RFK Jr. Hires a Vaccine 'Skeptic' To Find the Cause of Autism
A perfect example of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Vaccine "skeptic" David Geier has reportedly been hired by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a data analyst to oversee a new study probing the possible links between vaccinations and autism. This project was presaged in an early March HHS statement: "As President Trump said in his Joint Address to Congress, the rate of autism in American children has skyrocketed. CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] will leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out what exactly is happening. The American people expect high quality research and transparency and that is what CDC is delivering."
High-quality research and transparency are not likely outcomes from a project headed by Geier. Geier and his physician father, Mark, have published in a variety of obscure journal articles claiming that vaccines cause autism. Based on those sketchy publications, they began hiring themselves out as "expert witnesses" in hundreds of vaccine-related lawsuits. Mark Geier was stripped of his medical license by the Maryland Board of Physicians over dosing autistic children with his home-brewed treatments.
The Geiers asserted that their research had found that tiny amounts of ethyl mercury preservative (thimerosal) in some vaccines was the culprit behind the rise in autism diagnoses. Interestingly, thimerosal has never been used in the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine that has most widely been blamed for causing autism. However, excepting seasonal flu vaccines, thimerosal in the U.S. was removed from any other vaccines in 1999. Amusingly, the Geiers took note of that fact and published an article in 2006 claiming that autism rates were subsequently declining. As it happens, the rate of autism diagnoses has increased since then. Evidently tiny amounts of mercury in vaccines has nothing to do with autism.
In any case, the claim that vaccines cause autism has been comprehensively debunked.
"The problem with the Geiers' research is that they start with the answers and work backwards," said Dr. Steven Black, director of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, California, in 2005. "They are doing voodoo science."
By applying his methodology in his new study of the putative relationship between autism and vaccines, Geier will doubtlessly and transparently get the answers that our new secretary of Health and Human Services thinks he already knows.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Personally, I blame public school unions.
(makes as much sense as anything else)
Suddenly more testing is a bad thing?!
I'm filing an up-front ad hominem justified by spurious inferences from a science reporter under "senseless noise better filtered out than received".
Nothing says science like "Do not investigate things in a way I do not 100% support"
HE'S A "SKEPTIC"!!!
THERE'S NO PLACE FOR SKEPTICISM IN SCIENCE!
(Just to head off J(ew)Free and Creamjeff, I am fully vaxxed with everything but the jab boosters. Pertussis, Hep B, Flu, Tetanus, etc.)
It has already been studied, many times. Noting says waste like "Lets put aside legitimate science and spend money on a debunked claim for political reasons."
Ahem, "my mask protects you and your mask protects me."
Masks did help quite a bit.
Lol. Weird that we had the technology to put a man on the moon (or at least film it in a warehouse) and yet, it wasn't until 2020 that people figured out putting an old t-shirt in front of their face would prevent them from getting sick.
No, Molly, they did not. Your surgical and cloth masks were a sick joke (literally) as they breed bacteria and provide absolutely no proper seals to either keep air in or out of the mask. N95s, while NIOSH approved, also cannot provide a proper seal. The only respirators that will work are half face (at a minimum) respirators with HEPA (P100) cartridges. Those can be quantitatively fit tested and fit tested whenever the user dons them. If you’re worried about a virus getting in through the eyes, use a full face respirator or a powered air purifying respirator (PAPR).
The other issue is that millions of people who are not trained in how to use such devices, nor medically cleared to wear them, were suddenly told to wear ones that were neither tested nor certified for the use the authorities were asking them to use the masks for. What could possibly go wrong?
You left out one important item. There was no guidance given on how to clean or dispose of masks once they were used.
So... which study confirmed your assertion that masks actually made people sicker? Or are you just using Joe Rogenesk talking points?
The point of a the mask was to lower the velocity of mist coming from YOU.
Masks worked very well for hospital staff (and they forced the patients to wear them!)
Covid wasn’t carried in mist.
Well, you got the Con part right. Liar, or just stupid?
Much like a chain link fence keeps bugs out
So you put up a false narrative on how masks were intended to work, knock down that narrative, and pat yourself on the back for being so 'wise'. You must be a Trump supporter.
Oh, that was a quick answer to my question above. Just stupid.
Autodefenestrate.
And much of the experimental evidence that proves that good masks work was done by ... NIOSH. Which no longer exists. If you don't like the science because it contradicts your ideology, abolish the agency doing the science.
