RFK Jr. vs the Danish Vaccine Study: Politics, Not Public Health

Hook

It’s not every day the US Health Secretary calls for a peer-reviewed study to be retracted. But that’s exactly what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did this month, targeting a massive Danish study that found no evidence linking aluminum in vaccines to chronic diseases in children.

Context

The study in question — published in Annals of Internal Medicine in July — followed more than 1.2 million children over two decades (PubMed abstract here). Its conclusion was straightforward: no significant increase in autoimmune, allergic, or neurodevelopmental disorders with higher aluminum exposure from vaccines.

Kennedy, long known for his vaccine skepticism, penned an op-ed on TrialSite News demanding the journal pull the paper. His critique: the analysis excluded children who died before age two, and it failed to compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.

Annals pushed back firmly. “Retraction is warranted only when serious errors invalidate findings or there is documented misconduct, neither of which occurred here,” said editor Christine Laine. Retraction Watch’s Ivan Oransky put it more bluntly: demanding retractions is not how science works.

Your Take

On substance, Kennedy has one legitimate point: the Danish study did not use an unvaccinated control. But here’s the rub — only about 2% of Danish children remain unvaccinated. That’s too small a group to make reliable comparisons, especially across dozens of outcomes. Instead, the researchers looked at “dose–response” — whether more aluminum vs. less aluminum increased risk. It didn’t.

On balance, that’s reasonable. And it fits into a much larger body of evidence. Aluminum salts have been used safely in vaccines for nearly a century. WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has repeatedly reviewed the claims and found them unsupported. PubMed is full of large cohort and mechanistic studies showing no causal link between aluminum adjuvants and autism or chronic disease.

To date, there is no credible evidence that aluminum in vaccines causes harm at the levels administered. That said, the authors are careful: very rare effects can never be fully ruled out by any single study. But moderate or large risks? Inconsistent with the data.

Which raises the question: why is the Secretary of Health using his office to pressure journals over findings he doesn’t like? Science advances by replication, critique, and better studies — not by political fiat.

Implications

This episode signals something larger. Kennedy is bringing political warfare into the scientific arena. By demanding retractions, he’s blurring the line between scientific debate and bureaucratic decree. That’s dangerous ground — not just for vaccine policy, but for trust in public health institutions.

FAQ (Optional)

Q: Is there evidence aluminum in vaccines causes autism?
A: No. Multiple large studies — including the new Danish cohort — find no such link. Claims of causation have been repeatedly debunked.

Q: Could extremely rare risks still exist?
A: Yes. No single study can rule out every possibility. But moderate or large risks are inconsistent with current evidence.

Closing

Kennedy’s move tells us less about vaccine safety than about political strategy. Science doesn’t bend to ministerial decree — and shouldn’t start now.