Health
Behind R.F.K. Jr.’s Vow to ‘Follow the Science’ on Vaccines
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spent the first day of his back-to-back confirmation hearings deftly avoiding questions about his views on vaccines. On the second day, when a prominent Republican senator insisted there was no link between vaccines and autism, Mr. Kennedy shot back that a new study “showed the opposite.”
“I just want to follow the science,” Mr. Kennedy declared.
Following the science has been a familiar refrain for Mr. Kennedy, whose confirmation as health secretary appears all but assured in a vote expected Thursday. But the exchange in the Senate raises questions about just what type of science Mr. Kennedy is consulting. It foreshadows how, if confirmed, Mr. Kennedy could continue to sow doubts about vaccines.
Academics have pounced on the study that Mr. Kennedy cited during the hearing, shredding it as methodologically faulty and biased. The study emanated from a network of vaccine skeptics who share some of Mr. Kennedy’s views — an ecosystem that includes the author of the study, the editor of the journal that published it and the advocacy group that financed it.
“We authors were delighted and honored that R.F.K. Jr. referred to our work in his confirmation hearing,” the study’s lead author, Anthony Mawson, said in an email. A spokeswoman for Mr. Kennedy did not respond to a request for comment.
Dr. Mawson, an epidemiologist, said he first met Mr. Kennedy at an autism conference in 2017. Mr. Kennedy cites Dr. Mawson’s research 33 times in his 2023 book, “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak.”
His study was rejected “without explanation” by several mainstream medical journals, Dr. Mawson said. So he turned for advice to Andrew Wakefield, the author of the 1998 study, now retracted, that sparked the initial furor over vaccines and autism. Mr. Wakefield encouraged him to submit the study to a new journal called Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.
That publication is led by some notable vaccine critics, including three who headlined a Washington rally in 2022 with Mr. Kennedy to protest Covid vaccine mandates.
As the nation’s health secretary, Mr. Kennedy “would have wide powers to advance his favored research studies, publications, or scientific data,” according to Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University. Mr. Kennedy’s critics fear that the public will have neither the time nor the training to sort through a war that seems to pit one study against another, and that the result will be a rapid decline in confidence in vaccines.
“The Mawson paper epitomizes Kennedy’s consistent inability to distinguish junk science from reliable information,” said Dr. John P. Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, who said that study and some of the others Mr. Kennedy has cited in the past are published by “fringe journals.”
Mr. Kennedy has said that he is not anti-vaccine, but rather in favor of vaccine safety.
“I support the measles vaccine. I support the polio vaccine,” Mr. Kennedy said on the first day of his confirmation hearings. “I will do nothing as H.H.S. secretary that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking it.”
Mr. Kennedy’s insistence that more research is necessary when it comes to vaccine safety has drawn support from some Republicans, who say they welcome his skepticism.
“I don’t understand why my colleagues all of sudden say we can’t question science,” Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma, said during one of Mr. Kennedy’s hearings. He added, “When you start looking at the rise of autism, why wouldn’t we be looking at everything?”
But Michael T. Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota who has advised administrations of both parties, said Mr. Kennedy’s demands for additional data go too far when they concern vaccines and autism. Mainstream scientists say the issue is settled.
“That’s the equivalent of me saying until Newton comes back and shows me that apple falling from the tree, I do not believe gravity exists,” Dr. Osterholm said.
Doctors who have examined the way Mr. Kennedy uses scientific research say he also has a tendency to cherry-pick particular findings from prominent researchers, as he did during a podcast in 2022.
During that appearance, he cited a study published in the journal Pediatrics in 2000 to suggest that improvements in sanitation and hygiene — and not vaccines — fueled a drop in deaths from infectious diseases during the first half of the 20th century. That is true. But Mr. Kennedy failed to note that the study also reported that vaccines introduced in the second half of the 20th century had “virtually eliminated” deaths from diseases including polio and measles.
During one of his confirmation hearings, Mr. Kennedy cited work by a well-known vaccine scientist, Dr. Gregory Poland, to suggest Black people should follow a different vaccine schedule because they needed fewer antigens, the vaccine components that provoke an immune response.
Dr. Poland did not respond to requests for comment. But he told National Public Radio that his work did not support Mr. Kennedy’s assertion.
Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Mawson have long aired similar concerns about vaccines.
