There is a recent [November 20, 2025] story, by AP, CDC website changed to contradict scientific conclusion that vaccines don’t cause autism, stating that, “A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website has been changed to contradict the longtime scientific conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism, spurring outrage among a number of public health and autism experts.”
“The CDC ‘vaccine safety’ webpage was updated Wednesday, saying “the statement ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim.”
“It was immediately decried by scientists and advocates who have long been focused on finding the causes of autism.”
Fact-Checking Strategy
Is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the 26th Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a blessing to science research or an obstacle? If there are attacks on the field of scientific research, how much of that problem is external? How much of it requires the need to look inward?
The question is not whether there aren’t serious issues — about the accuracy of some health information, funding cuts, staffing cuts, research cancellations, and so forth — the question is whether one person should be solely responsible for the current challenges in science research?
How does medical science make progress? If the best source for fundamental research, the National Institutes of Health [NIH], is no longer as responsive, was there never a time in science research when there was some relevant backup plan if something like this ever happened? Was there no lesson on how to correct information — carefully and persuasively — if the source that is being countered is not just some random blog, or social media trend?
There are various medical-associated professional bodies in the United States — holding conferences, programs, and so forth — was there none of them that ever planned, especially after COVID, that if something like this happened, this is what to do?
Are they only trying to appear awake now, to fact-check the Secretary and the CDC, to show some activity, when they did not plan for drought, a call for validated, accurate information, and vilification? Like, how did they not anticipate that there is no science in isolation without any external influence? One partition is tech, the other is finance, another is politics, and so on.
How did all these expert/professional research organizations fall flat, and then they are seeking to engage, when the planning that should have preserved their work was not developed? They also do not realize that, at least for now, that power is on the side of the CDC and the Secretary, such that even if they are aggressively debunked, they are still there. So, the outcome that debunking them would have held, silencing or discrediting them, is voided.
Although there are many important aspects of science research, what can be done, in visibility, to show ongoing efforts that people can use? If it is impossible to solve mental health, what solution of digital mental health can be used to reach people at scale, becoming a direct innovation of a professional body for use, widely across society, now?
This innovation, as something they can make money from, and use as leverage, as a voice, to raise revenue, and then have enough data to connect with people and provide credible information as well, with something they built that people are finding great help.
They do not have anything at scale, all of them — nothing, to at least know that they are formidable. Now they are exposed, and they are running to the press. The press too, does not realize that they are now damaged and frail. The sway they held has plummeted, eroded by years of certainty where they were wrong, even up till early 2024. The media are now serfs of digital and then AI.
How does scientific research move forward? It will not come by attempting to debunk Secretary Kennedy. What are the barriers to solving some problem in the near term that everyone can see and use? Even if some scientists don’t want to hear it, what is the opportunity of RFK Jr., to some aspects of science research, even as he goes his own way on others?
If scientists believe that providing accurate information for the public is part of their responsibility, so is doing everything possible to find ways to do important work, while seeking some moral balance, then something for market usefulness, to let that evidence speak, as other battles fester.
Even if scientists, for sure, have what they believe they can debunk, not being tactical about it and having nothing to show, [in the mainstream] for work, all the non-RFK Jr. years, actually makes the Secretary remain the winner for now, by much, even if hearing that, to some, may seem tough.
Reports
There is a recent [November 20, 2025] report in The Guardian, Prozac ‘no better than placebo’ for treating children with depression, experts say, stating that, “The authors conducted a meta analysis of 12 large trials involving Prozac, published between 1997 and 2024, and concluded that fluoxetine improved children’s depressive symptoms so little as to not be considered clinically meaningful.”
“The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, identified a “novelty bias” in early trials, which were likely to be more positive, while later studies failed to confirm these effects. It concludes that the potential risks of harmful side-effects of fluoxetine are likely to outweigh any potential clinical benefit.”
There is a recent [November 19, 2025] report on WSJ, Millions of Kids Are on ADHD Pills. For Many, It’s the Start of a Drug Cascade., stating that, ”Powerful psychotropic drugs are often the next step, even though their combined effects in young children haven’t been studied closely. ‘I was living in a body hijacked by the medication.’”
There is a recent [November 21, 2025]. Spotlight on The Guardian, Hospitals and clinics are shutting down due to Trump’s healthcare cuts. Here’s where, stating that, “More than 300 rural hospitals are at risk of closure or cutting services, researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found. Almost 100 are located in counties that have no other source of obstetric care besides the hospital, according to a forthcoming analysis from the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group.”
There is a recent [November 23, 2025] interview on Vox, MAHA’s war on antidepressants, stating that, “Antidepressants can be lifesaving for people who need them. For others, they can create new problems, triggering feelings of lethargy, emotional numbness, and reduced sexual desire. And they don’t work for about half of the patients who take them.”
“Going off antidepressants can also have unwanted side effects, including milder symptoms such as dizziness, headache, nausea, insomnia, and irritability, and more extreme symptoms such as violent behavior and suicidal ideation. Depression relapse is also common.”
There is a recent [November 10, 2025] story on NOTUS, MAHA’s Gone Viral. Can Science?, stating that, ”It’s hard to quantify exactly how big the proportion of health- and science-related content on social media is misinformation.”
“One 2022 review said it could be as high as 30%. A smaller study in 2024 looked at TikTok videos about a specific disease, sinusitis, and found that about half of them were made by nonmedical influencers; of those videos, over half contained inaccurate information.”
“A July KFF poll found that 55% of adults use social media to find health information and advice at least occasionally — and even more are served content about topics like weight loss and nutrition.
There is a recent story on BBC, Ultra-processed food is global health threat, experts warn, stating that, “Action is needed now to reduce ultra-processed food (UPF) in diets worldwide because of their threat to health, say international experts in a global review of research.”
“They say the way we eat is changing – with a move away from fresh, whole foods to cheap, highly-processed meals – which is increasing our risk of a range of chronic diseases, including obesity and depression.”
“Writing in The Lancet, the researchers say governments need “to step up” and introduce warnings and higher taxes on UPF products, to help fund access to more nutritious foods.”
“However, some scientists say this review can not prove that UPFs directly cause health harms, and more research and trials are needed to show that.”
This article was written for WHN by David Stephen, who currently does research in conceptual brain science with a focus on the electrical and chemical signals for how they mechanize the human mind, with implications for mental health, disorders, neurotechnology, consciousness, learning, artificial intelligence, and nurture. He was a visiting scholar in medical entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. He did computer vision research at Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona.
As with anything you read on the internet, this article should not be construed as medical advice; please talk to your doctor or primary care provider before changing your wellness routine. WHN neither agrees nor disagrees with any of the materials posted. This article is not intended to provide a medical diagnosis, recommendation, treatment, or endorsement.
Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of WHN. Any content provided by guest authors is of their own opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything else. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
