Saved articles

You have not yet added any article to your bookmarks!

Browse articles
Newsletter image

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Join 10k+ people to get notified about new posts, news and tips.

Do not worry we don't spam!

GDPR Compliance

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service.

Controversial Appointment: David Geier to Lead HHS Study on Vaccines and Autism Link

David Geier, who lacks a medical degree and was previously disciplined for practicing medicine without a license, is set to lead a new study for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate a potential link between vaccines and autism. This appointment is controversial due to Geier's history of promoting discredited studies that claim vaccines, specifically those containing thimerosal, cause autism—a stance that contradicts extensive scientific evidence. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has espoused similar views, has drawn criticism for this decision amid rising measles outbreaks attributed to vaccine hesitancy. The decision to appoint Geier is viewed by many in the scientific community as politically motivated, aiming to validate preconceived conclusions rather than follow rigorous scientific methodology. Numerous studies across various countries have consistently found no connection between vaccines and autism, which raises questions about the necessity and potential consequences of the HHS to pursue this path. Critics, such as Alison Singer from the Autism Science Foundation, express concerns that this approach is counterproductive and could mislead public understanding, increase medical misinformation, and deter vaccination efforts. The broader implications of this appointment underscore ongoing tensions in balancing scientific consensus and policy directions influenced by unsubstantiated claims.

Bias Analysis

Bias Score:
78/100
Neutral Biased
This news has been analyzed from  21  different sources.
Bias Assessment: The article takes a clearly skeptical stance towards the appointment of David Geier and questions the motives of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The language used, such as 'debunked claims' and 'bogus therapies,' indicates a bias against the study's underlying premise. Moreover, the article predominantly cites sources and studies opposing Geier's perspective and lacks representation from voices supporting the study's initiation, which contributes to the overall bias. The author's critical tone and narrative framing suggest a judgmental view towards the decision without equal exploration of potentially differing viewpoints or rationale.

Key Questions About This Article

Think and Consider

Related to this topic: