I. Introduction
Do plaintiffs’ experts get to put junk science before juries more often than their opinions are excluded? The answer is a resounding “probably.” Even in light of the December 2023 amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence and its directive that trial courts carefully execute their gatekeeping obligations, we suspect quite a bit of decidedly subpar science is still admitted.[1] What is more, some states do not even follow pre-amendment FRE 702, let alone the more-restrictive, current version of the rule. Those courts instead apply their own Frye or hybrid standard for admissibility of expert testimony.[2]
Here, we highlight a few “worst of the worst” offenders when it comes to junk science. We lead with a decision from years past—likely familiar to the reader, as the issue (whether vaccines can cause autism) is still a topic of public discourse—where the expert was not just excluded; his proposed scientific theory was wholly debunked, and he lost his medical license. We then turn to other notable decisions where the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions were not just excluded once, but after an attempted mulligan, the plaintiffs’ causation theory was rejected in subsequent court orders.
Beyond these examples, we share a few “ripped from the headlines” cases involving junk science. Outside the pharmaceutical context, these criminal and civil fraud trials are notable and may provide insight into excluding junk science in civil/pharmaceutical litigation.
A word before we delve in. As practitioners in the pharmaceutical litigation (defense) world, we are tempted to revel in highlighting plaintiffs’ experts who had to tuck tail and run or, at a minimum, were excluded (sometimes more than once). While seeing these experts’ opinions excluded, debunked, or even retracted is satisfying, we recognize that the manufacturers whose products (and employees and processes) were severely criticized by these experts had to expend extraordinary sums to defend against those contentions. We are also acutely aware of the extreme public health risks associated with junk science, both in the judicial system and the court of public opinion. We do not make light of the resources expended in defending against junk science or the very real impact on public health. With this said, we share the downfall of some junk science peddlers.
II. Dazed and Confused? More Like Debunked and Excluded
A. Vaccine Studies that Didn’t Stick: Doe 2 v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
The first question listed on the CDC’s autism spectrum disorder FAQ page is, “Do vaccines cause autism spectrum disorder (ASD)?”[3] As relevant here, the person who may be “credited” with the uptick in this public health question—or at least one of the people responsible—is Dr. Mark Geier. Notably, a simple Google search of his name generates this result: “American former physician.” His story is a dramatic example of a plaintiffs’ expert whose opinions buoyed a mass tort—that is, until his testimony was shown to be completely unsupported, so much so that he had to publicly retract his opinions.[4]
Mark Geier and his son, David Geier, set out to solve the riddle of autism.[5] Eventually, the duo identified their suspect number one: vaccines. In a series of papers, presentations, and court cases, the Geiers spread their theories to the masses.
Judges across the country used phrases like “intellectually dishonest” and “not credible” to describe Dr. Mark Geier’s court-offered opinions and testimony.[6] The Institute of Medicine described one of his presentations as “uninterpretable.”[7] Despite these criticisms, Dr. Geier continued to offer these opinions in court.
In Doe v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.,[8] the plaintiffs presented Dr. Geier as the sole general and specific causation expert to opine that the RhoGAM vaccine (which helps prevent a blood disorder in infants when the mother’s immune system attacks the baby’s red blood cells) causes autism.[9] Defendants moved to exclude Geier’s opinions in their entirety, pointing to flaws with Geier’s credentials and methodologies.
The Court first concluded that Geier’s general causation testimony did not meet the standards imposed by Daubert. “[W]hile Dr. Geier’s presentation of the literature as part of his methodology might at first glance appear convincing, the disconnected literature he presents does not add up to the opinion and conclusion that Dr. Geier is offering.”[10] Geier could not point to a single study, including his own, to support his ultimate conclusion that the vaccine contained a preservative that could cause autism. This mandated exclusion of Geier’s general causation testimony because of a flawed methodology.
The Court also analyzed Dr. Geier’s specific causation testimony, finding that it likewise did not satisfy Daubert. Summary judgment followed because plaintiffs could not prove causation without Dr. Geier’s opinions.
