autism
Dr. Toby Rogers, a political economist and fellow at the libertarian Brownstone Institute, ignited a firestorm in March 2026 when he declared the current childhood vaccination program “one of the greatest crimes in human history” (“libertarian” refers to someone who advocates for extreme individual liberty—particularly freedom from government mandates and regulations—believing that the state should be minimized and that individuals should have absolute autonomy over their own bodies, property, and choices without state coercion).
Rogers’ 2026 statement is not an isolated outburst but the culmination of years of vaccine skepticism. After his partner’s son was diagnosed with autism in 2015, Rogers abandoned his original doctoral focus to study autism’s causes, reviewing nearly 1,000 studies over four years. He concluded that vaccines are the primary driver of the autism epidemic. The overwhelming scientific consensus, however, is that vaccines are safe and that autism’s rise stems from improved diagnosis, broader criteria, and complex genetic and environmental factors unrelated to immunization (see the plethora of previous posts on this subject). His PhD thesis, The Political Economy of Autism, and subsequent publications have been widely criticized by the scientific community. Its methodological flaws include:
- selection bias,
- cherry-picking,
- inclusion of weak studies,
- dismissing robust epidemiological research.
Rogers’ 2026 statement elevates personal conviction and contested research over scientific rigor and public health reality. Rogers argues that children receive too many vaccines too early, warning of “cumulative effects” on developing immune systems. Yet the Institute of Medicine has found no evidence of major safety concerns with the current childhood immunization schedule, and the National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly affirmed that vaccines are safe and effective. Rogers dismisses the 22 major studies confirming vaccine safety as “worthless” because they lacked a true unvaccinated control group—a standard that is both ethically impossible and scientifically unnecessary given the massive population data demonstrating vaccine safety over decades.
Rogers’ evidence relies heavily on a handful of independent studies to support his claims. These studies have been criticized for small sample sizes, selection bias, failure to control for confounders, and methodological flaws so severe that some of Rogers’ co-authored papers, such as “Autism Tsunami,” were retracted from peer-reviewed journals. His claim that vaccinated children have dramatically higher rates of autism and chronic disease rests on research that has not withstood independent replication or scrutiny by mainstream scientists. By contrast, the scientific community’s confidence in vaccine safety derives from massive, longitudinal studies involving millions of children, rigorous clinical trials, and decades of population surveillance.
Rogers’ credibility is compromised not least because he is a regular contributor to Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine organization founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that has a long history of spreading debunked claims. Roger’s testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee on Investigations in September 2025, titled “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines,” tried to position him as a whistleblower exposing “flawed science.” In reality, it relied on the same flawed studies and conspiracy narratives that have been repeatedly discredited by the scientific community.
Rogers receives funding from several anti-vaccine and libertarian organizations, though specific salary figures are not publicly disclosed :
- Brownstone Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by economist Jeffrey Tucker that promotes vaccine skepticism, “medical freedom,” and opposition to public health mandates. The institute is funded by libertarian donors and provides fellowships to researchers who align with its ideology.
- Children’s Health Defense is explicitly an anti-vaccine organization led by Mary Holland (CEO) and founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The organization has illuminated funding sources through IRS 990 filings, showing it raised millions of dollars and pays researchers, speakers, and staff. In Rogers’ Senate testimony, he explicitly stated: “Since then I’ve continued my research with Children’s Health Defense, as an independent journalist, and as a Fellow at Brownstone Institute”.
- Rogers also appears at MAHA Institute conferences (Make America Healthy Again), which is aligned with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s movement and features speakers from anti-vaccine organizations including Children’s Health Defense.
Rogers’s financial ties to anti-vaccine organizations create clear conflicts of interest. His research supports the organizational mission of Children’s Health Defense and Brownstone Institute, and his income appears tied to producing content that aligns with these organizations’ anti-vaccine advocacy. The political economy of Rogers’ work is thus ironic: while he critiques the “political economy of autism” and government response, his own research is funded by private organizations with clear ideological and financial incentives to promote vaccine skepticism.
Rogers is not a medical doctor. He has a doctorate in political economy from the University of Sydney and a Master’s in public policy. He holds no medical degree or formal training in medicine, immunology, epidemiology, or vaccine science. His expertise is in political economy, not medical or vaccine research, which means his claims about vaccine safety and autism lack the scientific credentials required to make authoritative medical assertions.
Trump and his allies have produced many claims that experts have flagged as false, misleading, or dangerously unscientific. Below is a (probably incomplete) selection:
- In April 2020, Trump suggested during a press briefing that scientists explore whether injecting or “bringing disinfectant inside the body” could treat COVID‑19. Medical experts immediately warned that this would be dangerous or lethal.
- At the same briefing, he also floated the idea of “hitting the body with a very powerful light,” including using UV light inside the body to kill the virus, a suggestion that clinicians stressed had no scientific basis and could be harmful.
- Throughout 2020, Trump repeatedly claimed the virus would “just disappear” like a “miracle,” even as case counts and deaths surged.
- He heavily promoted hydroxychloroquine as a “game changer” long after clinical trials had shown it to be ineffective against COVID‑19 and associated with serious adverse effects.
- In February 2020, Trump claimed the number of COVID‑19 cases in the US would soon be “down to close to zero.”
- Trump frequently claimed that COVID‑19 was “just like the flu,” despite the fact that its mortality rate and impact on health systems were substantially higher.
- In late 2025 and early 2026, the Trump administration falsely claimed that acetaminophen use during pregnancy was linked to a much higher risk of autism, despite the lack of clear evidence and warnings from experts that this messaging was misleading.
- The administration also promoted leucovorin as a treatment for autism, a claim that has little robust evidence and is not supported by mainstream medical guidelines.
- Following the appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS in late 2024, federal vaccine guidance was rolled back in several areas, including flu recommendations for some groups and changes to how RSV and other vaccines were positioned. This created confusion and encouraged a further “decoupling” of some state health policies from traditional CDC guidance.
- Trump has claimed that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, a statement that has no credible scientific basis.
- Trump has claimed that sea levels will rise by only “1/8 of an inch over the next 200 to 300 years,” contradicting widely accepted projections that show substantially higher rise even over the next 30 years along US coasts.
- Trump has also claimed that the human body is like a battery with a finite amount of energy, and that exercise is harmful because it “depletes” that energy, a view that runs counter to mainstream physiology and public‑health guidance.
- Trump claimed that drinking fizzy diet soda “kills cancer cells” because the drinks kill grass when spilt, implying they might do the same to cancer inside the body.
- In 2026, Dr. Mehmet Oz, as head of CMS, falsely claimed that 5 million New Yorkers were using Medicaid personal‑care services—nearly 75% of all enrolees—when the actual figure is far lower.
- RFK Jr. has spent decades claiming that thimerosal, a mercury‑based preservative in some vaccines, causes autism. Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines in 2001 as a precaution, yet autism rates continued to rise, and large studies have found no causal link.
- RFK Jr. frequently claims that no vaccines have ever been tested against a true saline placebo. In fact, many vaccines have been tested against saline placebos in clinical trials, and others were tested against earlier versions or standard care, in line with evolving ethical standards.
- RFK Jr. pushed for the removal of fluoride from all US water systems, falsely labelling it an “industrial waste” and a key cause of lower IQ, bone fractures, and cancer, despite the bulk of evidence supporting its safety and dental benefits at standard levels.
- RFK Jr. has also falsely claimed that polyunsaturated fats such as canola or soybean oil are toxic and the primary driver of obesity and inflammation in America, a view that contradicts large‑scale dietary and epidemiological data.
- RFK Jr. has falsely claimed that WiFi causes “leaky brain” and that 5G is a tool for mass surveillance and causes cancer, assertions that have no support from mainstream science.
- RFK Jr. has become an advocate for the federal legalisation of raw milk, downplaying the risks of Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. Yet pasteurization remains a cornerstone of public‑health measures to prevent foodborne illness.
- RFK Jr. has wrongly suggested a link between the use of SSRIs and the rise in mass shootings, a claim not supported by credible data.
- Janette Nesheiwat (JN), a Fox News contributor and Trump’s nominee for US Surgeon General, withdrew her nomination in May 2025 following allegations that she had significantly misrepresented her credentials. Her official bio and LinkedIn profile claimed she received her medical degree from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; in fact she attended the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten.
- JN repeatedly described herself as “double board‑certified,” but investigators found verified certification only in family medicine.
- Casey Means (CM), Trump’s nominee for Surgeon General, is a Stanford‑educated physician who left surgical residency before completion and whose medical license has been inactive since 2019. She has not practiced clinical medicine in years and has limited experience overseeing large‑scale public‑health systems.
- CM has built a profile as a health‑tech entrepreneur and co‑founder of Levels, promoting “functional medicine” and the MAHA movement.
- CM has made strong claims that continuous glucose monitoring and metabolic optimization can prevent or “cure” a wide range of modern diseases, a view that overstates the evidence and oversimplifies complex chronic conditions.
As indicated in the title of this post: if you waant to say healthy, it is wise to ignore the incompetent president and his equally incompetent cronies.
I have repeatedly warned that Trump and his cronies are systematically destroying science and medicine in the US and beyond. Recently, I looked into Medline to see what other experts are publishing on this issue. I did not expect to find much and was surprised that a plethora of articles are now available that discuss the issues from vastly different perspectives. Here are the Medline-listed papers published in 2026 that include an abstract:
A reduction in U.S. foreign aid under the “America First” policy of President Donald Trump, who took office in 2025, has significantly impacted global health. As the world’s largest provider of foreign aid, the U.S. has frozen development aid to evaluate its alignment with national interests. This has led to the termination of numerous international health programs, including those addressing malaria, HIV, tuberculosis, and polio, and has caused funding shortages for non-profit and international organizations like GAVI and the World Bank. Projections indicate dire consequences. According to USAID, a potential 18 million additional malaria cases and 166,000 deaths could occur annually. Paralytic polio cases are expected to increase by 200,000 per year, and new tuberculosis cases could rise by 10.7 million by 2030. Recent studies estimate that new HIV infections and between 770,000 and 2.93 million HIV-related deaths from 2025 to 2030. This crisis presents an opportunity for the global community to rethink its approach to aid. Other forms of financing, such as private sector investment, CSR activities, and innovative mechanisms like the Global Fund, could fill the gap left by reduced ODA. The article also stresses the importance of strengthening governance in recipient countries, promoting self-reliance, and fostering international collaboration through shared data platforms and multilateral programs. Ultimately, the document argues that providing foreign aid is not just a moral obligation, but is also in the national security and economic interest of donor countries, including the United States.
A Science analysis shows more than 10,000 STEM Ph.D.s in the federal government left or lost their jobs after President Donald Trump took office.
Following the 2016 U.S. Presidential election of Donald Trump, prejudice toward groups targeted during his campaign (e.g., Asian Americans, Mexicans) become more acceptable. By contrast, both Trump and Clinton voters reported less prejudice of their own. We conducted a 2024 conceptual replication, measuring perceived norms of prejudice and own-prejudice toward 128 groups, both before (N = 362) and after (N = 261) the U.S. election. We separately measured the negativity of Trump’s campaign rhetoric toward these groups (N = 188). Levels of prejudice and perceived norms of prejudice acceptability were mostly stable pre-/post-election, but Trump’s negative rhetoric predicted an increase in perceived acceptability of prejudice among targeted groups (replicating the 2016 results), and a rise in self-reported prejudice in the same groups post-election (reversing the 2016 results). Despite changes in the sociopolitical context between elections, the election of a leading politician who campaigned on prejudice was again associated with increases in the acceptability of prejudice.
The withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) raises crucial questions about its future as the governing international organization for health. The executive order on withdrawal was one of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term. Because the United States is WHO’s biggest funder and most powerful state backer, withdrawal could indicate an existential threat. However, almost simultaneously member states passed a new international Pandemic Agreement expanding WHO’s authority. How should these conflicting signals be understood? Analyzing WHO’s decline in a context of broader US and geopolitical shifts, the authors find that withdrawal is the outcome of the end to broader political orders of neoliberal internationalism on which WHO depended for legitimacy rather than idiosyncratic Trump politics. WHO’s reliance on certain international norms and power structures leave it compromised. US normative and institutional shifts are far more difficult for WHO to navigate than in past political eras. Therefore, international relations research suggests that avoiding catastrophic impacts depends on reform actions by WHO officials, other member states, and US actors. States and others in the United States will face harm from WHO decline, and the authors suggest that US actors have legal standing to challenge withdrawal. Complacency and inaction may be WHO’s biggest risk.
Throughout the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term in office, his administration has taken swift action to undermine the role that government health agencies play in the health policy-making process. This article makes the case that the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine government health agencies’ regulatory authority reflect a dislike and distrust of the people who serve in key civil service roles. It also provides evidence that efforts to roll back regulatory authority are part of a long-standing political strategy to cater to public dislike and distrust of scientific, medical, and academic experts. While the public could provide policy makers with an incentive to protect public health agencies and the people who staff them, recent public opinion research shows that many Americans simply do not know or do not care enough about the Trump administration’s actions to call for their elected officials to stop them. This article concludes by offering several health communication strategies and directions for future research (the “science of standing up for science”) that might inspire public concern about efforts to roll back government health agencies’ regulatory authority and might motivate people to show support for the civil servants who staff those agencies.
