(C) BoingBoing
This story was originally published by BoingBoing and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



RFK, Jr. supporters at hearing on vaccine policy and the "corruption of science" use junk science as "evidence" [1]

['Jennifer Sandlin']

Date: 2025-09-11

On September 9, 2025, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, headed by Ron Johnson (R-WI), met for a congressional hearing focused on vaccines and vaccine policy titled, "How the Corruption of Science Has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines." The "smoking gun" of "evidence" that was presented by the anti-vaccine folks in attendance — that purportedly demonstrates how vaccinated children suffer much more frequently from chronic illness than unvaccinated children — is, however, and unsurprisingly, junk science. According to The Guardian, the research has not been peer-reviewed or published, nor is any of its data available for examination by other scientists. The Guardian further explains:

The study was lead-authored by Marcus Zervos of Henry Ford Health, completed in 2020, and never submitted for publication, according to testimony during the hearing. Senator Ron Johnson, the chair of the subcommittee for the hearing, and the witness Aaron Siri, a lawyer who has represented RFK Jr and the anti-vaccination non-profit Informed Consent Action Network, both claimed the study was not submitted because the authors would lose their jobs were it to be published . . . The only information that is currently publicly available about the study comes from the hearing itself, including witness testimony and a brief trailer for a documentary from the Informed Consent Action Network. The trailer says the study found that "amongst the unvaccinated group, there was zero brain dysfunction, zero diabetes, zero behavioral problems, zero learning disabilities, zero intellectual disabilities, zero tics and zero other psychological disabilities". The trailer also includes a clip of Donald Trump saying: "A few decades ago, one in 10,000 children had autism. Today, it's one in 31."

The only actual physician who served as a witness during the hearing was Dr. Jake Scott, a Clinical Associate Professor of infectious diseases at Stanford University School of Medicine. The Guardian reports that Scott testified that the study is "fundamentally flawed," stating that its main issue was that "vaccinated children had twice the follow up time and substantially more healthcare visits than unvaccinated children." The Guardian explains that more visits provide more opportunity for children to be diagnosed with a variety of conditions, such as ADHD. They continue:

Scott went on to explain that "the study reports zero ADHD cases among 1,000s of unvaccinated children. How is that possible with a national prevalence at 11%? That's highly unlikely, unless conditions went undiagnosed." Scott noted that the study also claimed a six to eightfold increase in ear infections among vaccinated children, but there is no plausible scientific explanation as to why vaccines would increase ear infections.

StatNews also recently published an opinion piece by Dr. Jake Scott, the MD who testified at the hearing, where he explains that the study is:

. . riddled with the exact flaws that peer review is designed to catch: fundamental study design errors, statistical impossibilities inconsistent with known prevalence, and results that collapse under routine epidemiologic scrutiny. Notably, even this study's own data showed no association between vaccines and autism, the condition most frequently cited by vaccine critics.

He provides more helpful information debunking the study and further explaining its major flaw, detection bias:

The most glaring problem is detection bias, which occurs when one group gets examined more frequently than another, leading to more diagnoses regardless of actual disease rates. In the Henry Ford data, vaccinated children had substantially more health care visits than unvaccinated children. Conditions requiring clinical evaluation to diagnose — ADHD, learning disorders, speech delays, ear infections — will inevitably be recorded more often in the frequently seen group. Yet the authors never correct for this gap. Their only check was to drop children who never had a single encounter with a health care provider, which still leaves one group averaging seven visits a year and the other averaging two. That doesn't level the playing field; it simply bakes the bias into the results. What they're measuring is exposure to medical observation, not the effects of vaccines.

In the rest of the piece in StatNews, Dr. Scott provides a terrific rebuttal of the various claims made in the Henry Ford Health study and discusses the study's numerous "statistical red flags." He also provides an overview of some actual, real, scientific vaccine and vaccine adverse events research, arguing that "properly conducted vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons look very different from the Henry Ford analysis," as they show no link between vaccines and autism, no association with type 1 diabetes and autism, and no meaningful differences in chronic conditions.

Scott concludes that "elevating an unpublished, methodologically flawed analysis on a Senate stage has real consequences," explaining further that: "When Congress elevates unpublished analyses while dismissing peer-reviewed evidence, it sets a dangerous precedent for how science is weighed in policymaking."

I watched part of the hearings, and I was struck at the painful irony of Senator Johnson's opening statement, where he stated: "The purpose of these hearings is to force the acknowledgement of reality. Exactly what all the realities and truths are, I cannot say. But what I can say for sure is that we have been lied to repeatedly and that in order to restore public faith in federal agencies, integrity must return to science. We must also have open minds and be willing to face the truth."

It seems irony is dead, however, when the folks making health policy state they want to return "integrity" to science and urge us to be "willing to face the truth," when they are doing neither. Instead, they're parading around garbage disguised as "research." I'll end with Dr. Scott's powerful critique of the corruption currently being enacted by the leaders of our public health systems:

The bitter irony of this hearing's title — "How the Corruption of Science Has Impacted Public Perception" — is that, as I testified to the subcommittee, the real corruption on display isn't in journals rejecting flawed studies. It's in bypassing peer review entirely, shopping for any analysis that supports predetermined conclusions, then presenting it as evidence on a Senate stage. The analysis contains fundamental mistakes that any credible journal would flag.

Watch the hearing here.

Previously:

• Trump and RFK Jr blame 'a drug or something' for autism

• 'I have a this active measles virus — I just wanna stab everybody' — Jon Hamm steals show as unhinged RFK Jr on SNL

• 'Measles and Polio Down in the Schoolyard' is a perfect musical critique of RFK, Jr.

• RFK Jr demonstrates exciting new medical technique: wild guessing

• RFK Jr establishes Soviet-style pre-approval system for 23 'controversial' research topics at National Cancer Institute

• RFK Jr and grandkids celebrated mother's day with a swim in a sewage-filled creek

• Tainted raw milk CEO asked by RFK Jr to apply for FDA policy position

• RFK Jr. wants to ship Adderall users to labor camps

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://boingboing.net/2025/09/11/rfk-jr-supporters-at-hearing-on-vaccine-policy-and-the-corruption-of-science-use-junk-science-as-evidence.html

Published and (C) by BoingBoing
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/boingboing/