Welcome to a slightly unconventional post for a site dedicated to the whimsical world of enamel pins! You might be wondering what a detailed analysis of a political interview is doing amidst a collection of playful pins. The answer lies in the very ethos that drives my passion for both these seemingly unrelated subjects. I operate this business not just to create and sell enamel pins that tickle your funny bone but also to explore and express what excites me in life. While the art of designing pins allows me to channel my love for comedy and creativity, I also find myself deeply passionate about United States politics, misinformation, skepticism, and the pursuit of knowledge. The interview between Joe Rogan and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. struck a chord with me, and I felt compelled to delve into the claims made therein. Though it may seem out of place on a website that typically deals with humorous and artistic expressions, this analysis aligns with my broader interests and values. After all, the pursuit of truth and understanding isn't confined to any single domain. It transcends boundaries, just like the vibrant array of pins that you find here.
So, while you enjoy browsing through the unique enamel pins that might add a spark to your attire, I invite you to take a moment and explore this detailed analysis. Whether or not you're late to the party, I hope you find the information and insights both engaging and enlightening.
The Problem With Debates
In the vast landscape of public discourse, debates have always held a position of prominence. However, the efficacy of such debates, especially when one participant delivers an overwhelming number of claims in a limited timeframe, remains a matter of scrutiny. This examination of the conversation between Joe Rogan and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. isn't centered on steering opinions in the contentious vaccine-autism debate. Instead, it aims to underscore the inherent challenges of confronting, and consequently discussing, a multitude of claims in a live format. By analyzing the veracity, frequency, and context of the assertions made during this interview, we hope to illuminate why real-time debates with individuals such as RFK Jr. can be particularly daunting, irrespective of one's stance on the subject matter.
The Rationale Behind My Delayed Analysis
It is noteworthy to mention that this assessment comes several months after the podcast's initial broadcast. This delay is not without reason. The meticulous process of dissecting the entirety of the conversation, cross-referencing each claim with established sources, and understanding its broader context demanded an investment of over 40 hours.
Following my acknowledgment of the delay in presenting this analysis, it is essential to elucidate the meticulous process I adhered to, ensuring thoroughness and accuracy.
Analytical Process:
- Transcription Creation: The initial step was to transcribe the entire interview to obtain a written record of the conversation.
- Segmentation of the Transcript: Subsequently, the transcription was segmented into more manageable sections, suitable for analysis via ChatGPT. Determining the optimal segment length was pivotal; overly extensive sections risked the omission of certain claims, while exceedingly abbreviated sections potentially misinterpreted the overarching context.
- Preliminary Analysis: Upon feeding the segmented transcript into ChatGPT, the system was tasked with identifying and summarizing each claim posited by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This initial assessment yielded a total of 302 claims.
- Refinement of Claims: To eliminate redundancy, the list of 302 claims was processed further using ChatGPT, which culled duplicate statements, leaving a total of 220 distinct claims.
- Detailed Examination: Each of these 220 claims underwent individual scrutiny. With the aid of tools like KeyMate, NextPaper, and the Bing plugin, ChatGPT was tasked with fact-checking and providing a more comprehensive context for each statement. In this phase, further duplicate claims which had previously evaded detection were removed, as were claims that did not pertain to the domains of science or medicine. The resultant refined list contained 199 claims.
- Classification of Claims: The final step involved categorizing each of the 199 claims. They were classified as: True, Partially True, False, Misleading, or Unverified, based on their veracity and alignment with established scientific and medical knowledge.
By outlining the analytical process, I hope to convey the depth of investigation and the meticulous methodology adopted in this endeavor.
The challenge of confronting someone of RFK Jr.’s rhetorical caliber in a live setting cannot be overstated. The frequency and speed with which he introduces new statements are indeed formidable. With a claim presented approximately every 43 seconds, and a substantial portion of them appearing to diverge from conventional understanding, it is clear that a real-time counter or clarification becomes nearly impossible.
This observation is not an indictment of Mr. Kennedy but rather an insight into the complexities involved in such dialogues. The ability to articulate numerous claims within a confined time frame can certainly be seen as a skill, particularly in a live debate setting. However, this rapid-fire delivery poses inherent challenges for both the interlocutor and the audience. The necessity to immediately grasp, analyze, and respond to each claim could lead to superficial engagement, reducing the opportunity to probe the nuances and veracity of the statements.
A live format may be more accessible and engaging to the broader public, but it may not always be the most conducive to deep understanding. The constrained nature of real-time discussions can inadvertently foster a breeding ground for misconceptions and generalizations. In contrast, in-depth, written analyses, such as the one presented here, allow for reflection and thorough investigation. Such an approach affords the time to dissect each claim methodically, cross-reference with established sources, and comprehend the broader context. This methodological evaluation promotes a more transparent and rigorous exploration, better suited for subjects of this complexity and importance.
Joe Rogan and the Historical Context of the Vaccine Debate
For many, Joe Rogan's platform may have served as an introduction to the longstanding vaccine debate. In a world where information is continually flowing, new audiences are often exposed to recurring discussions. Rogan's interview with RFK Jr. provides a notable entry point into this particular discourse. While this is a commendable way to engage people who might be unfamiliar with the topic, it's essential to understand that the assertions made during the interview are not particularly novel. The vaccine discussion has evolved over several decades, with a rich history of exploration, debate, and investigation.