This paper focuses on how, during his second mandate, far-right leader Donald Trump tells a story of his nation as having been disrespected in the recent past by national elites and global ones, while the leader and their close circle have the mission to repair that status as part of United States foreign policy (i.e. respect for the status of the US). When narrating a better future, Trump travels to a remote national past to show the possibility of reinstating US stature in the international. While constructing that better future, Trump also starts to unfold a foreign policy story of success to cement the brighter future in a retrospective way given this future has purportedly been previously lived in a more remote national past. Relied on here is symbolic interactionist role theory, strategic narrative analysis and the notion of ‘heartland’ from populism scholarship; this paper also contributes to the study of narratives of roles and populism in the field of foreign policy analysis by engaging with the IR notion of ‘status’. Taking an interpretative analysis approach, this case study shows how far-right leaders like Trump can conceive and play the status or master role of their states in foreign policy via strategic narratives.
On the one hand, it is encouraging that the Trump-inflicted damage is being noticed and that there is strong opposition to Trump’s various actions. On the other hand, it is depressing to realise how deep and far-reaching the damage has already become
Aaron Siri is an American lawyer and anti‑vaccine activist. He has become a key figure in contemporary US vaccine‑policy debates, largely through his legal challenges and close ties to health‑policy critics such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His following five central claims about vaccines are a mix of selective quoting, misrepresentation of studies, and appeal to legal‑style rhetoric:
- Vaccines cause chronic illness
Siri’s central “smoking‑gun” claim rests on an unpublished Henry Ford Health‑system analysis allegedly showing that vaccinated children have far higher rates of chronic illness than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated children in this dataset had far more health‑care visits than unvaccinated children, so more conditions were diagnosed in them regardless of whether vaccines caused them. This is a textbook example of detection bias, but not evidence of causation. Moreover, the study has not passed peer review; its reported disease prevalences are inconsistent with known epidemiology. It is therefore widely seen as methodologically unsound.
- Vaccines were never properly tested against proper controls
Siri argues that many childhood vaccines have not been tested in inadequately-powered, placebo‑controlled trials. When an effective vaccine exists, medical ethics oppose using placebos in new trials, as that would deny protection to a control group. Moreover, his claim that older vaccines (e.g., tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis) “lack adequate controlled trials” is misleading because earlier trials were designed for different standards and later observational data, post‑licensure surveillance, and large‑scale cohort studies have filled the gaps. In other words, he exploits technical‑sounding language to imply a hiatus of evidence, when in reality the evidence base is broader and more heterogeneous than he portrays.
- The CDC/WHO inflates how many lives vaccines have saved
Siri has attacked the WHO’s estimate that vaccines have saved around 154 million lives, calling it “corruption of science”. The 154‑million figure comes from a modelling exercise [like most “lives‑saved” statements in public health]. It depends on assumptions but is based on vaccine‑coverage and mortality‑trend data, but it is not fabricated. Siri’s rebuttals focus on rhetorically dismissing the exercise as “advertising” rather than engaging its assumptions or proposing alternative, better‑validated models. His claim that this number is “corrupt” thus rests polemic than but not on a coherent technical critique of the underlying epidemiological models.
- Exploiting the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act and “lack of liability”
Siri blames the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for reducing oversight and downplaying risk, arguing that liability protection “corrupts” safety monitoring. Yet the law was designed to protect manufacturers from financially ruinous litigation and to create a dedicated federal compensation program for proven injuries, not to forbid safety monitoring. The US has multiple surveillance systems (VAERS, VSD, CISA) and expert advisory bodies (ACIP, NVAC) that continuously review vaccine safety. Siri’s critique thus conflates legal strategy with scientific oversight, implying that the absence of mass torts proves lax monitoring.
In conclusion, Siri’s vaccine claims are mostly built on:
- one deeply flawed, unpublished observational study,
- selective readings of older vaccine‑trial designs,
- unwarranted dismissal of WHO‑level modelling, and
- a legal framing that conflates liability shields with absence of safety science.
Epidemiologists, infectious‑disease specialists and other experts rightly regard Siri’s arguments as misrepresenting or misapplying biostatistics and failing to meet standards for causal inference. It would be a serious mistake to follow them!
Some papers on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are such that I am almost lost for words. Here is the abstract of such an article:
Background: Autism Spectrum Disorder is a complex neurodevelopmental condition with characteristic
challenges like persistent deficits in social communication, restricted and repetitive behaviors, sensory
processing anomalies. Defined by DSM-5criteria, it affects about 1in 100 children globally and 1in 36 in
united states and poses a significant burden for families and healthcare systems. Research on homoeopathy
and Bach flower Remedies as adjunctive or primary therapies has often explored by families and clinical
interest in complementary and alternative medicine for additional support.
Materials and Methods: A comprehensive study of related review articles, related different components
of Autism spectrum disorder treated with homeopathy treatment, Bach Flower Remedies and
complementary medicine in children were search out. Databases search is PubMed, Google Scholar,
ResearchGate and Web of Science, Scopus and Homoeopathic journal.
