RFK Jr.’s rejection of germ theory debunked in Senate hearing

As Kennedy describes in his book, his preferred theory “emphasizes preventing disease by fortifying the immune system through nutrition and by reducing exposures to environmental toxins and stresses,”—not using vaccines or advanced medicines to fight off specific pathogens as suggested by germ theory. While no respected health expert would argue against the benefits of a healthy diet and an environment free of toxic substances, this does not negate the reality that obligate pathogens, with evolved and specialized molecular weaponry to invade and ravage their victims, cause specific diseases. Still, Kennedy disparages germ theory and attempts to undermine it with shaky arguments. In the hearing on Wednesday, Sanders called attention to Kennedy’s denial of germ theory while raising one of Kennedy’s shaky arguments for debunking. In opening statements, Sanders warned Kennedy that he wanted to question the “things that you have written which call in doubt the very existence of the germ theory.” During his questioning, Sanders referenced a passage in Kennedy’s book that reads: A doctrinal canon of the germ theory credits vaccines for the dramatic declines of infectious disease mortalities in North America and Europe during the twentieth century. … Most Americans accept this claim as dogma. It will therefore come as a surprise to learn that it is simply untrue. Sanders pointed out a 2024 study led by the World Health Organization and published in The Lancet that found that since 1974, vaccines had saved an estimated 154 million lives, including 146 million children under the age of 5—or, as WHO put it, vaccines saved the equivalent of six lives every minute of every year over the past 50 years. “My question is a simple one,” Sanders said, “do you still believe that one of the central tenets of the germ theory, that vaccines sharply reduce infant mortality, is quote-unquote simply untrue?” Kennedy responded first by trying to discredit the WHO study, noting that it was based on modeling. Using a common tactic of anti-vaccine advocates, he instead redirected to one of his preferred, cherry-picked studies, which was a 2000 study in the journal Pediatrics with lead author Bernard Guyer. The study, “Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century,” also included estimates and algorithms in its analysis. Kennedy’s argument in the hearing—and his book—is that improvements in nutrition, hygiene, and sanitation led to large declines in infant and child deaths during the 20th century—not vaccines. One might argue that improvements in hygiene and sanitation leading to fewer childhood deaths would be a supportive argument in favor of germ theory. It is well established that waterborne pathogens in contaminated drinking water and sewage cause life-threatening diseases. But to Kennedy and his anti-vaccine allies, it supports the idea that removing environmental toxins allows for a healthier internal terrain, preventing disease, with the added benefit of making vaccines seem unneeded. Kennedy argued that it further supports his anti-germ theory view that vaccines haven’t saved a significant number of lives. But Cassidy noted that the study mainly captured the first half of the century—the same flaw in Kennedy’s argument with the Guyer study. McKinlays’ study only looked at mortality rates from 1900 to 1973. The measles vaccine, for instance, wasn’t released until 1963. “There’s 3.5 million cases of measles per year before the vaccine came along and about 550 deaths, and then the vaccine took those to less than 100 [cases] and like zero deaths,” Cassidy said. “So a tremendous impact of the vaccination.” Sanders, meanwhile, was dismissive of Kennedy’s responses, saying: “You’re entitled to your view … But according to the World Health Organization and scientists all over the world, vaccines have played an enormous role in saving lives.”