Mr. Kennedy's eloquence and ability to cite specifics certainly add weight to his statements. His polished oration and mastery of detail can be highly persuasive, particularly to those newly acquainted with the subject. These qualities might appear to lend credibility to his claims, painting a coherent narrative that aligns with his standpoint. The allure of a well-articulated argument is undeniable, especially when delivered by a seasoned speaker such as Kennedy.
However, it's crucial to discern the difference between legal and scientific discourses. While courtroom debates might focus on the efficacy of the argument itself, employing rhetorical techniques and persuasive narratives, scientific discussions operate on a different plane. Science relies on empirical evidence, rigorous peer reviews, and established methodologies. It seeks to transcend the captivating allure of individual arguments, prioritizing data, reproducibility, and consistency over personal charisma and persuasive narratives.
The former approach can captivate an audience, influencing opinions and creating strong impressions. It is a method well-suited to legal battles and public oration. But when making decisions of societal importance, particularly those pertaining to health and well-being, the latter must be prioritized. Decisions rooted in science necessitate a meticulous evaluation of facts, a willingness to adjust opinions based on new evidence, and a commitment to the principles that govern scientific inquiry. It's a complex process that cannot be encapsulated in the brief exchanges of a live debate but rather requires thoughtful analysis and reflection.
Quantifying the Conversation: A Fact-Check Analysis of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Claims
Engaging with a complex and multifaceted issue like the vaccine debate requires not only an understanding of the content but also a grasp of the sheer volume and nature of the claims being made. In Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s interview with Joe Rogan, the conversation was marked by an extensive series of assertions. This section will outline the general numbers from the analysis, including the time elapsed between the first and last claim, the total number of claims made, the ratios of claims per minute, and the percentage breakdown of False/Misleading claims, True/Partially True claims, and Unverified claims. By quantifying these elements, we can begin to appreciate the density and diversity of the information presented, setting the stage for a more detailed exploration of the individual claims and their context.
The Numbers:
The first claim fact-checked in this analysis occurred around 8 minutes and 29 seconds. The last claim fact-checked occurred around 2 hours, 29 minutes, and 38 seconds. The amount of time between the first and last claim is 2 hours, 21 minutes, and 9 seconds.
Step 3 of the analysis yielded 302 claims made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
302 Total Claims
Dividing the amount of time between the first and last claim by the total amount of claims, that is 1 claim every 28 seconds. Correcting or providing more context is impossible when claims are being made every 28 seconds. [Note: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was not talking for the entire duration. So, the claims per minute ratio is actually higher.]
2 Claims per Minute
Step 5 of the analysis yielded 199 unique claims.
199 Unique Claims
Fact-checking the unique claims produced 78 false, 49 misleading, 44 true, 8 partially true, and 20 unverified claims. At 127 false or misleading claims, that’s about 1 incorrect statement every minute.
1 False or Misleading Claim per Minute
The Facts:
Claim: He claims that trust in experts is not a function of science, suggesting that it's associated more with religion or totalitarianism.
Fact-Check: Misleading “Experts, who have extensive training and experience in their fields, can provide valuable insights and interpretations of scientific data. Trusting experts is not about blind faith, but about recognizing the value of their expertise.”
Context: The statement that "trust in experts is not a function of science" seems to be a critique of the idea that one should accept scientific conclusions purely on the basis of authority. In science, conclusions are ideally based on evidence and the scientific method, not on the authority of the person making the claim. This is a fundamental principle of scientific skepticism, which encourages questioning and seeking evidence.
However, it's also important to recognize that science is a complex field, and not everyone has the training or expertise to fully understand or evaluate all scientific research. Experts, who have extensive training and experience in their fields, can provide valuable insights and interpretations of scientific data. Trusting experts is not about blind faith, but about recognizing the value of their expertise.
The comparison to religion or totalitarianism seems to be a critique of blind faith or unquestioning acceptance of authority. In religion, followers often accept the teachings of religious leaders based on faith. In totalitarian regimes, citizens may be required to accept the statements of leaders without question. These are very different from the scientific process, which encourages questioning, testing, and evidence-based conclusions.
It's also worth noting that trust in experts is not incompatible with scientific skepticism. One can recognize the value of expert opinion while also understanding that science is a process of continual questioning and testing. Experts can be wrong, and part of the scientific process is the continual re-evaluation and testing of scientific theories and conclusions.
Claim: He cites his experience in litigation for 40 years, claiming that there are always experts on both sides in every case. He uses the example of a Monsanto case, stating that both sides had experts from prestigious institutions (Yale, Stanford, and Harvard), yet they gave completely different testimonies.
Fact-Check: Misleading “While Kennedy's experience in litigation gives him insight into how experts can present different interpretations of evidence in a court case, this is not directly comparable to how scientific debates are conducted or how scientific consensus is reached.”
Context: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s comparison of the legal process to scientific debates is interesting, but it's important to understand the key differences between these two domains.
In a court case, both sides hire experts to present the best possible interpretation of the evidence in favor of their respective positions. These experts are not necessarily seeking an objective truth, but rather are advocating for a particular interpretation of the evidence that supports the side that has hired them. This adversarial system is designed to ensure that all relevant perspectives are considered, and it's ultimately up to the judge or jury to weigh the evidence and decide which interpretation is most convincing.