What is happening to science now is at the level of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
“ Nothing says science like "Do not investigate things in a way I do not 100% support"”
Continuing to investigate something that has been thoroughly investigated and found to be false isn’t science. Vaccines don’t cause autism. It’s not even debatable.
There is a lot of stuff in science that IS debatable, but anyone who thinks that the lack of any link between vaccines and autism is debatable is a blithering idiot with an IQ of about 40 and should be ignored on absolutely everything.
The formulation of vaccines has changed over the the years with zero impact on autism rates. This suggests that vaccines are not the cause of autism.
You mention a link - I think you might mean a correspondence - however even that doesn't follow the evidence.
Alternate timeline: “Wet Market Skeptic” hired to find the origins of COVID
Reason appropriately tut-tuts as they gargle Fauci’s balls while Republicans Pounce at the new school lockdown rules for the ‘25-‘26 fall calendar
‘Russia Skeptic’ touts “disturbing new revelations” in Bobulinski email disinfo dump as Trump Execution date draws near.
Elsewhere, US casualties top 100,000 as tactical nuclear exchange on Eastern Front threatens to go global.
“Biden Skeptic” deplatformed after questioning 100 million vote landslide, lack of public appearances.
Elsewhere, Presidential Committee promises inauguration extravaganza - Biden swearing in to be shown via tape delay from Rehoboth as he is too consumed with signing hundreds of Executive Actions
Remember when Fauci and The Left discounted Rand Paul because he's just an ophthalmologist in an astounding parallel to the way the CCP silenced Li Wenliang, except the CCP wound up tacitly apologizing while Fauci and The Left effectively extorted their own social amnesty?
At this point, the "lessons learned" is: start shooting sooner.
And, as usual, the hilariously irrelevant and idiotic pointlessness of their stance in context.
Fluoride is 100% safe and effective with no downsides but we got rid of it anyway and that's a good thing because we were right about how good and safe it was all along... just like ethyl mercury was 100% safe and effective with now downsides and we got rid of that too and that's a good thing because we were right about how good and safe it was all along... there's no need to look into anything else that we guarantee is 100% safe and effective with no downsides that we no longer recommend or require, which would be a good thing that we would do, because everything we do is invariably 100% safe, effective with no downsides, or good.
They make Joe Isuzu look like Confucius. "Confucius say everything good and effective with mandates and more testing until it's not. Then it's good and effective that we did away with it. You have my word on it."
"The problem with the Geiers' research is that they start with the answers and work backwards,"
But...this is how science generally operates. Little science is purely observational; most of it is experimental, starting with guesses as to answers and testing them.
I agree that's how science operates, but note the vast difference between answers and guesses.
A hypothesis (informed guess) is the model that informs the experiment, which tests the accuracy of the guess. It is only after repeated successes that the hypothesis is accepted as a theory, and therefore becomes an answer.
"Starting with the answer" cuts a great deal of science out of the science.
It is. But badly and well done science both operate that way. So it's not really useful in determining which studies are worth anything.
So the article says nothing useful about this. What it boils down to is the overall path of the evidence, but the article says nothing about that.
Actually most science is observational. Experimental science is mostly used to confirm observations.
The data I have seen indicate that the rise of Autism closely tracks with the increasing age of mothers giving birth. That should be researched and there is a compelling case to be made that this research has been hamstrung by movements- especially in our governments- to see autism as "diverse" not bad.
That said, RFK Jr is a climate-change pushing, ambulance-chasing trial lawyer and people on the right embrace him at their peril. He isn't bringing deregulation of the industry. He is re-regulating it, and we will not be better off for it.
[Tilts hand]
Per your own statements, you aren't going to get to the bottom of autism and birth age, or any other disease and any other cause, with "Persons of any gender giving birth in xeir 40s or other self-identifying non-White, patriarchal symbol in the age spectrum is 100% safe and effective with no downsides equally!" as cultural-scientistic ethos or status quo. And Kennedy is re-regulating under a regime that is telling NIH admins they can keep their job if they move to Alaska.
"And Kennedy is re-regulating under a regime that is telling NIH admins they can keep their job if they move to Alaska."
Is that a feature we should be happy about?
In this case sure. The same people who wanted to require vaccinations for employment.
Is that a feature we should be happy about?