Result: Reviewed evidence indicates that no systematic studies have been done to manage autism
spectrum disorder with Bach flower Remedies as an adjuvant or primary treatment along with
homoeopathy. Although individualized homoeopathic treatment has promising results in reducing core
and associated symptoms in children including improvement in social interaction, hyperactivity,
communication and behavioral regulation. Although there is less data available thorough trails, Bach
Flower Remedies especially Rescue remedy that have help in treating the emotional dysregulations and
anxiety that are frequently connected with autism spectrum condition.
Conclusion: The available clinical data on autism spectrum with homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies
is not enough to provide new and sufficient evidence. To overcome this more well-designed study of RCT
and larger sample with standardized procedures will be able to help to this rising burden of autism
spectrum disorder.
In the article itself, the authors state the following: “This review article indicates that both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing. Based on the reviewed data from case series, controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews it can be state that individualized homeopathic treatment leads to clinically relevant improvement in core and associated symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.
Studies on Bach flower remedies specifically in autism spectrum disorder are very less but it suggests that Bach flower remedies offer practically accessible intervention for emotional and behavioural dimension mostly in anxiety, emotional dysregulation, sensory hyperactivity and resistance to change. Evidence from controlled trials and clinical studies shows a statistical and significant in symptom.
Homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies should not replace evidence-based behavioural and development intervention for autism spectrum disorder, but rather be investigation as complementary modalities within an integrative care framework. Despite of growing clinical observations, the field of homoeopathy and Batch Flower remedies in autism spectrum disorder is characterised by substantial and identifiable research gaps that limit the formulation of evidence-based clinical guidelines and urgent research priorities include the multicentric, double-blind RCTs with standardised diagnostic criteria and validated core outcome sets; longitudinal follow-up.”
Bearing in mind that this comes from the “Head of the Department, Department of Practice of Medicine, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to beUniversity), Homoeopathic Medical College”, this is remarkably embarrassing!
Why?
The review is badly written and poorly done. More importantly, according to the data provided by the authors, there is only one rigorous RCT. Here is its abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Bach flower remedies in the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in a double blind prospective controlled study.
Methods: Fourty Children with ADHD, aged 7-11 years, diagnosed according to the DSM criteria, were randomised to Bach flower remedies or placebo treatments for a period of 3 months. Children’s performance was evaluated by the teacher before commencement of treatment and subsequently each month during the study period.
Results: Bach flower remedies have no statistically significant effect when compared to placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD. There was a significant correlation between treatment duration’s and improvement of performance, with no difference between the treatment group compared to the placebo.
Conclusions: There is no statistically significant difference between the effects of Bach flower remedies compared with placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD.
If a head of department nonetheless concludes that “both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing”, it is, I fear, high time to replace him.
The attitude of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFKJr.) on science and evidence-based medicine has long been a source for concern, particularly if we consider his total lack of expertise combined with his immense power to influence public health of the US and beyond. Here are several key quotes and recurring themes that define his perspective:
- “The CDC is a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. The agency’s advisory committee is essentially a front for the vaccine manufacturers.”
- “Tony Fauci’s career has been a long-running effort to prioritize the interests of Big Pharma over public health.”
- “The FDA, the NIH, the CDC—all these agencies have become the sock puppets of the industries they are supposed to regulate.”
- “The scientists who are supposed to be the guardians of our children’s health are instead taking money from the companies that are poisoning them.”
- “We are living in an era where ‘evidence-based medicine’ has been replaced by ‘reimbursement-based medicine.’ The data is cooked to favour the product.”
- “I am not anti-vaccine. I am pro-science and pro-safety. I want the same kind of rigorous, double-blind, placebo-controlled testing for vaccines that we require for every other medication.”
- “When people say ‘follow the science,’ they usually mean ‘follow the decree of the person in power.’ Science is a process of constant questioning, not a set of holy commandments.”
- “Consensus is the enemy of science. Science is about dissent; it’s about looking at the outliers and the data that doesn’t fit the narrative.”
- “The minute you say ‘the science is settled,’ you are no longer talking about science; you are talking about religion and totalitarianism.”
- “Public health policy is no longer based on the best available evidence; it’s based on the best available lobbyists.”
- “I don’t necessarily believe all the scientists, because I can read science myself. That’s what I do for a living. I read science critically.”
- “I spent 40 years cross-examining experts… I know how to tell when someone is lying to me about the data.”
- “I am pro-science. I’ve spent my life fighting for science-based policies. What I am against is ‘captured’ science that serves a corporate bottom line.”
