Journals Retract Studies Backing RFK Jr.'s Vaccine Changes

RFK Jr., after taking up his role as the new head of the Department of Health and Human Services, he made many changes in terms of the stance of the federal government in health-related matters. For instance, in November of 2025, the CDC, which is a sub-agency underneath Health and Human Services, they officially changed their stance regarding the potential connection between vaccines and autism. You see, prior to RFK Jr.'s tenure, the official stance of the CDC was that vaccines do not cause autism. It was a very black-and-white statement. Here's, in fact, what the CDC website used to say, quote, Studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder, and that no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and the disorder. However, in November of 2025, which is roughly eight months ago, the CDC changed this long-standing stance of theirs to instead say that there may be a connection. Not that there is a connection, but rather that the evidence is not strong enough, according to the CDC, to completely rule it out. In a statement released on their website, here's what the CDC wrote. And again, note, this is in November of last year, under the leadership of RFK Jr., quote, The claim vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism. Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities. Though the cause of autism is likely to be multifactorial, the scientific foundation to rule out one potential contributor entirely has not been established. For example, one study found that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines had the highest statistical correlation with the rise in autism prevalence among numerous suspected environmental causes. Correlation does not prove causation, but it does merit further study. In fact, there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended for American children before the first year of life do not cause autism. And just to be safe, because we know how the world operates now, what I just read to you is a statement from the federal government. It's not my own opinion. I was just literally reading what the CDC wrote on their website. And as a part of that statement from the CDC, they referenced several studies, and one of them was from a paper, this one right here, published in 2006, which was a perceptual analysis. Basically, it analyzed the surveys that were conducted with parents of children who have autism, and it found that many of those parents believed that vaccines caused the disorder. Nothing definitive, but that was the parents' perceptions. Another study published in 2014, it looked at a range of possible environmental causes for autism. And just as that statement alluded to, it concluded that the aluminum adjuvants that are added to the vaccines had the highest statistical correlation with the rise of prevalence in autism. Again, nothing conclusive, but enough to warrant further study, the CDC said. Other studies cited, like the two up on your screen, it found an association between certain vaccines and autism. Again, though, I can't reiterate this enough, nothing conclusive, just an association. And so using these studies as justification, the CDC made that change in language, and they said that the claim that vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim. That's what the CDC said back in November. All right, just to pause here for a super quick moment, if you've watched our program Facts Matter, then you know that we focus on one thing, which is the facts, not speculation, not narratives, just what the data shows. And right now, the data globally is pointing in a direction people should really be paying attention to, which is the fact that global conflicts are fueling market uncertainty. That's why I believe in owning something real, something physical, something that the government can't just inflate away, which is physical gold and physical silver from today's sponsor, which is American Hartford Gold, the company that I trust and who I've been personally buying from for many years now. These are tangible assets. They're not tied to policy decisions or shifting narratives. Gold has held its value for thousands of years through inflation, currency changes, the rise and fall of empires, as well as general global instability. In a certain sense, gold actually thrives in periods of global instability, and American Hartford Gold is a good company. They have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of five-star reviews. They can deliver your gold and your silver directly to your doorstep, or they can help you set up a gold IRA if you're trying to diversify your retirement. And right now, when you call and mention my name, Roman, you can get up to $20,000 in free silver with your first qualifying purchase. So give them a call, 866-242-2352, or just text Roman to 65532. That's again, 866-242-2352, or text Roman to 65532. I'll also throw all their details. You'll be able to find them down in the description box below. However, in May and in June of this year, several of the underlying studies that the CDC was referencing as justification for their changes were suddenly retracted. Quote, Studies promoted by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., or others promoting changes in vaccine recommendations, are facing fresh scrutiny in recent weeks. Journals have retracted or removed two of the papers and are investigating at least two others, based in part on complaints from self-identified vaccine advocates. The studies were published years ago. One was released in 2010. Now, among the studies that were retracted was that 2010 study, which was cited by the CDC, the one that examined the odds of being diagnosed with autism following a Hep B vaccination. Quote, The authors used data from national surveys and vaccination records and estimated that boys who were vaccinated early were more likely to be diagnosed with autism versus boys who were never vaccinated or received a vaccine no earlier than one month of age. The Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, which published the study in 2010, retracted it in May. The journal said in a retraction notice that after hearing concerns about the study, it engaged with the authors and hired an independent reviewer to review the work. The reviewer, who was not identified, concluded that due to fundamental methodological flaws, the study's conclusions are unsound. And when asked about it, the publisher of that journal, they declined to provide us with any additional information, including why that change was made 16 years after the study was published, particularly when the study itself doesn't make any definitive claims. And actually, in the body of that 2010 study, it said the following, quote, Our findings do not suggest that the risks of autism outweigh the benefits of vaccination. However, future research into hepatitis B vaccination scheduling is warranted. Now, we here at The Epoch Times reached out to the authors of this 2010 study, and they got back to us via email saying that basically they stand behind the methodology that they used in their research. Quote, When we did this research more than 15 years ago, we saw the study's limitations, the small sample size, missing slash incomplete data, and potential bias from unmeasured or uncontrolled factors, and said so within