The Court also noted that Dr. Geier had been excluded on several other occasions. In a lengthy collection of prior cases, the Court recognized, inter alia, that Dr. Geier was best characterized as a “professional witness in areas for which he has no training, expertise, and experience.”[11]
Years after this litigation, Dr. Geier’s license was suspended for “putting autistic children at risk.”[12]
B. Transparency of Junk Science on Vision Loss: In re Viagra Prods. Liab. Litig.
In In re Viagra Prods. Liab. Litig.,[13] the plaintiffs asserted that Viagra users were at risk of vision loss. Plaintiffs designated Dr. Gerald McGwin to opine that Viagra caused blindness. McGwin’s testimony was based on a study plagued with miscoding errors. For instance, McGwin had erroneously listed 11 patients as having been “exposed” to Viagra and/or Cialis before their vision loss when, in fact, those individuals had reported their first use of the drugs after having such loss. McGwin conceded that, had these individuals been coded properly, the outcome would have been different.[14] Strike one.
The Court then addressed the statistical methods used. McGwin’s study purported to use one statistical method but Pfizer, after careful review of the study, correctly pointed out that McGwin employed a method different from the one he described. McGwin conceded that the method he actually used “was not the most appropriate” for the study.[15] Strike two.
Yet another flaw in McGwin’s study was the fact that one of its main findings—that men with a personal history of myocardial infarction and Viagra or Cialis use are at a higher risk for vision loss—was based on a faulty variable. McGwin’s patients were asked whether they had a family history of myocardial infarction, not whether the patient personally did.[16] Strike three. The judge, like an umpire bound by the rules of the game (Rule 702 and Daubert), found the opinions unreliable and threw them out.
McGwin attempted to revive his status as a qualified expert by issuing a supplemental report; it too failed because it was not subjected to peer review and was based on data that was generated post-litigation.[17]
McGwin continues to be associated with his faulty study.[18] Indeed, although he was forced in the Viagra litigation to concede the dispositive flaws in his opinions, he apparently is not deterred: he now theorizes that Viagra causes hearing loss.
III. Déjà Vu? Exclusion . . . and Again, Exclusion
A. Fixodent and Forget It (Twice): In Re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig.[19]
Beyond plaintiffs’ experts who were forced to retract their debunked causation theories, there is another category: where plaintiffs were given a “second bite at the apple” to prove general causation–—and their experts failed again.
One example is In re Denture Cream Products Liability Litigation, an MDL in the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiffs alleged that Fixodent, an over-the-counter product used to affix dentures, contained a zinc compound that caused neurological symptoms or spinal cord disorders.
As required in any pharmaceutical products liability case, plaintiffs were required to establish, through admissible expert testimony, both general causation (that the product was capable of causing the alleged harm) and specific causation (that the defect in the product, in fact, caused the plaintiffs’ stated injuries).[20] The Court found the plaintiffs failed to establish both, but the focus here is general causation.
After considerable Daubert/Rule 702 briefing, the Court excluded the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. Briefly stated, the Court found the general causation opinions lacked a reliable methodology on critical issues, including what dosage it takes to create the injury; the experts also failed to rely on analytical epidemiological evidence and could not identify the background risk of the condition at issue.[21] The District Court’s Daubert order and resulting summary judgment order were affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit.[22]
Undeterred and using the District Court’s prior Daubert order as a roadmap, the plaintiffs sought to backfill the analytical gaps in their experts’ opinions. The District Court was unconvinced. Opening paragraphs in the order previewed the Court’s temperature: “Since [the Eleventh Circuit’s prior opinion], Plaintiffs claim to have obtained new evidence in support of their argument….”[23]
In another lengthy Daubert order, the Court again excluded plaintiffs’ general causation experts. The Court reviewed the experts’ additional materials, including a new retrospective study: testimony related to the dose-response relationship, and several new case reports. Each was rejected, leading the Court to conclude that “in [the prior appeal], ‘plaintiffs’ experts conclude[d] extremely large amounts of Fixodent applied to dentures several times a day for a period of many years can cause copper-deficiency myelopathy. Not much has changed.” The Court explained that even though “plaintiffs have put forth a superficially appealing hypothesis that prolonged use of large amounts of Fixodent may cause copper deficiency,” “the law requires more than a general theme to support causation—it requires a scientifically reliable connection.”[24]
The Eleventh Circuit took a succinct approach to the second appeal, affirming in a three-paragraph per curiam order.[25]
B. Deepwater or Hot Water? In Re Deepwater Horizon
Also hailing from the Eleventh Circuit, the Deepwater Horizon cases are another example where a second attempt at establishing general causation fell short. Although these cases involve a toxic tort and not pharmaceutical product liability claims, they are instructive on issues concerning expert testimony of general and specific causation. In this litigation, like Denture Cream, the path to dismissal viaexpert exclusion was prolonged.
The litigation involved BP Exploration & Production’s deep-sea oil drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon., and an explosion and fire that sank the rig and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Years later, coastal residents and clean-up workers filed suit, alleging that their exposure to crude oil and chemicals from the spill caused various medical conditions.[26] About 500 cases were transferred to the Northern District of Florida, and that Court designated two bellwether groups.
For the first group, the plaintiffs designated a toxicologist as their sole general causation expert. The District Court excluded her testimony because it “fell ‘woefully short of the Daubert and Rule 702 standards.’”[27] The expert failed to “establish a measure of exposure to the claimed toxins that could cause ‘the chronic medical conditions at issue,’ and “also failed to reliably analyze the academic literature,” among other shortcomings. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.[28]
The second bellwether group included plaintiffs who specifically alleged that their clean-up work caused them to suffer chronic sinusitis. They designated two general causation experts who opined that there was a causal relationship between unspecified chemicals from the oil spill and chronic sinusitis. The general causation experts’ opinions were excluded. First, the court noted that general causation issues had been addressed in the first bellwether group to plaintiffs’ detriment. The court then noted that “Plaintiffs’ experts in this second group of test cases have failed to cure the same ‘analytical gaps’ that plagued [the first expert’s] opinions.”[29] The District Court adopted that ruling.[30] In a second appeal, the Eleventh Circuit again affirmed, ruling the experts had “failed to support their opinions with epidemiology, dose-response relationship, or background risk of disease.”[31]
C. Analgesic Effect: Rejection of a Connection to ASD/ADHD: In re Acetaminophen – ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig.[32]
A more recent example of plaintiffs unsuccessfully trying (twice) to garner admissible expert testimony on general causation comes from In re Acetaminophen – ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig.[33]
Plaintiffs alleged that children sustained neurodevelopmental injuries of ASD and ADHD (autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) due to the mother’s ingestion during pregnancy of acetaminophen, the active ingredient in products including name-brand Tylenol. Early in the litigation, the Court proposed—and the parties agreed—to conduct discovery related to general causation first; if the plaintiffs’ experts survived Rule 702 motions, the remainder of discovery would proceed.[34]
Plaintiffs designated five experts on general causation. Defendants moved to exclude them all. The Court found their testimony unreliable and irrelevant under amended Rule 702, thus excluding all evidence of general causation and leading to summary judgment.[35]
The Court noted that “[s]ince at least 1987, scientists have been examining whether the prenatal use of acetaminophen may be associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. To date, however, no medical organization or regulatory body has concluded that prenatal exposure to acetaminophen causes ADHD or ASD.”[36] In assessing general causation, the Court conducted an extensive analysis, as reflected in the order’s lengthy analysis of published medical literature, including observational epidemiological studies, animal studies, genetics studies, and statements by governmental bodies, medical societies, and other associations. After thoroughly evaluating the proposed testimony, the Court concluded that the opinions were inadmissible. Based on the lack of general causation, the Court entered final judgment in the defendant’s favor in about 550 cases. So ended “part one.”
“Part two” followed. It involved “newly filed” plaintiffs in the MDL, meaning plaintiffs who argued they were not limited by the exclusion order of the other five experts. They advised the Court that they had retained their own new expert to prove general causation. [37] Not so fast.
In another extensive opinion that included a discussion of the published medical literature and statements by governmental bodies and medical societies, the plaintiffs’ new general causation expert was excluded. The Court acknowledged that the expert’s opinion “was developed for litigation”—and although she was not excluded on that basis, the Court took “a particularly careful examination of the opinion to ensure its reliability.”[38] Reliability was not found.
This ended part two in the MDL, which (similar to part one) resulted in the entry of final judgment as to the remaining plaintiffs.[39] The case is on appeal to the Second Circuit.
IV. As Seen on TV: When Junk Science is a Matter of Life or Death
The above examples demonstrate that courts’ rejection of “junk science” can (and should) derail personal injury lawsuits. And sometimes, junk science is a matter of life or death. Article 11.073 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, often referred to as the “Junk Science Writ,” allows “prisoners to challenge potential wrongful convictions by showing that changes in the field of forensic science either seriously undermined the integrity of the criminal trials resulting in their convictions or else exonerated the prisoner completely.”[40] This law, enacted in 2013, provided one man, Robert Roberson, with the opportunity to testify to members of a Texas State House committee—four days after he had been scheduled to die by lethal injection. Roberson was convicted for murdering his 2-year-old daughter due to “shaken baby syndrome.” Now, Roberson’s lawyers are arguing that the conviction should be tossed out under the “junk science law” because shaken baby syndrome—now referred to as abusive head trauma—was a popular misdiagnosis at the time of Roberson’s conviction and has largely been debunked since.
So far, those hoping to benefit from this law have not fared well. Since the law was enacted more than a decade ago in 2013, 74 applications have been filed and ruled on under the junk science law—yet none has been successful. However, perhaps as the public and lawmakers become more familiar with the issues posed by junk science, the success rate will increase. Other methods employed by experts that involve subjective analysis, such as analyzing expelled gun casings to “match” one casing found at a crime scene to others used by the suspect gun,[41] have faced recent criticism. The matters tried before our nation’s courts are often too important to be tainted by junk science testimony.
V. Conclusion
Junk science wastes precious resources of defendants, witnesses, and the Courts. As these cases illustrate, entire mass tort litigations have been stopped in their tracks (albeit after significant expense) when the courts acted as gatekeepers and kept the junk science out. And in other instances, the litigation churned on through multiple appeals only to eventually die on the vine. But wasted resources are not the only cost: there are very real, and potentially catastrophic, public health risks associated with the spread of “scientific” misinformation.[42] It thus goes without saying that a trial court’s abdication of its gatekeeping obligation results in juries and the public hearing junk science dressed in “expert” clothing. One can hope that trial court judges, particularly federal judges whose gatekeeping obligation is governed by amended Rule 702, will subject plaintiffs’ experts’ scientific theories to robust analysis—and weed out junk science.
[1] Many articles discuss the December 1, 2023, amendments to Rule 702. An ABA article from April 2024 summarized courts’ treatment of the rule as follows:
As the 2023 Committee Note explains, a major reason for the amendment is to
[E]mphasize that expert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule. . . [M]any courts have held that the critical questions of the sufficiency of an expert’s basis, and the application of the expert’s methodology, are questions of weight and not admissibility. These rulings are an incorrect application of Rules 702 and 104(a).
Critically, these comments flatly reject the idea that the underlying bases and methodology for an expert’s opinion go to the weight, not the admissibility, of an expert’s opinion.
Though the Committee Note is clear, courts have not automatically implemented changes to established precedent as a result.
Friedman et al., Understanding the Rule 702 Amendments, ABA Litigation Section (Apr. 15, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/corporate-counsel/understanding-rule-702-amendments/ (last visited Nov. 22, 2024).
[2] See, e.g., 90 A.L.R.5th 453 (“[s]tate courts have used the Frye, Daubert, and other tests in determining the admissibility of expert testimony regarding scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” and collecting state-specific rules and cases). Indeed, the annual “Judicial Hellholes” Report (2024) identifies that admission of junk science, particularly in the worst jurisdictions, runs rampant. The American Tort Reform Foundation, Judicial Hellholes 2024-2025, available at www.judicialhellholes.org/reports/2024-2025/2024-2025-executive-summary/ (last visited Dec. 10, 2024).
[3]Frequently Asked Questions about Autism Spectrum Disorder, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/autism/faq/index.html (last visited Dec. 12, 2024).