In contrast, the scientific process is not inherently adversarial. Scientists conduct research to test hypotheses and seek to understand the natural world. While scientists may have different interpretations of data and may debate these interpretations, the goal is not to "win" an argument, but to arrive at the most accurate understanding possible based on the available evidence. Scientific debates are resolved through further research and the accumulation of evidence, not by a judge or jury.
When it comes to the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, based on extensive research and evidence, is that vaccines are safe and effective. While there may be individual experts who disagree, their views do not represent the consensus. In science, the weight of evidence matters more than the number of experts on each side.
It's also worth noting that the scientific consensus on vaccines is not based on expert opinion alone, but on a large body of evidence from many different studies and researchers. This includes numerous large-scale studies that have found no link between vaccines and autism.
In conclusion, while Kennedy's experience in litigation gives him insight into how experts can present different interpretations of evidence in a court case, this is not directly comparable to how scientific debates are conducted or how scientific consensus is reached.
Claim: He claims that Wi-Fi radiation can be debilitating for some extremely sensitive individuals.
Fact-Check: False "The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well-controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure”
Context: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s claim that Wi-Fi radiation can be debilitating for some extremely sensitive individuals is related to a condition known as Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS). EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to electromagnetic fields. The symptoms most commonly experienced include dermatological symptoms (redness, tingling, and burning sensations) as well as neurasthenic and vegetative symptoms (fatigue, tiredness, concentration difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation, and digestive disturbances) [^1^].
However, it's important to note that EHS is not a recognized medical diagnosis. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well-controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure [^1^].
While the symptoms experienced by these individuals are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity, the cause of these symptoms is not clear. It's suggested that symptoms experienced by some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF, such as poor indoor air quality or stress in the workplace or living environment. There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself [^1^].
[^1^]: (source: [World Health Organization](https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity))
Claim: He refers to a study from the Cleveland Clinic, which, according to his reading of the abstract, suggests that the protection from a COVID-19 vaccine wanes precipitously and transitions into negative efficacy after seven months.
Fact-Check: False “The study does not suggest that the protection from a COVID-19 vaccine wanes precipitously and transitions into negative efficacy after seven months.”
Context: I found a study from the Cleveland Clinic that might be the one Robert F Kennedy Jr. is referring to. However, it's important to note that the interpretation of scientific studies can be complex and requires a thorough understanding of the methodology and context.
The study, titled "SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans", was published in the journal "Nature" in June 2023. The study found that individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 had a robust antibody response after the initial infection, and these antibodies were still present and active up to 7 months later. The study did not directly address the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, but rather the natural immunity developed after an infection.
The study does not suggest that the protection from a COVID-19 vaccine wanes precipitously and transitions into negative efficacy after seven months. It's crucial to understand that the presence of antibodies is just one aspect of the immune response, and it does not directly translate to immunity or protection against the disease. The immune system has multiple layers of defense, including T cells and B cells, which can provide protection even when antibody levels decrease.
For accurate information about the duration of protection from COVID-19 vaccines, it's best to refer to the latest guidance from reputable health organizations like the CDC or WHO, or consult with a healthcare professional.
Here is the link to the study for your reference: [SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-04398-4) [^1^].
[^1^]: Turner, J. S., Kim, W., Kalaidina, E., Goss, C. W., Rauseo, A. M., Schmitz, A. J., Hansen, L., Haile, A., Klebert, M. K., Pusic, I., O'Halloran, J. A., Presti, R. M., Ellebedy, A. H. (2023). SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-04398-4
Claim: He says the study indicates that the most vaccinated people have a 3.5 times higher risk of illness than those who are unvaccinated.
Fact-Check: False “The researchers of the study did not find that more doses caused a higher risk of infection..”
Context: The claim that the most vaccinated people have a 3.5 times higher risk of illness than those who are unvaccinated is not supported by the Cleveland Clinic study. According to the [study](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1), the risk of COVID-19 increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received. However, in multivariable analysis, the vaccinated state was independently associated with a lower risk of COVID-19, leading to an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 30%. The study found that compared to last exposure to SARS-CoV-2 within 90 days, last exposure 9-12 months previously was associated with 3.5 times the risk. This does not mean that vaccination increases the risk of illness, but rather that the risk of COVID-19 increases as immunity wanes over time, whether from vaccination or previous infection.
A [FactCheck.org article](https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/scicheck-cleveland-clinic-study-did-not-show-vaccines-increase-covid-19-risk/) also addresses this claim, stating that the researchers of the study did not find that more doses caused a higher risk of infection. Instead, this finding was an association that could be due to multiple other factors. The article also quotes experts who doubt that the vaccines increased infection risk.
In conclusion, the claim that the most vaccinated people have a 3.5 times higher risk of illness than those who are unvaccinated is not supported by the available scientific evidence.
Claim: According to Kennedy, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine had to be discredited as effective treatments for COVID-19 in order to continue the emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccines.
Fact-Check: False “There is nothing in federal law or regulation that prohibits a preventative measure such as a vaccine from being authorized for emergency use because a treatment is available.”
Context: Robert F Kennedy Jr.'s claim that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine had to be discredited as effective treatments for COVID-19 in order to continue the emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccines is not supported by the evidence.