the paper. This research, which began as a student project, used publicly available data collected by the CDC and statistical analysis that are standard in public health research. The paper was never meant to stand alone as the final word on this issue, which is precisely why we called for larger, stronger studies to evaluate this topic and which other researchers have subsequently done. Then, besides this 2010 study, there was another study that was recently pulled. Quote, Elsevier's toxicology reports in April removed a paper by Neil Miller, an independent researcher with the New Mexico-based Institute of Medical and Scientific Inquiry. The paper had examined more than 2,000 infant deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and found that many of them occurred within seven days of receiving a vaccine. Now, that paper itself was published in the year 2021, and it, much like the others, did not claim to be definitive. It didn't claim that a correlation meant causation. Instead, that earlier paper actually said the following. Quote, While the findings in this paper are not proof of an association between infant vaccines and infant deaths, they are highly suggestive of a causal relationship. And so, this paper wound up getting pulled just earlier this year. And the rationale for pulling it, according to the editor-in-chief of that journal, in a notice released to the public, was as follows. Quote, In particular, serious methodological flaws were identified in the use of VAERS data to infer a correlation between vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome, otherwise known as SIDS. Given the inherent limitations of passive reporting systems, including the expected temporal clustering of events independent of causality, the conclusions presented in the article are not supported by the methodology employed. In light of these concerns, and given the potential implications for medical practice, the editor-in-chief has decided that the article should be removed. Now, we here at the Epoch Times reached out to Neil Miller, the researcher behind that removed paper, and he told us that he was surprised it was pulled, given the fact that he did address all of those concerns within the body of the text. Here's what he told us via email. Quote, Miller told the Epoch Times that the journal forwarded complaints from one person and that he responded thoroughly. Miller told us that, despite my requests, they never specified what the methodological flaws were. From further correspondence, I gathered that they were likely referring to concerns about reporting bias. However, I had already addressed this possibility in my paper, offering an alternative explanation. Miller had acknowledged in his paper that doctors and parents might have been more likely to report deaths to the database if they happened close to vaccination. However, he said, the fact that more deaths happened on the day after vaccination than on the day of vaccination may suggest the presence of an incubation period, the interval between vaccination and the full manifestation of a reaction that could potentially lead to death, which is one piece of evidence undercutting claims of reporting bias. We then went back to the journal with some follow-up questions, and a spokesperson for them told us the following. Quote, two individuals brought concerns to the journal in 2025, prompting an investigation. We conducted a thorough assessment, which ultimately led to the decision to remove the publication following careful review and consultation with relevant experts. We stand by the decision that the recommendations and conclusions presented in the paper may pose potential risks to public health and could potentially be applied in clinical practice, resulting in harm to patients. Now, when all this came out, actually one day after we here at The Epoch Times published an article publicizing these retractions, RFK Jr. came out with a statement questioning the removals. Quote, Americans have a right to know why scientific papers are removed, who made those decisions, what evidence supported them, and whether the same standards are applied consistently. And then alongside that statement, RFK Jr. also sent out an official letter to the editor-in-chief of the Toxicology Reports journal saying that all retractions and removals, they should all, quote, be accompanied by a transparent and full explanation of why such an action was carried out, and that the statement on removal was woefully insufficient. In that same letter, RFK Jr. also went on to demand that the editor-in-chief provide more details to the federal government regarding this study removal by June 25th, a date which I'm sure as you've noticed has already passed, and thus far I'm not sure whether the responses have come or not. Once we get word of whether they have responded with any updates, I will get back to you and give you an update on the story. But there you have it, several of the studies cited by the CDC in their decision-making process, as well as a study that was cited by RFK in his latest book, have been retracted. If you'd like to either read the retracted studies in full for yourself, or if you'd like to read more details about all this back and forth, I will throw the links to my research notes, you'll be able to find them down in the description box below if you're the type of person that likes to dig deeper into the weeds. And all I ask in return is, well for two things, one is please do smash those like and subscribe buttons so this video can reach ever more people via the YouTube algorithm, thank you so much for that. It not only helps the video spread, but it also does help our journalism to have the channel growing into a positive cycle, so thank you again. And then secondly, if you are interested in kind of a new developing branch of research, we published something very cool over on EpicTV, it's a new documentary called Final Hours. It's a rather unique film because in it are a bunch of interviews with people who died. They were clinically dead, these were people who had no pulse, no breath, not even a flicker of consciousness, they were just clinically 100% dead. But then in one way or another, they came back to life, they got resuscitated. And the stories they told about their experiences are really something else. The worlds they saw, the stories of the unconditional love that they felt radiating around them, and even how they were able to watch their lives unfold from start to finish outside of the constraints of time. And what was really interesting is that so many of the people, completely unrelated to each other, different parts of the world, different walks of life, you know, they obviously had no connection to one another beforehand, but they had such similar stories to tell after they came back to life. It's a great movie and it really shines a light on this growing body of actual scientific research in this new field of study, which is post-death experiences. If you want to check it out, which I would highly recommend, I'll throw a link to it, you'll be able to find it down at the top of the description box below. Just click on that link. It'll take you to Epic TV where you can sign up and watch it right away. So again, hope you check it out. And then until next time, I'm your host Roman from The Epic Times. Stay informed, and most importantly, stay free.