[4] The falsity of Dr. Geier’s “expert” opinions on a connection between vaccines and autism has had far-reaching impact on the public. Although beyond the scope of this article, there are countless scholarly articles that evidence a distrust of immunizations for children and lower vaccination rates, even in developed countries like the United States.
[5] Critics balk at doctor-son team’s claims of autism solution, Tucson.com (May 21, 2009), https://tucson.com/news/national/article_a10cefb4-1503-5c6b-93c4-899b8de6171b.html (last visited Dec. 13, 2024).
[6] Id.
[7] Researchers Raise Eyebrows With Autism Findings, ABC News (Feb. 10, 2009, 3:29 PM), https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3317576&page=1 (last visited Dec. 13, 2024).
[8] Doe v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., 440 F. Supp. 2d 465 (M.D.N.C. 2006).
[9] Thimerosal is a commonly used mercury-based preservative in vaccines. Specifically, it contains ethylmercury as opposed to methylmercury. Unlike methylmercury, ethylmercury is not toxic to humans in small doses. Research does not show any link between thimerosal and autism. See Thimerosal and Vaccines, CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/thimerosal.html (last visited Dec. 13, 2024).
[10] Doe, 440 F. Supp. 2d at 475.
[11] Doe, 440 F. Supp. 2d at 480 n. 5, cited the following: Weiss v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 03–190V, 2003 WL 22853059 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 9, 2003) (finding Dr. Geier to be a “professional witness in areas for which he has no training, expertise, and experience”); see also Piscopo v. Sec’y of HHS, 66 Fed. Cl. 49, 55 (May 26, 2005) (approving Dr. Geiers exclusion under Daubert because his training is in genetics and obstetrics, which is “largely irrelevant to the expertise needed to establish a causal relationship between the Hepatitis B vaccine and the petitioner’s autoimmune disorder”); Thompson v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 99–436V, 2003 WL 21439672 (Fed. Cl. May 23, 2003) (finding Dr. Geier was not qualified because his causation theory was filled with “speculation that is directly contrary to the conclusions reached in well-respected and numerous epidemiologic and medical studies ranging over two decades”);Bruesewitz v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 95–0266V, 2002 WL 31965744 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 20, 2002) (finding Dr. Geier unqualified to diagnose neurological diseases); Raj v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 96–294V, 2001 WL 963984 (Fed. Cl. July 31, 2001) (finding Dr. Geier “wholly unqualified to testify concerning the two major issues in this case [encephalopathy and infantile spasms] … because he is neither board certified nor has formal training in pediatrics and pediatric neurology”); Haim v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 90–1031V, 1993 WL 346392 (Fed. Cl. Aug.27, 1993) (finding that Dr. Geier’s testimony did not reach “the level of evidentiary reliability that Daubert requires because it is not based upon scientific validity, valid methodology, peer review or testing, and more than minimal support within the scientific community”); Marascalco v. Sec’y of HHS, No. 90–1571V, 1993 WL 277095 (Fed. Cl. July 9, 1993) (finding Dr. Geier’s testimony “intellectually dishonest” and that his affidavit was “nothing more than an egregious example of blatant, result-oriented testimony”).
[12] Son of autism doctor charged with practicing without a license, Hartford Courant (Aug. 19, 2019, 6:23 AM), https://www.courant.com/2011/05/19/son-of-autism-doctor-charged-with-practicing-without-a-license/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2024).
[13] In re Viagra Prods. Liab. Litig., 658 F. Supp. 2d 936 (D. Minn. 2009).
[14] Id. at 942.
[15] Id. at 946.
[16] Id. at 944.
[17] Id. at 945–46.
[18] Jim Edwards, Does Viagra Make You Deaf? Author of Discredited Blindness Study Takes a 2nd Swing at Pfizer’s Pill, CBS News (May 18, 2010, 3:11 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-viagra-make-you-deaf-author-of-discredited-blindness-study-takes-a-2nd-swing-at-pfizers-pill/ (last visited Dec. 12, 2024).
[19] There are countless orders in this MDL. The discussion here is derived from In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2011), aff’d, Chapman v. Procter & Gamble Distrib., LLC, 766 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2014); In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 09-2051-MD, 2015 WL 392021, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2015), aff’d, Jones v. SmithKline Beecham, 652 F. App’x 848 (11th Cir. 2016).