In an appearance before the Mississippi legislature in 2009, Dr. Mawson called for more vaccine safety research and “a more flexible approach to vaccination requirements for school attendance.” In a 2011 lawsuit, Dr. Mawson said the testimony had cost him his job as an epidemiologist at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.
In 2017, Dr. Mawson published a pilot study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children.
The study relied on a survey of parents who home-schooled their children and found higher rates of autism among vaccinated children, compared with those who had not been vaccinated. The study was funded in part by Generation Rescue, a nonprofit associated with Jenny McCarthy, a television personality who has promoted claims of a link between vaccines and autism.
Dr. Mawson by that time had established the Chalfont Research Institute, a charity that operates out of his home in Jackson, Miss. The institute reported revenue of just $57 in 2021, the most recent figures available.
In 2019, it received charitable contributions of $160,000, tax records show. The bulk of that money, $150,000, came from the National Vaccine Information Center, a group whose mission includes supporting research on “vaccine-associated deaths, injuries and chronic illness.”
Like Mr. Kennedy, the group’s president and co-founder, Barbara Loe Fisher, has long called for research comparing “total health outcomes” including the risk of autism, in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. When Dr. Mawson approached her group with a proposal, she said, the center reviewed his pilot study of 2017, approved his plan and provided $150,000 in funding.
That money paid for the paper Mr. Kennedy cited at the hearing, during an exchange with Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana and a doctor.
The journal that published the study, Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, advertises itself as peer-reviewed, meaning its research is evaluated by anonymous independent experts before publication. Dr. Mawson said his paper had undergone review by two such experts.
Some people associated with the journal are also associated with Mr. Kennedy.
James Lyons-Weiler, the journal’s editor in chief, described himself as a longtime ally of Mr. Kennedy’s in a yearslong “fight across 20 states” for vaccine exemptions.
“Honored to call him my friend,” he wrote on social media last year.
The journal’s editorial board includes the chief executive and the chief scientific officer of Children’s Health Defense, the nonprofit that Mr. Kennedy led until he began his presidential campaign in 2023.
The board also includes members who sell products or services for people who are concerned about vaccines. One of its editorial board members offers $2,350 telehealth appointments for “post-vaccine syndrome.” Another sells $90 “spike detox” supplements marketed for “vaccine injury syndrome” that is meant to get “you back to that pre-Covid feeling.”
The study by Dr. Mawson that Mr. Kennedy cited at the hearing focused on about 47,000 children enrolled in Florida Medicaid from 1999 to 2011 and looked at billing data to determine their vaccination status.
The study found very few billing records for unvaccinated children with autism — eight who were born prematurely and 54 overall. It concluded that vaccination was significantly associated with higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, particularly in infants who were born prematurely.
By contrast, large-scale studies in respected medical journals, including an analysis of five studies involving more than 1.2 million children, have found no association between vaccines and autism.
But even as Dr. Mawson’s research took shape, problems emerged. The paper notes that researchers lost access to the database they used to perform the study. Dr. Alex Morozov, an expert on clinical trial design who met with Dr. Mawson to discuss the study, said he viewed that as a red flag.
Dr. Morozov also said the study had a “fundamental flaw”: It failed to account for the possibility that vaccinated children might have more encounters with the medical system than unvaccinated children, whose illnesses would not be captured by billing data.
The study also failed to account for factors like family history of autism, the child’s gender (boys are diagnosed with higher rates of autism than girls) or the possibility that children might have been vaccinated outside the Florida Medicaid system, said Bertha Hidalgo, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. Mawson strongly defended the work, noting that the study “carefully documents both its strengths and limitations,” but contending that critics focused only on the limitations. “Nevertheless,” he said, “further research is needed to replicate the findings and to unravel the mechanisms involved.”
At the Senate hearing, Mr. Cassidy pressed Mr. Kennedy to accept that the vaccines and autism debate was settled. He reminded Mr. Kennedy that he had been shown the study of 1.2 million children that found no link between the two.
“I’m a doc, trying to understand,” Mr. Cassidy said, adding, “Convince me that you will become the public health advocate, but not just churn old information so that there’s never a conclusion.”
To that, Mr. Kennedy replied, “I’m going to be an advocate for strong science. You show me those scientific studies, and you and I can meet about it. And there are other studies as well. I’d love to show those to you.”