- “I advise parents: do your own research… don’t take my word for it, and don’t take the government’s word for it.”
- “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me… I think what we’re going to try to do is to lay out the pros and cons… with replicable studies.”
- “People should be skeptical of any medical advice. They need to look at the primary sources, not the summaries provided by the pharmaceutical industry.”
- “Trusting the experts is not a feature of democracy and it’s not a feature of science. It’s a feature of religion and totalitarianism.”
- “We train physicians to wield the latest surgical tools, but not to guide patients on how to stay out of the operating room in the first place.”
- “The science [on nutrition] is indisputable, and the void [in medical training] is clear… future physicians must graduate prepared to prevent disease.”
- “I’m not scared of a germ. I used to snort cocaine off of toilet seats.”
- “One of the worst parts of addiction was my total incapacity to keep contracts with myself. I didn’t want to be someone who woke up every morning thinking about drugs.”
- “All of us have kind of a God-sized hole in us that we’re trying to fill. And addicts… try to fill that hole inside of you with things that change the way you feel about yourself.”
- “You can’t live off the laurels of the spiritual awakening. You have to renew it every day. You have to wake up every day and say ‘reporting for duty sir,’ and give up control every day.”
- “I had a dark spot on my brain scans… doctors concluded I had a tumor. I was scheduled for an operation by the same surgeon who operated on my uncle.”
- “The abnormality was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died.”
- “I probably got it in South Asia… I was traveling in a lot of places where you can get those kinds of parasites.”
- “I have cognitive problems, clearly. I have short-term memory loss, and I have longer-term memory loss that affects me.”
- “It didn’t require treatment. The worm died on its own, and the symptoms cleared up over time.”
- “I recovered from the memory loss and mental fogginess… I have no aftereffects from the parasite.”
- “Questioning my health is a hilarious suggestion, given the competition.”
RFKJr., as U.S. HHS Secretary since early 2025, was tasked by Trump with restoring trust in healthcare agencies. However, polls show trust has further eroded under his leadership, with KFF data indicating widespread disapproval – nearly 60% of adults – and drops in confidence for CDC, FDA, and vaccine info sources. His tenure involved firing CDC vaccine advisors, slashing HHS staff by 25%, revising childhood vaccine schedules (e.g., dropping hep B at birth), and canceling research grants, sparking measles outbreaks and expert backlash. Public health leaders cite these as science-defying moves worsening distrust across parties. Only 37% trust RFK Jr. as a health info source (KFF Jan 2026). Major health organizations, like the WHO and the American Academy of Pediatrics, point to decades of peer-reviewed, large-scale epidemiological studies that contradict the plethora of demonstrably wrong assertions of RFKJr.
One could almost pity RFKJr. for his naive stupidity – I say ‘almost’ because his stance is not just pitiful and embarrassing, it is evidently dangerous. If a chap having a beer in your local pub came out with such nonsense, you would laugh; if RFKJr. does it and then – horror of horrors – tries to act on it, it gets frightfully dangerous for us all.
Conclusion:
Even Trump cannot be as mean as to allow RFKJr. continue the destruction of public health!
He must be replaced before it is too late!
Robert F Kennedy Jr. has recently claimed that “none of the vaccines that are given during the first 6 months of life have ever been tested for autism.” What, if anything, is true about this frequently used argument?
To answer this question, it might be helpful to have a quick look at how vaccine testing works and what the specific research on infants shows.
When a new vaccine is first tested, the primary goal is to ensure it is safe (i.e. it causes no immediate toxic reactions) and effective (i.e. it creates the desired immune response). Autism is usually not diagnosed until a child is at least 18–24 months old. Because clinical trials for infant vaccines follow babies for weeks or months—not years—they cannot detect autism during that initial testing phase. Vaccines, like practically all other medical product, are not tested for every possible long-term condition during its initial Phase 3 trials. Instead, long-term safety is monitored through ‘post-market surveillance’ and epidemiological investigations. Hundreds of large epidemiological studies have thus tested the link between infant vaccines and autism. Their results fail to show such a link.
In late 2025, the CDC’s “Autism and Vaccines” webpage was updated under RFK Jr.’s direction. The page now states that saying “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an “evidence-based claim” because studies have not “ruled out” the possibility. Yet the CDC should know what students of medicine/science learn in their first year: it is impossible to “prove” that something never happens. You can only prove that, after looking at millions of people, no link was found. Therefore, organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) insist that the 40+ high-quality studies involving over 5 million children provide “clear and unambiguous” evidence that there is no link between vaccinations and autism. It is high time, I feel, that RFKJr and his cultists stop misleading the public (and possibly themselves), undergo some basic science education and catch up with the facts
Convinced?
No?
Then perhaps you need to look at just one of the many studies mentioned above:
Objective: To evaluate the association between autism and the level of immunologic stimulation received from vaccines administered during the first 2 years of life.
Study design: We analyzed data from a case-control study conducted in 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex, and MCO. In addition to the broader category of ASD, we also evaluated autistic disorder and ASD with regression. ASD diagnoses were validated through standardized in-person evaluations. Exposure to total antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides from vaccines was determined by summing the antigen content of each vaccine received, as obtained from immunization registries and medical records. Potential confounding factors were ascertained from parent interviews and medical charts. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess associations between ASD outcomes and exposure to antigens in selected time periods.
Results: The aOR (95% CI) of ASD associated with each 25-unit increase in total antigen exposure was 0.999 (0.994-1.003) for cumulative exposure to age 3 months, 0.999 (0.997-1.001) for cumulative exposure to age 7 months, and 0.999 (0.998-1.001) for cumulative exposure to age 2 years. Similarly, no increased risk was found for autistic disorder or ASD with regression.
Conclusion: In this study of MCO members, increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines during the first 2 years of life was not related to the risk of developing an ASD.
Still not convinced?
Then, I’m afraid, I cannot help you and perhaps you need to go back to school.
The US stands on the precipice of the destruction of public health. This might be best exemplified by the loss of its measles-free status. In 2000, the U.S. had been classified as having “eliminated” measles, meaning the virus was no longer constantly circulating within its borders. Following a year of record-breaking outbreaks, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) is now reviewing whether to officially revoke this status.
The technical definition of losing elimination status is the continuous transmission of the same strain of a virus for more than 12 months. In 2025, the US experienced over 2,400 confirmed cases—the highest count since 1991—driven by major outbreaks in Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, and Utah. While health officials once relied on high vaccination rates to “wall off” imported cases, that protection has now crumbled. National MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccination rates for kindergartners have fallen below the 95% threshold required for achieving herd immunity. This leaves communities vulnerable to the kind of rapid spread seen over the past year.
The resurgence of measles is inextricably linked to the shift in federal health policy under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). His influence has transformed vaccine hesitancy in the US from a fringe movement into a pillar of federal discourse. Kennedy has frequently misused his position to question the safety and necessity of the MMR vaccine, at one point suggesting that “natural infection” might be preferable to vaccination—a claim experts call dangerously misleading given that measles can cause encephalitis, permanent hearing loss, and death. Under Kennedy’s leadership, the CDC has been staffed with notorious anti-vaxers and reduced the number of recommended childhood vaccines and emphasized “personal choice” over community mandates. This shift has emboldened several states to loosen school entry requirements, leading to a record number of non-medical vaccine exemptions. By replacing members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) with anti-vaxers, Kennedy has signaled a move away from the decades of scientific consensus that underpinned the 2000 elimination achievement.
Kennedy – who has no medical background and does clearly not understand science – argues that the primary threat to US health is not infectious disease but chronic illness (e.g., diabetes, obesity, and autism), which he feels are linked to environmental factors and food quality. His alternatives include advocating for “real food,” reducing ultra-processed foods, and discouraging the use of seed oils and certain pesticides. He has promoted the consumption of unpasteurized dairy, despite warnings from health officials regarding bacterial risks. He advocates for ending water fluoridation, claiming it contributes to chronic health issues in children. Kennedy also believes that “natural infection” – contracting the disease itself – can be a preferable alternative to vaccination for certain illnesses. He has expressed his support for un- or disproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for viral infections, as well as the use of psychedelics and stem cells in broader health contexts. His MAHA plan promotes a “holistic” approach that combines conventional medicine withhis complementary therapies like supplements and acupuncture.
To make matters even worse, the US officially completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 22, 2026. This finalized a process that began on January 20, 2025, when Trump signed Executive Order 14155 on his first day in office. His previous attempt during his 1st term to leave the WHO was reversed by the Biden administration in 2021.
Losing measles-free status is more than a symbolic blow; it has practical and dire consequences. It signals to the world that the US public health infrastructure is failing to contain one of the most contagious diseases known to man. It means that “rare” outbreaks will become a permanent fixture of American life, requiring constant vigilance for infants too young to be vaccinated and the immunocompromised. And it bodes badly, of course, for the time when the next pandemic will emerge.