Firstly, the effectiveness of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as treatments for COVID-19 is not established. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use of either hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Some reports from other countries suggested that ivermectin seemed to improve outcomes for COVID-19 patients, but these were not scientific studies. Multiple studies published on ivermectin have been subsequently retracted when they were found to be based on falsified data or errors in analysis. Adequate clinical trials have not been done to prove ivermectin is effective to treat or prevent COVID-19. There is not enough evidence to recommend ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment at this time. Clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin as a COVID treatment are ongoing[^1^].
Secondly, there is nothing in federal law or regulation that prohibits a preventative measure such as a vaccine from being authorized for emergency use because a treatment is available, according to experts and officials. The body of scientific evidence available has not proven that ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine are effective in treating COVID-19[^2^].
In conclusion, the claim that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were suppressed to allow for the emergency use authorization of COVID-19 vaccines is not supported by the available evidence.
[^1^]: [SCDHEC](https://scdhec.gov/covid19/dangers-using-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-preventing-or-treating-covid-19) [^2^]: [AP News](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccines-emergency-use-873264912929)
Claim: He claims that studies were intentionally designed to fail, particularly by administering lethal doses of Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
Fact-Check: False “The claim that COVID-19 studies were intentionally designed to fail by administering lethal doses of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine is a serious one, but there is no credible evidence to support this assertion.”
Context: The claim that COVID-19 studies were intentionally designed to fail by administering lethal doses of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine is a serious one, but there is no credible evidence to support this assertion.
Clinical trials are designed with the safety of participants as a paramount concern. They are conducted under rigorous ethical guidelines and are overseen by ethics committees or institutional review boards, which are tasked with ensuring that the studies are conducted ethically and that the rights and welfare of participants are protected.
In the case of ivermectin, a Cochrane review of studies found that the evidence on the efficacy and safety of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 is currently very low to low certainty. The review did not mention any studies administering lethal doses of ivermectin[^1^].
Similarly, a report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism discusses the history of hydroxychloroquine use during the pandemic and the various studies conducted. It does not mention any studies intentionally administering lethal doses of the drug[^2^].
It's important to note that the doses used in clinical trials are based on pre-existing knowledge about the drug, including its pharmacokinetics (how the body processes the drug) and pharmacodynamics (how the drug affects the body), as well as any available data from preclinical studies. Any adverse events or side effects observed during the trial are closely monitored and the trial can be halted if safety concerns arise.
In conclusion, while it's true that not all studies are perfect and some may have design flaws, the claim that studies were intentionally designed to fail by administering lethal doses of these drugs is not supported by the available evidence.
[^1^]: [PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406455/) [^2^]: [Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism](https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/hydroxychloroquine-australia-cautionary-tale-journalists-and-scientists)
Claim: Kennedy mentions that researchers in Brazil were charged with homicide related to such studies.
Fact-Check: False “A Brazilian congressional panel recommended that President Bolsonaro be charged with "crimes against humanity.” However, this situation is not related to the administration of lethal doses of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in clinical trials. There is no credible evidence or reports suggesting that researchers in Brazil were charged with homicide for administering lethal doses of these drugs in COVID-19 studies."
Context: There have been serious allegations and investigations related to the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. However, these are primarily directed towards President Jair Bolsonaro and his government, not researchers conducting studies on COVID-19 treatments.
A Brazilian congressional panel recommended that President Bolsonaro be charged with "crimes against humanity," asserting that he intentionally let the coronavirus spread through the country in a failed bid to achieve herd immunity. The report from the panel's investigation also recommends criminal charges against 69 other people, including three of Mr. Bolsonaro's sons and numerous current and former government officials[^1^].
However, this situation is not related to the administration of lethal doses of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in clinical trials. There is no credible evidence or reports suggesting that researchers in Brazil were charged with homicide for administering lethal doses of these drugs in COVID-19 studies.
It's important to note that allegations of such serious misconduct in clinical trials would be a major scandal in the scientific community and would likely be widely reported in the media. The absence of such reports suggests that these allegations are unfounded.
[^1^]: [The New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/world/americas/bolsonaro-covid-19-brazil.html) Simpsonwood
Claim: A secret meeting known as the Simpsonwood meeting was held at midnight in 1999 or 2000.
Fact-Check: False “The claim that the meeting was "secret" and held at "midnight" is not accurate. The meeting was not public, but it was not secret either.”
Context: The claim refers to a meeting that took place in June 2000, known as the "Simpsonwood Conference." This was a gathering of health experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and other organizations, as well as representatives from the vaccine industry. The meeting was held at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Norcross, Georgia, which is how it got its name.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a preliminary study that suggested a possible link between thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in some vaccines, and neurodevelopmental disorders in children. The study was later published in 2003.
However, the claim that the meeting was "secret" and held at "midnight" is not accurate. The meeting was not public, but it was not secret either. The transcript of the meeting was made available to the public and can be found on the CDC's website. The meeting took place over two days, not at midnight.
Here is the link to the transcript of the meeting for further reading: [Transcript of the Simpsonwood Conference](https://archive.org/stream/TheSimpsonwoodDocuments/The-Simpsonwood-Documents_djvu.txt)
Please consult with healthcare professionals or trusted sources for the most current and accurate information.
Claim: He claims they spent the second day discussing how to conceal the study's findings.
Fact-Check: False “The claim that the second day of the Simpsonwood Conference was spent discussing how to conceal the study's findings is not supported by the available evidence, and the allegations of a cover-up have been refuted by a Senate Committee and other sources.”
Context: The claim that the second day of the Simpsonwood Conference was spent discussing how to conceal the study's findings is not supported by the available evidence. The conference's transcript reveals that the meeting was primarily focused on the presentation of findings, discussion of the study, and planning next steps to investigate the issue further.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions rejected allegations of impropriety against the CDC and the lead researcher, Thomas Verstraeten. The Committee found that instead of hiding the data, the CDC distributed it and solicited outside opinions on how to interpret it. The transcript of these discussions was made publicly available.
Furthermore, Salon.com, which published Kennedy's article, later retracted it in January 2011, stating that criticisms of the article and flaws in the science connecting autism and vaccines undermined its value. The publisher corrected the article on five occasions before retracting it entirely.
In conclusion, the claim that the second day of the Simpsonwood Conference was spent discussing how to conceal the study's findings is not supported by the available evidence, and the allegations of a cover-up have been refuted by a Senate Committee and other sources.
- [Wikipedia - 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Simpsonwood_CDC_conference) - [Salon.com - Correcting our record](https://www.salon.com/2011/01/16/dangerous_immunity/)
Claim: He asserts that the Spanish Flu was not a virus.
Fact-Check: False The claim that the Spanish Flu was not a virus is incorrect. The Spanish Flu, which caused a devastating pandemic in 1918-1919, was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin. This is well-established in the scientific community.
Context: The claim that the Spanish Flu was not a virus is incorrect. The Spanish Flu, which caused a devastating pandemic in 1918-1919, was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin. This is well-established in the scientific community.
The Spanish Flu was one of the most severe pandemics in recent history. It is estimated that about one third of the world's population became infected with this virus, resulting in at least 50 million deaths worldwide, with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.
While it's true that the virus was not identified at the time of the pandemic (the first human influenza virus was not isolated until 1933), subsequent research, including analysis of preserved samples from infected soldiers and victims, has confirmed that the Spanish Flu was caused by an H1N1 influenza A virus.
For more information, you can refer to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) page on the 1918 pandemic (H1N1 virus): [1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus) | Pandemic Influenza (Flu) | CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html)
Claim: Kennedy claims that there is strong evidence (though not definitive) that the Spanish Flu was vaccine-induced.
Fact-Check: False “This claim has been debunked by experts. According to a fact-check by Reuters, a meningitis vaccine trial did take place at Fort Riley in early 1918, before the first cases of Spanish Flu were reported at Camp Funston at Fort Riley in March 1918². However, experts contacted by Reuters said that a meningitis vaccine could not have caused a flu pandemic.”
Context: There is a claim that the Spanish Flu pandemic originated from a meningitis vaccine trial at a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas². However, this claim has been debunked by experts. According to a fact-check by Reuters, a meningitis vaccine trial did take place at Fort Riley in early 1918, before the first cases of Spanish Flu were reported at Camp Funston at Fort Riley in March 1918². However, experts contacted by Reuters said that a meningitis vaccine could not have caused a flu pandemic. The H1N1 virus that caused the 1918 flu has been identified and replicated by scientists. The meningitis vaccine was designed to tackle a specific bacteria (meningococcus) and a completely different disease². Dr. Donald Burke, an epidemiologist and former dean of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, told Reuters that "there would be no way that a meningitis vaccine could contribute to starting a flu epidemic" and that "Meningitis is a different disease, caused by a type of bacteria. It is not genetically or closely related to influenza"².
(1) Fact Check-A meningitis vaccine trial at a U.S. military camp did not .... https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-spanishflu-vaccines-idUSL1N2M62BG. (2) Does the senior flu vaccine present a higher chance of worsening irregular heartbeat for patients that already have it?. https://microsoftstart.msn.com/en-us/health/ask-professionals/expert-answers-on-flu/hp-flu?questionid=xhn4x72u&type=condition&source=bingmainline_conditionqna. (3) The Spanish Influenza of 1918 in Kansas - Fort Hays State University. https://at.fhsu.edu/the-spanish-influenza-of-1918-in-kansas. (4) THE 1918 “SPANISH FLU”: ONLY THE VACCINATED DIED. https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/08/13/the-1918-spanish-flu-only-the-vaccinated-died/. (5) undefined. https://microsoftstart.msn.com/$$$/health/expert-community/Manju-Narayani/hp-1632626.
Claim: According to Kennedy, toxicologists and vaccinologists have a strained relationship because the former question the fate of these toxic adjuvants in the body, which the latter cannot or do not want to answer.
Fact-Check: False Both toxicologists and vaccinologists are involved in the process of ensuring the safety and efficacy of vaccines, including those that contain adjuvants.
Context: The claim that toxicologists and vaccinologists have a strained relationship over the fate of adjuvants in the body is not supported by the available evidence. Both toxicologists and vaccinologists are involved in the process of ensuring the safety and efficacy of vaccines, including those that contain adjuvants.
Toxicologists study the safety and biological effects of drugs, chemicals, agents, and other substances on living organisms. They play a crucial role in determining the safety of substances used in vaccines, including adjuvants.
Vaccinologists, on the other hand, are involved in the development and deployment of vaccines. They work to understand how to stimulate the immune system to protect against specific diseases, and this includes the use of adjuvants.
Both fields are crucial to the development and safety of vaccines. While there may be debates and discussions within and between these fields, this is a normal part of the scientific process. It does not necessarily indicate a "strained relationship."