Do you want your answer to your question according to how you choose to spend your dollar (or not) or do you want an answer to a question that you may or may not have asked for the dollar that was taken from you?
I will absolutely be the first person to shove an ambulance-chasing shyster down a flight of stairs for free on your behalf (again, I'm *still* unvaccinated, for COVID, from the point Trump committed to paying for them up front) but until that solution becomes more viable, my $0.02 is on the former.
see autism as "diverse" not bad
It’s a badge of honor now. That little Mormont girl from Game of Thrones that everyone was so enamored with (she’s a boss bitch and she’s a child!) recently explained how “liberating” it was to receive her diagnosis.
Back in my day, anyone “on the spectrum” just got a slap in the back of the head and was told to stop acting weird. In other words, leave the autism to the truly autistic. Now people crave the cachet that comes from being labeled autistic.
In other words, leave the autism to the truly autistic.
Right. For 40 yrs., even into the 90s and 00s it was between Rain Man and Tourette's Syndrome. Then it became a superpower in movies and, for about two actual weeks actual people with actual autism actually started saying "Uh... that's kinda cruelly deceptive." before they were told to sit down and shut up.
"Back in my day, anyone “on the spectrum” just got a slap in the back of the head and was told to stop acting weird."
That is an absolutely awful thing to do to a child with autism and tells me you have zero knowledge about autism.
Way to completely miss the point, Tony.
For someone who actually has serious problems with socialization and human interaction, sure. But I'm not so sure that the diagnosis is actually a good thing for people who would have just been called a little weird 25 years ago. The term "autism" used to be used for people with serious disability, but now includes a lot of people who are perfectly functional. I'm very skeptical about medicalizing people's personality traits like that.
I'm very skeptical about medicalizing people's personality traits like that.
Understanding even ordinary personality traits and how they relate to people's ability to function in society is valuable. It isn't unusual or a pathology to be an introvert, but knowing that I am strongly introverted and the effects of that is valuable to me, my mental health, and my ability to function well in general.
For someone that is autistic, the difference between being considered "a little weird" and being diagnosed as autistic is the difference between not understanding one's own mind and thinking that their problems connecting to other people are a personal failing and weakness, versus gaining the understanding and behavioral tools to be happier and live a better life.
Well stated.
I grew up before autism was invented. And nobody had ever heard of ADHD. There were people who couldn't get their shit together. The rest of us were super healthy.
I’ve read your posts for years. You are demonstrably *not* super healthy.
More testing needed!
Hey Ronnie. Any curiosity why big pharmacy stocks dropped 10% when he removed the prior head responsible for approving vaccines? One of his approvals was already pulled a year after his approval due to high rates of liver failure including at least one death. The guy who fired the safety experts during the Biden regime for delaying approvals.
“ Any curiosity why big pharmacy stocks dropped 10% when he removed the prior head responsible for approving vaccines?”
To start, they didn’t drop 10%. And since the S&P is down over 4% this year, pharmacy stocks would also be down, since it is a market-wide correction. It has nothing to do with vaccines.
It is astonishing to me how broad and deep your ignorance is.
Lol. Yes. Many of them did retard. This was before tariff day.
Why are you such a moron?
You say incorrect things with such conviction though.
Couldn't even be bothered to look when this firing happened it seems. Dumbass.
Apparently my investments were magically immune to your “BigPharma loses 10%” theory. Let me guess, it was only one or two stocks that corrected at 10%, the others mirrored the larger losses in the market since Trump took office. Am I close?
“ Couldn't even be bothered to look when this firing happened it seems. Dumbass.”
Don’t even understand the difference between coincidence, correlation, and causation. Dumbass.
Hint: there has to be a reaction that is connected to the factor you are blaming. Did prices go up 10% when he was hired? Did the pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines all go down more than the ones that don’t? Did the vaccine-producing companies go down more than the larger market (and the pharmaceutical sector as a whole)?
See, these are all questions that would determine if the firing of one obscure bureaucrat actually impacted the share price of vaccine-producing pharmaceutical companies or if it was just a coincidence. I know you don’t have much to work with, but try to use your brain.
...the claim that vaccines cause autism has been comprehensively debunked.
Debunked ain't what it used to be.
I hope that vaccines in general or specific vaccines or a combination of certain vaccines don't cause autism, but I'd like to know if they do.
