Did the CDC Bury a Hep B–Autism Link?

The 1,135% Claim: What We Know, What We Don’t, and What Needs to Happen Next

This week, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reignited a longstanding controversy by referencing an internal CDC study that, according to him, showed an initial 1,135% increased risk of autism in boys who received the hepatitis B vaccine at birth.

If that number sounds familiar, it’s because this is not a new claim. I actually discussed this very study in my book, where I explored both the finding itself and the broader questions it raises about transparency, research integrity, and scientific process.

Let’s get one thing straight first: adjusting data for confounding variables is standard in epidemiology. It’s not suspicious in itself. Any good researcher knows that raw findings are often misleading without proper statistical controls—especially in observational studies.

But the real question is this: Were the adjustments made to improve accuracy—or to bury inconvenient results?

---

The Challenge of Motive

This study dates back to the late 1990s. Unless you were physically in the room for those discussions—and I wasn’t—you can’t know the motive. Were the raw findings flawed and appropriately corrected with standard epidemiological methods? Or were the adjustments made selectively, with the intention of downplaying a signal that might have caused political or public fallout?

As someone with a master’s degree in Epidemiology, I can tell you this: data can be manipulated—intentionally or unintentionally—in subtle and powerful ways. With the right filters, exclusions, statistical models, and assumptions, it’s entirely possible to either exaggerate or erase an effect.

That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s reality in scientific publishing, especially when stakes are high.

I’m not saying that happened in this case. I’m also not saying it didn’t. I don’t know. And frankly, most people weighing in on this don’t know either.

---

The Only Thing That Matters

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what I think. Or what Kennedy thinks. Or what the CDC or media outlets think.

The truth is the only thing that matters.

And there’s a simple way to get closer to it:

• Release the raw data

• Replicate the study

• Let multiple independent researchers run the analysis

• Publish everything openly

That’s how real science works. That’s how trust is restored. Not through carefully curated summaries or press releases, but through transparency, replication, and accountability.

Kennedy’s claims may be true. They may not be. But we shouldn't need a public debate or political firestorm to answer that. We should already have systems in place that ensure every major public health finding can be independently verified.

If this study was done properly, let’s show that.
If it wasn’t, let’s correct the record.
And if we truly believe the science is settled—then let’s prove it.

Not with claims. With data.

— Dr. Joel “Dr. Gator” Warsh.

Author: Between a Shot and a Hard Place