design of vaccines“ to “maximize the antiviral effect and minimize collateral damage”.
A member of a COVID vaccination task force that reports to the ACIP (American Advisory Committee on Immunization), ElDeiry says he has sifted through the literature on COVID, mRNA and cancer – which will lead to the journal that published its recent study (January 2026) suffering a DNS attack and strong attacks on social networks.
He emphasizes the « need for better documentation » of biodistribution, mRNA and spike persistence, potential mechanisms of adverse effects, and long-term follow-up, while acknowledging the relative rarity of certain events and the complexity of causality. »
I am told: there is no obvious signal and billions of doses have been administered. I answer: where are the robust data in the long term, after 5, 6, 7 injections, by age group and risk factors? »
Informed consent and heterogeneity of risk
The central axis of his advocacy is ethical. “The public is smart and savvy. It doesn’t matter how rare an event is, if it has happened, it can be included in the consent”, he said. It calls for “refining the risks according to the situations“ (age, history, pregnancy, post-infection immunity, comorbidities), and to clearly expose the unknowns. “We are no longer in the middle of a devastating pandemic, but five years later. It’s time for answers ».
Asked about a possible increase in cancers and possible links with infections or vaccination, he remains cautious but asks that the signals — in particular cases close to injection sites, lymphomas, skin or ENT tumors reported in the literature — be “identified and studied without preconceptions“.
« In clinical trials, a single unexpected death triggers alerts and enriches informed consent. Why should it be any different here? »
Censorship, attacks and a deleterious climate
Since the publication of his work on Spike and P53, ElDeiry says he has faced a wave of attacks: “We go back thirty years to track down ‘irregularities’ in gels or point out typographical errors. In a year and a half, nothing has been found in terms of fraud or professional misconduct ». He deplores “anonymous campaigns”, “defamation” and “chain fear” among employers, magazines and landlords who trigger investigations. “This hinders creativity and the scientific process,” he insists, calling for clear “guidelines” for journals and agencies, and for government and even interagency reflection to protect academic freedom.
A regulatory way to revisit authorisations?
On the public policy front, the professor puts forward a personal proposal: “There is probably a way to get the FDA to revoke or revise authorizations for mRNA COVID vaccines, based on new evidence of unexpected effects or quality issues related to altered manufacturing processes ».
He mentions the need for “a rigorous examination“ of quality and safety data, including on the measurement of potential contaminants, and pleads for “differentiated orientations” according to population groups and vaccination history.
“ Individuals have autonomy and must be able to say no on the basis of informed consent ».
Neither a proselytizer nor an anti-vaxxer, ElDeiry wants to be methodical : “Our goal is not to prevent anyone from being vaccinated. If a patient and their doctor decide that it is in their best interest, they should have access to it. But we have to be honest about what we know and don’t know.
And to conclude, in the form of a leitmotif: « Let science work. Truth and trust depend on it ».