Here are some sources that provide more information on the role of toxicologists and vaccinologists in vaccine development:
1. [An Overview of Vaccine Adjuvants: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives](https://ln.keymate.ai/PWtQlx): This scientific article discusses the role of adjuvants in vaccines and the ongoing research to develop new and more effective adjuvants.
2. [Aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines versus placebo or no ...](https://ln.keymate.ai/P8GAS3): This source discusses the use of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines and the ongoing research to understand their benefits and potential harms.
It's important to note that the safety of vaccines, including those that contain adjuvants, is carefully tested and monitored. This involves the work of both toxicologists and vaccinologists, among others.
Claim: According to Kennedy, vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, and none of the 72 vaccines has ever been tested pre-licensing in a placebo-controlled trial comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and looking at health outcomes.
Fact-Check: False vaccines are subject to extensive pre-licensing safety testing, including placebo-controlled trials when appropriate. The claim that vaccines are exempt from these processes is not supported by the evidence.
Context: The claim that vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing and that none of the 72 vaccines has ever been tested pre-licensing in a placebo-controlled trial comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids is not accurate. Here's the information to fact-check this claim:
1. **Pre-Licensing Safety Testing**: Vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing before they are licensed or authorized. This includes laboratory testing, followed by clinical trials with human volunteers. These trials can include thousands of volunteers and take several years to complete. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates the vaccine's safety and effectiveness throughout this process, and all safety concerns must be addressed before the vaccine is licensed or authorized. Every batch of vaccines is also tested for quality and safety once approved or authorized [HHS.gov](https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/safety/index.html).
2. **Placebo-Controlled Trials**: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials are widely considered the gold standard for evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new vaccine. In these trials, participants are randomized to receive either the vaccine under investigation or a placebo (an inert substance, such as a saline injection). This design controls for confounding effects, allowing researchers to attribute significant differences in disease incidence or adverse effects between the vaccine and control groups to the vaccine. Ethical considerations can arise in trial design, particularly around the use of a placebo control arm when an efficacious vaccine already exists. However, there are situations where placebo controls may be acceptable, and guidelines exist to navigate these ethical considerations [NCBI](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157320/).
In summary, vaccines are subject to extensive pre-licensing safety testing, including placebo-controlled trials when appropriate. The claim that vaccines are exempt from these processes is not supported by the evidence.
Claim: Kennedy alleges he asked Fauci during a meeting to provide a single study that shows a vaccine has been tested in a placebo-controlled trial prior to licensure. According to Kennedy, Fauci could not provide such a study.
Fact-Check: False See the 20+ examples in the Context section of this Fact-Check.
Context: The claim made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that he asked Dr. Anthony Fauci to provide a single study showing a vaccine has been tested in a placebo-controlled trial prior to licensure, and that Fauci could not provide such a study, is not directly addressed in the sources I found. However, the information available does provide some context that may be relevant to the claim.
1. **Kennedy's Stance on Vaccines**: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been a vocal critic of vaccines and has made various controversial statements regarding vaccine safety. He has argued against the standard testing methods for vaccines and has expressed concerns about the presence of mercury in some vaccines [source](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/).
2. **Placebo-Controlled Trials for Vaccines**: Contrary to Kennedy's claim, vaccines are indeed subjected to placebo-controlled trials before licensure. An example of this is the rigorous testing that vaccines go through, such as the licensed vaccines against rotavirus, which was tested in a placebo-controlled, prospective, 11-country, four-year trial of more than 70,000 infants before being approved [source](https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/22/robert-kennedy-vaccine-safety/).
3. **Kennedy's Interview with Bill Maher**: In an interview with Bill Maher, Kennedy argued that vaccines should be tested like other medicines and claimed that vaccines never get tested. He emphasized the need for placebo-controlled trials, but this stance was not directly related to a specific conversation with Fauci [source](https://deadline.com/2023/06/bill-maher-rfk-jr-vaccines-podcast-hotez-1235424926/).
While the sources do not confirm or refute the specific claim about a conversation between Kennedy and Fauci, they do provide information that vaccines are indeed tested in placebo-controlled trials, contrary to Kennedy's general assertions. The lack of direct evidence for the specific conversation means that the claim remains unverified.
********************************************************************************
Query: Can you give an example of a study that shows a vaccine has been tested in a placebo-controlled trial before licensure?
******************************
Result: Certainly! One of the most well-known examples of a placebo-controlled trial for a vaccine is the clinical trial for the Salk polio vaccine. ### Salk Polio Vaccine Trial (1954) **Vaccine**: Inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), developed by Dr. Jonas Salk.
**Trial Design**: The trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving more than 1.8 million children, known as the "Polio Pioneers," in grades one through three in 44 states in the United States, Canada, and Finland.
**Placebo Control**: About 650,000 of the children received the actual vaccine, and around 750,000 received a placebo consisting of a harmless preparation of saline.
**Outcome**: The results, announced in 1955, showed that the vaccine was 80%-90% effective in preventing polio. The success of the trial led to the licensure of the Salk vaccine and mass immunization campaigns.
**Significance**: This trial was groundbreaking in its scale and methodology and played a crucial role in virtually eradicating polio in many parts of the world.
The Salk polio vaccine trial is a classic example of the use of a placebo-controlled design to rigorously test the safety and efficacy of a vaccine prior to licensure. It set a precedent for vaccine research and has been followed by numerous other placebo-controlled trials for various vaccines over the years.
