Last updated Nov 29, 2025
The strong epidemiological data in the January 2022 Epstein–Barr virus–MS paper will trigger a noticeable increase in investment (public, private, or both) into EBV-related therapeutics and vaccines over the subsequent few years.
By the way, this isn't novel. People have been talking about this for a long time, but this paper has such incredible data and such strong signal that it's really gonna it's really going to catalyze investment.View on YouTube
Explanation

Evidence since early 2022 shows a clear increase in both public and private investment into EBV‑related vaccines and therapeutics, often explicitly motivated by the new epidemiological data linking EBV to MS.

Key points:

  • Baseline was very low: When NIH launched its gp350–ferritin EBV vaccine Phase 1 trial in May 2022, it described it as “one of only two studies to test an investigational EBV vaccine in more than a decade,” highlighting how little investment there had been historically in EBV vaccines. (niaid.nih.gov)

  • Big pharma and biotech have since entered or expanded the space:

    • In March 2023 Merck paid $50M upfront (plus up to $872.5M in milestones) for ModeX’s EBV vaccine rights, in an article that directly notes that a paper published the prior year showed EBV infection greatly increases MS risk—clearly tying the deal rationale to the recent EBV–MS epidemiology. (fiercebiotech.com)
    • The Merck/ModeX candidate then moved into Phase 1 in 2025 with milestone payments to ModeX, further reflecting substantial ongoing investment. (biospace.com)
    • Multiple new vaccine players appeared post‑2022, including EBViously (a Helmholtz Munich spin‑off developing EBV‑001, with first‑in‑human trials planned from 2024) (multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com) and SpyBiotech’s 2024 sponsored research collaboration with the University of Oxford to develop three EBV vaccine candidates through Phase 1, justified in part by EBV’s links to cancers and MS and citing recent EBV–MS work. (spybiotech.com)
  • Public and non‑profit funding into EBV–MS mechanisms has ramped up:

    • NIH’s February 2022 summary of the Bjornevik et al. Science paper on EBV and MS explicitly frames EBV vaccines as a way to prevent MS, signalling federal priority for EBV‑targeted prevention work. (nih.gov)
    • In 2023 Australia’s Medical Research Future Fund awarded a AU$2M grant for a 5‑year nationwide study on how EBV increases MS risk, explicitly citing the ~32‑fold increased MS risk after EBV infection from the new epidemiological data. (monashhealth.org)
    • A 2023 EU‑funded initiative announced by the European Multiple Sclerosis Platform focuses on “targeting Epstein‑Barr virus to treat and prevent MS” and describes itself as building on the recent breakthrough evidence implicating EBV as the MS trigger, with goals that include testing antiviral approaches. (emsp.org)
    • NexImmune’s 2022 collaboration with NINDS/NIH to develop EBV‑targeted cell therapies for neurological immune diseases (including MS‑related mechanisms) reflects further public‑private spending directly on EBV therapeutics in this context. (multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com)
  • Scientific reviews post‑2022 explicitly argue for EBV‑targeted drugs and vaccines for MS: Major reviews in 2023 describe the 2022 longitudinal data as compelling evidence that EBV is a leading cause of MS and explicitly call for antivirals, EBV‑specific immunotherapies, and vaccines as rational treatment and prevention strategies, reinforcing why funders and companies are now backing EBV programs. (scholars.mssm.edu)

Taken together, the field moved from almost no active EBV vaccine trials and a relatively small number of EBV‑targeted programs before 2022 to: multiple big‑pharma deals, several new vaccine pipelines (Moderna, NIH, Merck/ModeX, EBViously, SpyBiotech/Oxford), and new multi‑million‑dollar public grants and EU initiatives explicitly tied to the recent EBV–MS epidemiological breakthroughs. That constitutes exactly the “noticeable increase in investment into EBV‑related therapeutics and vaccines over the subsequent few years” that Friedberg predicted, so the prediction is best assessed as right.