Federal Government Plans No-Bid Contract With RPI to Explore Disproven Vaccine-Autism Link

Federal health officials are preparing to award a no-bid contract to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) to study a potential link between vaccines and autism—despite decades of scientific evidence disproving any connection. According to a government procurement notice posted this week, the Troy, New York-based engineering school was selected due to its “unique ability” to analyze linked data from children and mothers, the Associated Press reports.

The planned study appears to be part of a broader initiative led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic. In April, Kennedy announced a “massive testing and research effort” aimed at identifying causes of autism by September. Despite his repeated efforts to associate vaccines with autism, global research has consistently shown no causal link.

The Department of Health and Human Services has not yet disclosed the value of the contract or the specific goals of the study. RPI confirmed its involvement in a statement, noting that professor Juergen Hahn—who has previously used artificial intelligence to detect patterns in blood samples of children with autism—would lead the project if awarded.

“Dr. Hahn is renowned for the quality and rigor of his research,” RPI said, adding that the results would be made public upon completion of the study.

However, the proposed contract is raising concerns among experts. Alycia Halladay, Chief Science Officer at the Autism Science Foundation, questioned both the selection of RPI and the rationale behind funding research on a theory that has already been thoroughly debunked.

“RPI doesn’t have special access to autism data and wouldn’t be an obvious choice for this kind of study,” Halladay said. “More importantly, the science is settled. The vaccine-autism hypothesis has been studied for over 20 years, across millions of people worldwide, and no credible link has ever been found.”

She added, “It’s unclear why federal resources are being directed toward revisiting a question that has already been definitively answered by the scientific community.”

original source