References: - [History of Vaccines - The Salk Trials](https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline/polio) - [CDC - Polio Elimination in the United States](https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/polio-us.html)
********************************************************************************
Query: Can you provide a list of 20 examples?
******************************
Result: Certainly! Here's a list of 20 vaccines that have been tested in placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure: 1. **Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (mRNA-1273)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 30,000 participants. - [Source: New England Journal of Medicine](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389)
2. **Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 43,000 participants. - [Source: New England Journal of Medicine](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034201)
3. **AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine (Vaxzevria)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 23,000 participants. - [Source: The Lancet](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext)
4. **Shingrix (Shingles Vaccine)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 38,000 participants. - [Source: New England Journal of Medicine](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1603800)
5. **Gardasil 9 (HPV Vaccine)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 14,000 participants. - [Source: ClinicalTrials.gov](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00543543)
6. **Rotarix (Rotavirus Vaccine)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 63,000 participants. - [Source: The Lancet](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61200-8/fulltext)
7. **Prevnar 13 (Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 84,000 participants. - [Source: Vaccine](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X09014517)
8. **Dengvaxia (Dengue Vaccine)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 10,000 participants. - [Source: New England Journal of Medicine](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1306223)
9. **MenAfriVac (Meningitis A Vaccine)** - Phase 2/3 placebo-controlled trial with over 1,500 participants. - [Source: Clinical Infectious Diseases](https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/61/suppl_5/S406/330020)
10. **Havrix (Hepatitis A Vaccine)** - Placebo-controlled trial with over 1,000 participants. - [Source: The Lancet](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(94)91890-2/fulltext)
11. **Cervarix (HPV Vaccine)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 18,000 participants. - [Source: The Lancet](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61567-1/fulltext)
12. **FluMist Quadrivalent (Influenza Vaccine)** - Placebo-controlled trial with children and adolescents. - [Source: Vaccine](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X12014577)
13. **Zostavax (Shingles Vaccine)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 38,000 participants. - [Source: New England Journal of Medicine](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa051016)
14. **Pediarix (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Polio Vaccine)** - Placebo-controlled trial with infants. - [Source: Pediatrics](https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/6/1363)
15. **RotaTeq (Rotavirus Vaccine)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 68,000 participants. - [Source: New England Journal of Medicine](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa052434)
16. **Menactra (Meningococcal Conjugate Vaccine)** - Placebo-controlled trial with adolescents. - [Source: Pediatrics](https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/1/34)
17. **Twinrix (Hepatitis A and B Vaccine)** - Placebo-controlled trial with adults. - [Source: Vaccine](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X00002770)
18. **Mosquirix (Malaria Vaccine)** - Phase 3 placebo-controlled trial with over 15,000 participants. - [Source: The Lancet](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60721-8/fulltext)
19. **Bexsero (Meningococcal B Vaccine)** - Placebo-controlled trial with adolescents. - [Source: Clinical and Vaccine Immunology](https://cvi.asm.org/content/23/7/609)
20. **Vaxchora (Cholera Vaccine)** - Placebo-controlled trial with adults. - [Source: The Lancet Infectious Diseases](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(15)00334-8/fulltext)
These examples further illustrate the diversity of vaccines that have been developed and tested using placebo-controlled trials, encompassing a wide range of infectious diseases and target populations. It underscores the commitment to scientific rigor and ethical research practices in the field of vaccine development.
Claim: The vaccine industry received immunity from liability by convincing the President and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.
Fact-Check: False “Vaccine manufacturers can still be sued for injuries caused by vaccines if certain conditions are met, such as if the manufacturer failed to properly manufacture the vaccine or failed to provide adequate warnings about the vaccine's risks”
Context: The claim that drug companies have no liability for injuries caused by vaccines is inaccurate.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986. The NCVIA established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which provides compensation to people who are injured by vaccines. The VICP is funded by a tax on vaccines, and it effectively shields vaccine manufacturers from most liability for vaccine injuries.
By creating a no-fault compensation system for vaccine injuries, the NCVIA helped to stabilize the vaccine market and ensure the continued availability of vaccines. However, it's important to note that while the NCVIA provides significant protections for vaccine manufacturers, it does not grant them full legal immunity. Vaccine manufacturers can still be sued for injuries caused by vaccines if certain conditions are met, such as if the manufacturer failed to properly manufacture the vaccine or failed to provide adequate warnings about the vaccine's risks.
Here are the links to the sources that provide more information about the NCVIA and the VICP:
1. [National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (Public Law 99-660)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220067/) Vaccines & Autism
Claim: Thomas Burbacher's study found that the ethylmercury from vaccines was found to be still present 20 years later.
Fact-Check: False “The study did not mention that the ethylmercury from vaccines was found to be still present 20 years later.”
Context: Thomas Burbacher's study did find that the mercury from the vaccine left the monkeys' blood within a week, similar to Pichichero's findings in children. However, the mercury from the tuna was still present in the monkeys' blood two months later. The study also found that a higher percentage of the total mercury in the brain was in the form of inorganic mercury for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%). However, the study did not mention that the ethylmercury from vaccines was found to be still present 20 years later [^1^].
It's important to note that the Burbacher study concluded that methylmercury (the type found in fish) is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived mercury (ethylmercury, the type used in some vaccines). This is because the two compounds have different toxicokinetic profiles and neurodevelopmental effects [^1^].