I also don't know why Reason, which has previously written copiously on perverse incentives, suddenly doesn't see the possibility of any where pharmaceutical companies and government vaccination schedules are concerned.
"I'd like to know if they do."
They don't. And you are free to look up the massive piles of studies that show that.
She said without evidence.
Other than the many, many studies into the question that have shown that they don’t? There are none so blind …
I hope that vaccines in general or specific vaccines or a combination of certain vaccines don't cause autism, but I'd like to know if they do.
I assume that you aren't going to be conducting the scientific research into this question yourself. If that is true, then there is a way for you to find out. You could read the published articles describing the research into this question yourself.
Now, it takes a fair amount of specific domain background knowledge to follow jargon-heavy scientific papers, and those papers assume a high-level of background knowledge and won't explain things at a level the layperson would easily understand.
There are a bunch of YouTube videos where experts explain something in their field at multiple levels of difficulty or understanding. (Elementary aged-child, HS student, college undergrad, grad student, and someone expert in the same area or a closely-related field is the common setup.) Those are interesting to watch as you can see how difficult it can be to explain complex problems to non-experts.
Example on black holes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsMIT25iPXk
Now, if you don't have the time or don't want to spend the time to read the original research yourself, you could find summaries of the research written by experts in the field for a general audience, but then you'd be introducing a source of possible bias, as you'd be relying on that expert to be accurate, honest, and thorough. If you don't go to the original research that your chosen authority is using to make their case, then you won't be able to easily tell whether that authority is correct.
Given the difficulty and time investment of even trying to judge the reliability of an individual authority that one might turn to in place of "doing your own research", let alone actually doing your own research, how are we to find an answer to our questions about science that we can rely on?
I leave that question open for now, to see what people think is the best way to deal with this.
Damn. I may copy this and paste it every time some Trumpkin tries to throw shade at a reliable source. It is one of their favorite tactics, and this is an excellent rebuttal.
"but I'd like to know if they do.”
They don’t.
"I'd like to know if they do."
They don't. There is no question about that. There is nothing that that has been a greater waste of money in medical research than the too many studies investigating the non-existent link between vaccines and autism. And the original "research" that claimed to show a link was fradulent. But MAGAs love fraudsters and not just Trump. The guy who first claimed that hydroxychloroquine was a successful treatment for COVID has also been credibly accused of fraud.
"The problem with the Geiers' research is that they start with the answers and work backwards," said Dr. Steven Black, director of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, California, in 2005. "They are doing voodoo science."
The better term is cargo-cult science.
Nothing has been "debunked" except the debunking.
That is not even remotely true. If a hypothesis is false, it is common to have the data clearly show that. Scientific history is full of false ideas that have been completely debunked.
Which is the higher standard, debunking or fact checking?
Cut HHS, we are broke.
The US is the richest country in the world. We are not "broke".
I am not broke. You may not be broke...but the USA federal government is, indeed, broke.
Why are you so consistently weapons grade retarded?
I am not broke. You may not be broke...but the USA federal government is, indeed, broke.
"Broke" is not at all a precise enough term for debating whether the federal government is or isn't "broke". If we aren't more specific than "broke", then there is no way to have a rational discussion about it.
123% debt to gdp, says otherwise.
Let's just let the old regime determine if masks work, vaccine mandates are effective, or two-week perma-lockdowns are scientifical.
"We don't know what caused this spike in autism...but it's DEFINITELY not vaccines."
-Retarded bureaucrats in Washington
The whatabouters in full deflect mode, I see
If RFK jr, that worm-riddled moron, appoints clowns like this to investigate a non-existent vaccine/autism link, it is only to be expected from the regime.
I mean they appointed the genius "more testing" Ron to write this article and now he's against more testing either right or wrong.
More testing on a subject that has been studied deeply and reached a definitive conclusion isn’t science. It’s just a colossal waste of money.
Like masking? Over 100 years of research retard.
That’s an awfully broad category, masking. Are you referring to bacteriological or viral illnesses? All pulmonary diseases, or are you including other types of infections. Is it spread through aerosolized particles or droplets? Is the mask cloth, surgical, or more? In studies, all these things are relevant.
If you are referring to the masking requirements during the COVID pandemic, it’s pretty obvious that unless it was a higher-grade mask, worn correctly, it was anything from ineffective to completely useless. But I did love the nicknames given to all the wrong ways people wore masks. “The Amish Beard” was my favorite.
Nice to see so called Libertarian commenters promoting the worst waste of money in the history of HHS.
what if the dude finds the cause of autism?
That would be awesome. Do we have any reason to think that is likely, though? Or is it more likely that it will be a colossal waste of time and money and set back public confidence in modern medicine on top of that?
set back public confidence in modern medicine
Get a load of the guy born after 2020!
unlikely and colossal waste but my point was:
Bailey: A perfect example of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Me: maybe rethink "perfect", Ron.
I don’t know. It doesn’t get more clear-cut than investigating the link between vaccines and autism. Maybe studying if bacteria cause infections would be equally wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive, but the answer is equally well known.
Perhaps we should fund research into perpetual motion machines as well...sheesh
Bailey, are you saying a vaccine skeptic isn't trustworthy because he's presupposed to finding a link between vaccines and autism - but someone who is 'pro-vaccine' would *not* be presupposed to ignore evidence of such a link?
And no, you're not going to find someone who is perfectly agnostic on the issue either.
You are asking that question as if it is only how the difference between someone that is a "vaccine skeptic" or "pro-vaccine" is just a matter of which side they chose. Instead, you should be looking into why they chose those sides. If one person chooses a side based on a rational analysis of all of the evidence, then their biases would be minimal. If one chooses a side out of a general distrust of "experts" or a desire to be the "maverick" that bucks the "consensus", then that person's biases will undoubtedly distort their analysis.
JasonT20. The asshole who is totally in favor of shooting unarmed protestors in the neck. Always remember people with no moral values except their side.
"RFK Jr. Hires a Vaccine 'Skeptic' To Find the Cause of Autism
A perfect example of waste, fraud, and abuse."
The entire HHS is a perfect example of waste, fraud and abuse.
HHS, meet DOGE. DOGE, meet HHS.
"The problem with the Geiers' research is that they start with the answers and work backwards," said Dr. Steven Black
Also known as The Science.
"Mark Geier was stripped of his medical license by the Maryland Board of Physicians"
It used to be that a libertarian publication would at least give some lip service to the dismantling of government professional licensing. The fact that he lost his government medical license means nothing to this Libertarian, and on a day when I'm feeling extra contrary, I consider it a badge of honor that he lost his government license.
The fact that he lost his government medical license means nothing to this Libertarian, and on a day when I'm feeling extra contrary, I consider it a badge of honor that he lost his government license.
Does that mean that you'd trust him to be your doctor more than you would someone that still has a valid medical license?
No, actually it's the other way around. What it means is that just because someone has a government "license", I don't trust them any more than someone who doesn't. That piece of paper means nothing to me, and I would use other criteria to decide whether or not someone would be my doctor. I don't know if the person in question is a good doctor or not; that wasn't the point of my original comment.
...I would use other criteria to decide whether or not someone would be my doctor.
Like what?
What it means is that just because someone has a government "license", I don't trust them any more than someone who doesn't.
But that isn't what you said. You said that you consider it a "badge of honor that he lost his government license" if you were "feeling extra contrary."
Sounds like being "contrary" is the point more than finding a reliable way to evaluate a doctor's skill and knowledge.
What IS it with you stockholm kids and your persistent belief that Reason is a libertarian publication?
They're CLEARLY marxist.
FPS, you're like the teenagers who didn't know how to cancel their Columbia House subscriptions.
You have an awfully broad definition of “Marxist” if it includes unabashed capitalists.
It doesn't. You have an awfully broad definition of "unabashed capitalists" if it includes Reason . com.
I predict they find at minimum it is 50% psych/ widening the definition of what is diagnosed as autism.
Got anxiety and don't want to take risks? You may have autism.
When this described me, I learned that If I didn't do that part of my job, I'd be out the door starving. Nowadays, I think you get a disability check.
BTW , they just did a DOGE again. RFK Jr fired a bunch of people, only to realize... "they were responsible for doing what ? Quick, get them back !!! "
You can’t make this level of incompetence up, no one would believe it. The truth really is stranger than fiction.
Dear Ronald Bailey,
I suppose that your believe that hiring a pro-vaccine person will expose any issues with vaccines better than someone who suspect there are issues with vaccines? Or perhaps the entire notion of reform should be scuttled in favor of the existing bloated ineffectual bureaucracy that we already have in your mind?