In Another Mad Dash to Trash Kennedy, NYTimes Shows Their Vast Ignorance... Again, and Again, and Again...

Fact-checking so-called fact-checkers is tiring.

It’s happening again. Another so-called ‘fact-check’ from The New York Times, another exercise in selective framing, omission of crucial details, and a heavy-handed reliance on institutional narratives that conveniently sidestep inconvenient facts. The latest offender? The article titled “Kennedy, in His Own Words: Flu, Diabetes, Autism and More” by Apoorva Mandavilli, published on January 28, 2025.

This piece, masquerading as a rigorous examination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s statements, is anything but. Instead, it follows a predictable formula: distort the claims, selectively cite evidence that aligns with the preferred narrative, and dismiss any counterarguments without real engagement. Let’s break it down.

The Usual Misdirection: Cherry-Picking Data

The article claims Kennedy’s statistics on childhood diabetes are wildly exaggerated. Yet, instead of a real analysis, we get a surface-level dismissal, citing limited datasets while ignoring key epidemiological trends, such as changes in diagnostic criteria and underreporting.

One of the most striking revelations from the 2024 meta-analysis on Type 1 diabetes incidence is the sharp increase observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. While The New York Times downplays environmental and systemic factors in chronic disease, the data suggests a different story. The study found that the incidence rate of Type 1 diabetes spiked from 13.56 per 100,000 person-years pre-pandemic to 24.84 per 100,000 during 2020-2022. Although the statistical significance was borderline (p = 0.090), the trend aligns with multiple regional studies reporting similar increases. Instead of addressing this possible correlation with pandemic-era exposures—be it viral triggers, stress-related immune shifts, or other yet-unexplored mechanisms—The Times resorts to dismissive rhetoric, ignoring scientific inquiry that doesn’t conform to its preferred narrative. This is not just misleading; it is an abdication of journalistic duty.

A true fact-check would explore:

• The long-term financial burden of pediatric diabetes on healthcare systems.

• The steady rise in prediabetes rates, which Kennedy correctly pointed out.

• The role of environmental and dietary shifts in fueling metabolic disease.

Instead, The Times resorts to a reductive approach: cherry-picking statistics that suit their narrative while leaving out broader public health concerns.

The Flu Vaccine: Overstating Efficacy, Ignoring Variability

Predictably, the NYT plays the old card of “the flu vaccine works every year, end of story.” What they fail to mention:

• Flu vaccine effectiveness varies significantly by season, sometimes as low as 10-20%, as documented in CDC-reported data from multiple flu seasons.

• The impact of antigenic drift on vaccine match quality is unpredictable.

• Past Cochrane Reviews have raised questions about the real-world efficacy of annual flu shots, particularly in healthy adults.

• CDC and FDA cannot decide on the difference between influenza cases and cases of “influenza disease”, which include respiratory illnesses caused by other viruses, bacteria, fungi - as long as they are not otherwise definitively diagnosed. I estimate 5,000 deaths from influenza disease, not 50,000-80,000 due to their substitution of “influenza disease” for “influenza”.

And then there’s the glaring misrepresentation: the flu vaccine does not transmit the flu. While this is technically true for injected vaccines, live attenuated nasal flu vaccines do shed, a fact confirmed in a 2019 study published in Vaccine—an inconvenient detail they gloss over. (The article incorrectly claims no live virus flu vaccines exist).

Autism: The Convenient Diagnostic Expansion Argument

Whenever concerns are raised about rising autism prevalence, mainstream outlets rely on a single, tired talking point: “It’s just better diagnosis.” Never mind that:

• Profound autism cases have also risen, as shown in a 2022 study in JAMA Pediatrics.

• Environmental exposures remain unexplored as potential contributing factors; studies point to at least 50% liability for environmental causes.

• Long-term economic and social burdens of severe autism remain largely unaddressed.

Rather than engage in a nuanced discussion, The Times deflects, falsely implying that the increase is purely administrative. Kennedy, at least, is asking the right questions. The NYT isn’t even interested in answers.

Vaccine Safety: Downplaying Placebo Issues

This is where the article moves from misleading to outright deceptive. The claim that “all vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing” is technically correct—but only if you accept the industry’s own definition of rigorous. The truth:

• Many childhood vaccines were never tested in long-term, inert placebo-controlled trials.

• Regulators often allow ‘placebos’ that contain adjuvants, or other vaccines, not inert saline.

• Non-inferiority trials are not the same as placebo-controlled trials, yet The Times presents them as equivalent.

For example, the FDA’s approval process for the HPV vaccine relied on comparison with an aluminum-adjuvant placebo rather than an inert saline placebo, as highlighted in a 2017 review in Drug Safety.

If a pharmaceutical company used this kind of sleight of hand in advertising, they’d face lawsuits. When The New York Times does it? It’s called journalism.

Pertussis Vaccine: Whitewashing Past Concerns

Kennedy raises legitimate concerns about pertussis vaccines, but the NYT dismisses them outright. They rely on expert panels’ conclusions without addressing:

• Historical neurological injury concerns surround the whole-cell pertussis vaccine.

• The methodological flaws in studies that dismissed adverse effects.

• The reality that West African studies DID show higher mortality post-vaccination, a finding they conveniently wave away.

A notable 2017 study in BMJ Global Health revisited these mortality concerns, questioning the original dismissal of adverse outcomes.

This is fact-checking in name only—an exercise in preemptively dismissing criticism rather than addressing the evidence.

Final Thoughts: The New York Times as the Ministry of Truth

We’ve seen this pattern before. Due to their addiction to Pharma ad money, any questioning of public health orthodoxy is met with:

1. Reframing the claim to make it seem absurd.

2. Citing selective studies that align with the preferred narrative.

3. Ignoring or dismissing dissenting research without engaging it.

4. Relying on appeals to authority rather than empirical scrutiny.

This is not journalism. It’s narrative enforcement. And the worst part? They know exactly what they’re doing.

If The New York Times truly cared about fact-checking, it would engage in real debate. Instead, it chooses to police discourse, gaslight readers, and silence dissent.

And frankly, fact-checking The Times has become exhausting.

But someone has to do it. Please send this to your loved ones even if they no longer talk to you. Tell them they are personally invited, by me, to engage in rational discourse.

INCONVENIENT FACTS

CENSORED: Is CDC Borrowing Pneumonia Deaths “From Flu”​ for “From COVID-19?

A Message to Ethical MDs: The Problem with the 2017-8 Flu Vaccine is the 2016-7 Flu Vaccine

Citation:

Hormazábal-Aguayo, I., Ezzatvar, Y., Huerta-Uribe, N., Ramírez-Vélez, R., Izquierdo, M., & García-Hermoso, A. (2024). Incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus in children and adolescents under 20 years of age across 55 countries from 2000 to 2022: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews, 40(3), e3749. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3749