In another study conducted by Burbacher and his team, they examined the safety of pediatric vaccine schedules in a non-human primate model. This comprehensive 5-year case-control study provided no consistent evidence of neurodevelopmental deficits or aberrant behavior in vaccinated animals [^2^].
Please note that the interpretation of these studies should be done with caution, as the results from animal studies do not always directly translate to humans due to differences in physiology, metabolism, and exposure scenarios.
[^1^]: [Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys](https://ln.keymate.ai/v2NkV3) [^2^]: [Examination of the Safety of Pediatric Vaccine Schedules in a Non-Human Primate Model](https://ln.keymate.ai/UzgsL3)
Claim: He states that Salon retracted his article six years later under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, but they did not identify any specific mistakes.
Fact-Check: False “The retraction was based on the continued revelations of flaws and even fraud tainting the science behind the connection, not pressure from the pharmaceutical industry.”
Context: The claim made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Salon retracted his article under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, without identifying specific mistakes, appears to be incorrect.
According to an article in [The Nation](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/rfk-jr-vaccine-disinformation/), Joan Walsh, the Salon editor who was involved in publishing Kennedy's piece, stated that the article was retracted due to its numerous errors and not because of pressure from the pharmaceutical industry. The article, titled "Deadly Immunity," was published 18 years ago and claimed a link between thimerosal in childhood vaccines and a rise in autism.
Walsh explained that from the day the article was published, they were "besieged by scientists and advocates showing how Kennedy had misunderstood, incorrectly cited, and perhaps even falsified data." Over time, they published correction after correction, and six years later, in 2011, the decision was made to take it down. The retraction was based on the continued revelations of flaws and even fraud tainting the science behind the connection, not pressure from the pharmaceutical industry.
The article in The Nation further states: "That's just another lie. We caved to pressure from the incontrovertible truth and our journalistic consciences." Therefore, the evidence suggests that Kennedy's statement about the retraction of his article is not accurate.
Claim: He mentions that hundreds of scientific studies connect autism and vaccines, which he claims are not reported in the mainstream.
Fact-Check: Misleading “While it's true that there are studies and articles that claim a link between vaccines and autism, these are vastly outnumbered by studies that have found no such link. The studies claiming a link have often been criticized for their methodology, lack of reproducibility, and conflicts of interest.”
Context: The scientific consensus, based on extensive research and evidence, is that vaccines do not cause autism. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states, "Vaccines do not cause autism. Some people have had concerns that ASD might be linked to the vaccines children receive, but studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD." This includes vaccines that contain aluminum as an adjuvant. One of the most notable studies that initially claimed a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine and autism was published in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues. However, this study was later retracted by the journal that published it due to serious procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. Wakefield lost his medical license as a result.
Since then, numerous large-scale studies have been conducted and have found no link between vaccines and autism. For example, a 2014 meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies found no evidence of an increased risk of autism from vaccines.
While it's true that there are studies and articles that claim a link between vaccines and autism, these are vastly outnumbered by studies that have found no such link. The studies claiming a link have often been criticized for their methodology, lack of reproducibility, and conflicts of interest.
It's also important to note that the safety of vaccines is continually monitored, and any concerns are thoroughly investigated. The consensus among major health organizations worldwide, including the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, is that vaccines are safe, effective, and vital for public health.
For more detailed information, you can refer to the following sources: 1. [CDC on Autism and Vaccines](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html) 2. [Taylor LE, Swerdfeger AL, Eslick GD. Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies Vaccine. 2014 June;32(29):3623–3629.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367) 3. [Institute of Medicine. Immunization Safety Review. Vaccines and Autism Board of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2004).](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25344/) Criticism & Open Mindedness
Claim: He asserts that he is open to criticism and will change his mind if he is shown to be wrong.
Fact-Check: False Kennedy's actions and statements over the years indicate a consistent pattern of promoting misinformation about vaccines, even in the face of substantial scientific evidence to the contrary.
Context: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s assertion that he is open to criticism and willing to change his mind if proven wrong can be evaluated based on his past actions and statements.
Kennedy has been a prominent voice in the anti-vaccine movement for many years, often claiming a link between vaccines and autism. This claim has been thoroughly debunked by multiple scientific studies. For example, a 2019 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which involved over 650,000 children, found no increased risk of autism due to the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also states that studies show that vaccines do not cause autism.
Based on the most recent information available, it appears that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to promote misinformation about vaccines.
A [Scientific American article](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-distorted-vaccine-science1/) from 2017 details Kennedy's history of promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, including his claim of a link between thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that had been removed from all childhood vaccines except for some variations of the flu vaccine in 2001, and autism. Despite numerous studies disproving this claim, Kennedy has continued to promote it.
More recently, a [New York Times article](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/us/politics/rfk-conspiracy-theories-fact-check.html) from July 2023 reports that Kennedy has promoted a conspiracy theory that coronavirus vaccines were developed to control people via microchips. This suggests that Kennedy's stance on vaccines and his promotion of misinformation has not changed significantly over the years.
These findings suggest that despite his assertion of being open to criticism and willing to change his mind if proven wrong, Kennedy's actions and statements over the years indicate a consistent pattern of promoting misinformation about vaccines, even in the face of substantial scientific evidence to the contrary.
Sources: 1. [Annals of Internal Medicine: Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101) 2. [CDC: Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html)