As the CDC completes its genomic sequencing to determine if the 2025 outbreaks constitute a single, unbroken chain of transmission, the US faces a choice. We are witnessing a “natural experiment” in real-time—one where the cost of Kennedy’s sick ideology is being paid in the form of preventable hospitalizations and lives lost. To put it bluntly: either the US gets rid of Kennedy and swiftly reverses his detrimental initiatives, or many US citizens will suffer ill health and even die because of his actions.
Many families explore so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to manage autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and many SCAM practitioners claim to be able to treat ASD effectively. This review evaluated the efficacy and safety of SCAM therapies, including acupuncture, cupping, massage, dietary changes, herbal medicine, apitherapy, and Ayurveda medicine.
Systematic searches were carried out in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies of SCAM interventions for ASD. The review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including various study types. Data extraction focused on design, population, intervention, outcomes, and bias risk.
The inclusion criteria were met by 45 studies, which encompassed six SCAM modalities. Acupuncture and massage consistently exhibited enhancements in sensory processing, communication, and social interaction levels. Dietary interventions, particularly probiotic supplementation and gluten-/casein-free regimens, had beneficial effects on behavioral and GI domains. While Ayurveda therapies such as Medhya Rasayanas (Bacopa monnieri), Swarnaprashana, and Panchakarma techniques improved cognition and reduced social deficits in small clinical series, herbal and apitherapy treatments primarily demonstrated neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects in preclinical studies. Control groups received no treatment, sham interventions, or standard care. The methodological limitations and heterogeneity of the study design limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions.
The authors conclused that the evidence indicates that SCAM approaches, including acupuncture, massage, and Ayurveda therapies, may be effective adjuncts in the management of ASD. The current body of research is constrained by the moderate-to-high risk of bias, variable protocols, and small sample sizes. Standardized, large-scale randomized trials are required to establish efficacy and safety. Clinicians should balance patient safety with innovation by adopting an integrative, evidence-informed approach.
This is almost complete nonsense:
- The authors claim to have followed the PRISMA guidelines. As one of the co-authors of these guidelines, I can affirm that this is untrue.
- The authors included 10 animal studies that provided mechanistic support for clinical findings, 18 RCTs, 12 pre-post controlled studies, and 5 case series or pilot studies comprised the designs. Several of these study types are unable to “evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCAM therapies” which is the stated aim of the review.
- Most of the included studies fail to control for placebo effects. Therefore, they cannot provide evidence regarding the “efficacy” of the treatments in question.
In view of these – and many other – flaws of the review, I fear that I might have to re-write the conclusions:
Many SCAMs have been studied as treatments for ASD. The results of these investigations fail to show that any of them is effective in alleviating the symptoms of ASD. Unless sound evidence emerges, SCAM cannot be recommended for ASD.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has, for many years, promoted claims that contradict established scientific consensus and common sense. Although he often frames his arguments as skepticism towards ‘the establishment’, his positions consistently conflict with the findings of sound science. This has led to widespread criticism from skeptics, scientists, physicians, and public health officials who argue that his rhetoric is steeped in misinformation.
The most prominent example is his long-standing insistence that vaccines cause autism, a claim that has been exhaustively studied and repeatedly disproven. Extensive epidemiological research involving millions of children across multiple countries has found no causal link between vaccination and autism, a conclusion affirmed by organizations such as the CDC and the WHO.
Kennedy has also continued to emphasize theories about mercury-based vaccine preservatives long after those substances were removed from most childhood vaccines, despite autism diagnosis rates continuing to rise—an outcome that directly contradicts his hypothesis and is not supported by sound evidence.
Recently his rejection of scientific consensus also expanded into the COVID-19 era. He characterized COVID vaccines as uniquely dangerous, suggested they could alter human DNA, and implied that public health agencies were concealing mass harm. These claims stand in overt contrast to real-world data from billions of administered doses, which show that serious adverse effects are rare and that vaccination dramatically reduces severe illness and death.
Similar patterns of misinformation appear in his claims about wireless technologies like 5G, which he has linked to immune suppression or cancer despite the well-established fact that such signals are non-ionizing and incapable of damaging DNA.
Underlying many of Kennedy’s positions is a recurring narrative that modern disease is primarily driven by hidden toxins and that public health institutions knowingly suppress cures or evidence of harm. While environmental exposures are a legitimate area of scientific study, Kennedy’s sweeping conclusions – often paired with sympathy for “detox” or so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – go far beyond what evidence supports.
In conclusion, Kennedy erodes trust in medicine and science, replacing science with insinuations and conspiracy theories. The outcome of his ‘war on science’ has been a normalization of falsehoods that have been tested, rejected, and shown to be harmful. In a nutshell: Kennedy is a danger to all our health and well-being. The sooner he is replaced, the better for science, progress and global health.