[20] E.g., Chapman, 766 F.3d at 1306 (“General causation refers to the ‘general issue of whether a substance has the potential to cause the plaintiff’s injury.’”); at 1308 (“’Specific causation refers to the issue of whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the substance actually caused injury in her particular case.’”).
[21] Id. at 1307.
[22] Id. at 1316.
[23] In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 09-2051-MD, 2015 WL 392021, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2015).
[24] Id. at *34–35.
[25] Jones v. SmithKline Beecham, 652 F. App’x 848 (11th Cir. 2016).
[26] In re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases, 119 F.4th 937, 942 (11th Cir. 2024).
[27] Id. at 942-43 (citing In Re Deepwater Horizon, No. 3:19-cv-963, 2020 WL 6689212 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2020)).
[28] In re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases, No. 20-14544, 2022 WL 104243, at *3 (11th Cir. 2022).
[29] In re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases, No. 3:19CV963-MCR-HTC, 2022 WL 17721595, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2022).
[30] In re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases, 2023 WL 2711573 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2023).
[31] In re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases, 119 F.4th 937 (11th Cir. 2024).
[32] Butler Snow serves as counsel for the manufacturer of name-brand Tylenol. The analysis here is derived only from public filings.
[33] In re Acetaminophen – ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig., 707 F. Supp. 3d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
[34] Docket No. 1:22-MD-3043, Doc. 1514 (Op. and Order).
[35] In re Acetaminophen – ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig., 707 F. Supp. 3d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (expert exclusion order); Docket No. 1:22-MD-3043, Doc. 1409 (Entry of Final Judgment based on Dec. 18, 2023, expert exclusion order).
[36] In re Acetaminophen – ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig., 707 F. Supp. 3d 309, 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
[37] In re Acetaminophen – ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 22MC3043 (DLC), 2024 WL 3357608, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2024) (summarizing procedural history). Defendants objected to the substitution, but the Court permitted it. See also 1:22-MD-3043, Doc. 1514.
[38] In re Acetaminophen – ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 22MC3043 (DLC), 2024 WL 3357608, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2024).
[39] Docket No. 1:22-MD-3043, Doc. 1514 (Op. and Order).
[40]Kirk Cooper, The Texas Junk Science Writ, State Bar of Texas, https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=47776 (last visited Dec. 12, 2024).
[41] Radley Balko, A D.C. judge issues a much-need opinion on ‘junk science’, The Washington Post (Feb. 28, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/28/dc-judge-issues-much-needed-opinion-junk-science/ (last visited Dec. 13, 2024).
[42] The vaccine “debate” still lingers. Public health proponents identify a resurgence in the very diseases the vaccines were developed to address:
A decrease in ‘uptake’ of the MMR vaccine fueled by vaccine skeptics is the main cause behind the resurgence of these diseases in recent years. In 1998, Andrew Wakefield and colleagues published a paper in The Lancet linking the MMR vaccine to autism. This coincided with a growing belief that environmental cues were causing the increase in autism. The anti-vaccine movement jumped on this, and the ensuing media frenzy continues to this day.
A case of junk science, conflict and hype, Nat. Immunol 9, 1317 (2008). www.nature.com/articles/ni1208-1317#citeas (last visited Dec. 13, 2024).
See also Dominus, Susan, New York Times (Feb. 1, 2023): Women have been misled about menopause, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/magazine/menopause-hot-flashes-hormone-therapy.html (last visited Dec. 13, 2024) (“Menopausal hormone therapy was once the most commonly prescribed treatment in the United States. In the late 1990s, some 15 million women a year were receiving a prescription for it. But in 2002, a single study, its design imperfect, found links between hormone therapy and elevated health risks for women of all ages. Panic set in; in one year, the number of prescriptions plummeted. Hormone therapy carries risks, to be sure, as do many medications that people take to relieve serious discomfort, but dozens of studies since 2002 have provided reassurance that for healthy women under 60 whose hot flashes are troubling them, the benefits of taking hormones outweigh the risks. The treatment’s reputation, however, has never fully recovered, and the consequences have been wide-reaching.”).
Finis
