United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) recently reiterated a claim suggesting that a CDC study showed the Hepatitis B vaccine, but his assertion is not backed my medical evidence, and the largest alleged threat that Kennedy cites is naturally occuring, not foreign, and actually occurs in larger quantities in natural breastmilk.
What RFK Jr. Claimed:
During an interview with Tucker Carlson, RFK Jr. who has no medical background and spent his professional legal career leading lawsuits against medical companies, claimed that the CDC conducted a study indicating the Hepatitis B vaccine increases autism risk.
The infamous and since-debunked study that first fueled the false claim that vaccines cause autism was published in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield, a British former physician, in the medical journal The Lancet, which ultimately retracted the paper after discovering that Wakefield lied about the study and failed to disclose the fact that he was being paid by an injury attorney who needed a document to support a lawsuit he planned to file.
Key Details
- Study Title: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children
- Author: Andrew Wakefield and 12 co-authors
- Journal: The Lancet (February 1998)
- Claim: Suggested a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism, based on only 12 children.
- Wakefield was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the UK’s General Medical Council and was stripped of his medical license.Today, it is widely regarded as one of the most damaging examples of scientific fraud in modern medicine.
The Wakefield 1998 study is the infamous, fraudulent paper that started the myth linking vaccines to autism — a claim now thoroughly discredited by decades of scientific evidence. Andrew Wakefield published a small study in The Lancet that suggested a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. The problem was that his study only looked at 12 children, did not include proper control groups, and relied heavily on parents’ recollections of events after vaccination. It was later revealed that Wakefield had serious conflicts of interest and manipulated data, leading to the paper’s full retraction and his loss of a medical license. Despite being debunked, the study created widespread fear and vaccine hesitancy that continues to this day.
By contrast, researchers in Denmark conducted one of the largest and most thorough vaccine safety studies ever published. They tracked 657,461 children born between 1999 and 2010, following them through national health registries for more than a decade. Unlike Wakefield’s anecdotal approach, this study used objective medical records, not memory or self-reporting, and compared vaccinated and unvaccinated children across the entire population. The researchers even looked closely at children considered at higher risk for autism, such as those with siblings on the spectrum, to see if vaccination triggered cases in more vulnerable groups.
The results were clear: children who received the MMR vaccine were no more likely to develop autism than those who did not. There was no spike in diagnoses after vaccination, no evidence of a link in high-risk children, and no clustering of autism cases around the time of immunization. Because of its massive sample size, rigorous methodology, and long follow-up period, the Danish study carries far more scientific weight than Wakefield’s discredited work. In plain terms, the difference is like comparing a rumor based on a dozen kids at one clinic to a nationwide census of more than half a million children.
While RFK Jr. is correct that vaccines may contain trace amounts of aluminum, it’s misleading to present that fact without also noting that infants naturally consume more aluminum through breast milk or formula than through vaccines, and both sources are well within safe limits.
RFK Jr. has frequently raised concerns about aluminum-based adjuvants (compounds that enhance immune responses in some vaccines), particularly for infants. What is often left out is that aluminum is not unique to vaccines — it’s a naturally occurring element found in food, water, and even breast milk.
- In breast milk: Studies show that breastfed infants ingest about 7 milligrams of aluminum in their first six months of life naturally, while formula-fed babies can ingest even more because formula often contains higher trace amounts.
- In vaccines: The total amount of aluminum from the entire U.S. childhood immunization schedule in the first six months is about 4 milligrams or less — notably lower than what infants take in through diet.
Hepatitis B is a liver infection caused by the hepatitis B virus. The virus is transmitted from a person coming into contact with the blood, semen, or other bodily fluid of someone who is infected.
Newborns may be infected through the process of birth or from casual contact, as the virus can survive in the environment for approximately a week. Up to half of all older children, adolescents, and adults have symptoms of acute hepatitis B. Most children younger than age 5, however, have no symptoms. Acute hepatitis B infection, which is a short-term illness, can lead to a lifelong infection known as chronic hepatitis B.
What Do Autism Advocacy Groups and Research Groups Say About Sec. RFK”s Claims About Vaccines Causing Autism?
The Autism Society of America strongly condemned RFK’s claims suggesting that vaccines—or any singular environmental factor—are the sole cause of autism. In a statement, the organization described assertions like RFK Jr.’s promise to “know what has caused the Autism epidemic and eliminate those exposures” as “harmful, misleading, and unrealistic.”
They emphasize that autism is a complex developmental condition shaped by genetic, biological, and environmental factors, and not a disease or contagion that can be “eliminated.” ASA warns that such misleading theories “perpetuate harmful stigma, jeopardize public health, and distract from the critical needs of the Autism community,” including access to care, early intervention, inclusive education, and long-term support.
Some groups, such as the Autism Science Foundation and the Profound Autism Alliance, disagree with Sec. Kennedy’s vaccine claims, but support research into potential causes to better understand risk factors and develop effective treatments, particularly for those with severe autism, while still emphasizing the importance of genetics and avoiding claims about vaccine links.
The increase in autism diagnoses over the past few decades is real but it’s largely driven by changes in how autism is defined, diagnosed, and recognized, rather than a sudden surge in the condition itself. Below are the three primary factors for the spike:
What Do Autism Experts Attribute to the Spike in Autism Cases During the Past 30 Years?
Autism may seem like it has become much more common in recent decades, but the sharp rise in diagnoses is not because more children are suddenly developing autism. Instead, it reflects big changes in how the condition is defined, recognized, and diagnosed. In the early 1980s, autism was narrowly described as “infantile autism,” focusing only on children with the most obvious and severe traits. Many kids with social or developmental differences simply didn’t get an autism label back then—they were often diagnosed with something else, like intellectual disability or a speech disorder.
In the 1990s, doctors and researchers broadened the definition of autism. Conditions like Asperger’s syndrome and PDD-NOS (Pervasive Developmental Disorder–Not Otherwise Specified) were added to what became known as the “autism spectrum.” This meant children with milder symptoms, who might have been overlooked in the past, were now included under the autism umbrella. Naturally, this expansion caused the number of diagnosed cases to climb. Around the same time, schools and pediatricians began screening more carefully, and parents were more aware of autism, which led to even more children being identified.
In 2013, another shift came with the DSM-5, the main medical guide for mental health diagnoses. Instead of separate categories like Asperger’s or PDD-NOS, all were folded into a single diagnosis: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). This reinforced the idea that autism exists on a wide spectrum, with some people needing significant support and others living independently with fewer challenges. Together, these changes in definition, along with greater awareness and earlier screening, explain why the statistics show a surge in autism diagnoses—without there being evidence of a sudden explosion in actual cases.The spike in autism diagnoses reflects better recognition, broader definitions, and shifts in labeling, not an epidemic caused by vaccines or environmental toxins. Multiple large-scale studies—including those from Sweden and the U.S.—show autism prevalence is shaped more by diagnostic practices and awareness than by sudden changes in the underlying condition itself.
1. Broader Diagnostic Criteria
In 1994, the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) expanded the definition of autism to include not just “classic autism” but also conditions like Asperger’s syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorder–Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). This meant that children who previously would not have been labeled autistic suddenly fell under the autism spectrum. The 2013 DSM-5 then consolidated these categories into “Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD),” keeping the broad scope but clarifying the spectrum concept. This widening of the criteria naturally increased the number of diagnoses.
2. Increased Awareness and Screening
Over time, doctors, schools, and parents have become much more aware of autism’s early signs. Pediatricians now routinely screen toddlers at well-child visits, teachers are trained to recognize developmental differences, and parents are more likely to seek evaluation. Earlier and more systematic screening means more children are identified, often at younger ages, than in previous decades, when many were overlooked or misdiagnosed.
3. Shifting Diagnostic Labels
In past decades, children with developmental challenges were often diagnosed with intellectual disability, language disorder, or behavioral issues instead of autism. As awareness grew, many of those children began receiving an autism diagnosis instead. This “diagnostic substitution” effect partly explains the apparent surge — the same children who might once have been classified differently are now labeled as autistic.
- 📘 1943 – Kanner describes autism
First medical description of autism as a distinct condition. - ⚕️ 1960s–70s – Misdiagnosis as schizophrenia
Autism considered rare and often confused with childhood schizophrenia. - 📑 1980 – DSM-III: “Infantile Autism”
First time autism formally appears in the DSM as its own diagnosis. - 📑 1987 – DSM-III-R: Broader criteria
Renamed to Autistic Disorder, widening the definition and increasing prevalence rates. - 📑 1994 – DSM-IV: Asperger’s & PDD-NOS
New categories added, broadening recognition of the autism spectrum. - 🔍 2000’s – Screening & Awareness rise
More screening tools, early interventions, and public awareness drive diagnoses upward. - 📑 2013 – DSM-5: Recognition of Different Severity Levels
Categories consolidated into a single spectrum diagnosis with severity levels.