Health
Melissa Joan Hart, 49, Opens up About Weight Loss in Perimenopause
Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.
Use escape to exit the menu.
Sign Up
Create a free account to access exclusive content, play games, solve puzzles, test your pop-culture knowledge and receive special offers.
Already have an account? Login
Health
Alzheimer’s prevention breakthrough found in decades-old seizure drug
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A drug that has long been used to treat seizures has shown promise as a potential means of Alzheimer’s prevention, a new study suggests.
The anti-seizure medication, levetiracetam, was first approved by the FDA in November 1999 under the brand name Keppra as a therapy for partial-onset seizures in adults. The approval has since expanded to include children and other types of seizures.
Northwestern University researchers recently found that levetiracetam prevented the formation of toxic amyloid beta peptides, which are small protein fragments in the brain that are commonly seen in Alzheimer’s patients.
The medication was found to prevent the formation of amyloid-beta 42 in both animal models and cultured human neurons, according to the study findings, which were published in Science Translational Medicine.
The effect was also seen in post-mortem human brain tissue obtained from individuals with Down syndrome, who are at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
The medication was found to prevent the formation of amyloid-beta 42 in both animal models and cultured human neurons. (iStock)
“While many of the Alzheimer’s drugs currently on the market, such as lecanemab and donanemab, are approved to clear existing amyloid plaques, we’ve identified this mechanism that prevents the production of the amyloid‑beta 42 peptides and amyloid plaques,” said corresponding author Jeffrey Savas, associate professor of behavioral neurology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, in a press release.
“Our new results uncovered new biology while also opening doors for new drug targets.”
HIDDEN BRAIN CONDITION MAY QUADRUPLE DEMENTIA RISK IN OLDER ADULTS, STUDY SUGGESTS
The brain is better able to avoid the pathway that produces toxic amyloid‑beta 42 proteins in younger years, but the aging process gradually weakens that ability, Savas noted.
“This is not a statement of disease; this is just a part of aging. But in brains developing Alzheimer’s, too many neurons go astray, and that’s when you get amyloid-beta 42 production,” he said.
The effect was also seen in post-mortem human brain tissue obtained from individuals with Down syndrome, who are at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease. (iStock)
That then leads to tau (“tangles”) — abnormal clumps of protein inside brain neurons — which can kill brain cells, trigger neuroinflammation and lead to dementia.
In order for levetiracetam to function as an Alzheimer’s blocker, high-risk patients would have to start taking it “very, very early,” Savas said — up to 20 years before elevated amyloid-beta 42 levels would be detected.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
“You couldn’t take this when you already have dementia, because the brain has already undergone a number of irreversible changes and a lot of cell death,” the researcher noted.
The researchers also did a deep dive into previous human clinical data to determine whether Alzheimer’s patients who were taking the anti-seizure drug had slower cognitive decline. They reported that the patients in that category had a “significant delay” in the span from cognitive decline to death compared to those not taking the drug.
“This analysis supports the positive effect of levetiracetam to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s pathology,” the researcher said. (iStock)
“Although the magnitude of change was small (on the scale of a few years), this analysis supports the positive effect of levetiracetam to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s pathology,” Savas said.
Looking ahead, the research team aims to find people who have genetic forms of Alzheimer’s to participate in testing, Savas said.
Limitations and caveats
The study had several limitations, including that it relied on animal models and cultured cells, with no human trials conducted.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
Because the study was observational in nature, it can’t prove that the medication caused the prevention of the toxic brain proteins, the researchers acknowledged.
Savas noted that levetiracetam “is not perfect,” cautioning that it breaks down in the body very quickly.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The team is currently working to create a “better version” that would last longer in the body and “better target the mechanism that prevents the production of the plaques.”
“You couldn’t take this when you already have dementia, because the brain has already undergone a number of irreversible changes and a lot of cell death.”
The medication’s common documented side effects include drowsiness, weakness, dizziness, irritability, headache, loss of appetite and nasal congestion.
It has also been linked to potential mood and behavior changes, including anxiety, depression, agitation and aggression, according to the prescribing information. In rare cases, it could lead to severe allergic reactions, skin reactions, blood disorders and suicidal ideation.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the Cure Alzheimer’s Fund.
Fox News Digital reached out to the drug manufacturer and the researchers for comment.
Health
Seniors over 80 who eat specific diet may be less likely to reach 100 years old
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Older adults who avoid meat in their golden years may be less likely to reach age 100 than their meat-eating counterparts, new research suggests.
Researchers tracked more than 5,000 adults aged 80 or older who were enrolled in the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey.
Between 1998 and 2018, data showed that those who did not eat meat were less likely to reach their 100th birthday than those who consumed animal products regularly.
The findings seem to contradict previous studies that have linked vegetarianism and plant-based diets to lower risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.
Most evidence supporting the benefits of plant-based diets comes from studies tracking younger populations, the researchers noted.
The findings contrast with previous research praising plant-based diets for their positive influence on heart health. (iStock)
The study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, points to losses in muscle mass and bone density with age, shifts that can increase the risk of malnutrition and frailty in the “oldest old.”
As people enter their 80s and 90s, the nutritional priority often shifts from preventing long-term chronic diseases to maintaining day-to-day physical function, experts say.
HOW MUCH RED MEAT IS TOO MUCH? EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON FOOD PYRAMID UPDATES
“The headline ‘vegetarians over 80 less likely to reach 100’ sounds surprising, because it contrasts with decades of data linking plant‑forward diets to lower chronic disease risk earlier in life,” Erin Palinski-Wade, a New Jersey-based registered dietitian, told Fox News Digital.
“However, once you see that this research is limited to adults over the age of 80 who are also underweight — and that this link disappears with the consumption of eggs, dairy and fish — the results are less surprising.”
While diets earlier in life tend to emphasize avoiding long-term disease, older age necessitates nutrients and weight maintenance, experts say. (iStock)
In those over 80, restricting animal proteins may be less likely to promote longevity, according to Palinski-Wade, who was not involved in the study.
Eliminating all animal protein — particularly in a population that may already experience diminished hunger cues — can make it more difficult to meet adequate protein needs, potentially increasing the risk of nutrient deficiencies, the nutritionist said.
ALZHEIMER’S SYMPTOMS COULD BE PREDICTED YEARS IN ADVANCE THROUGH ONE SIMPLE TEST
In addition to a higher tendency to be underweight, older populations also face a greater risk of bone fractures due to lower calcium and protein intake.
Potential limitations
The lower rate of vegetarians reaching 100 was only observed in participants identified as underweight, the researchers noted. No such association was found in people who maintained a healthy weight.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
Because being underweight is already linked to greater frailty and mortality risk, the researchers noted that body weight may partly explain the findings, making it difficult to determine whether diet itself played a direct role.
Those incorporating animal-sourced products other than meat were just as likely to live to 100. (iStock)
Additionally, the shortened lifespans were not found in people who continued to eat non-meat animal products, such as fish, dairy and eggs.
Older adults with these more flexible diets were just as likely to live to 100 as those eating meat, as these foods may provide the nutrients necessary for maintaining muscle and bone health, the researchers noted.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“This is an observational study, so it can only show associations, and does not prove that avoiding meat directly reduces the odds of reaching 100,” Palinski-Wade added.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
The researchers suggested that including small amounts of animal-sourced foods could help older seniors maintain essential nutrients and avoid the muscle loss often seen in those who stick strictly to plants.
Eliminating all animal protein — particularly in a population that may already experience diminished hunger cues — can make it more difficult to meet adequate protein needs, potentially increasing the risk of nutrient deficiencies. (iStock)
Palinski-Wade offered some guidance for those looking to optimize nutrition later in life.
“For adults in their 80s and beyond, especially anyone losing weight or muscle, the priority should be maintaining a healthy weight and meeting protein and micronutrient needs — even if that means adding or increasing fish, eggs, dairy or well‑planned, fortified plant proteins and supplements.”
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
Strict vegan or very low‑protein patterns at that age should be carefully monitored by a dietitian or clinician, with attention to B12, vitamin D, calcium and total protein, according to Palinski-Wade.
“Younger and healthier adults can still confidently use plant‑forward or vegetarian patterns to lower long‑term chronic disease risk,” she added.
-
World6 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts7 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO7 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Oregon5 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Florida3 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Maryland3 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Culture1 week agoTry This Quiz on Thrilling Books That Became Popular Movies