It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Thursday, October 30, 2025
U.S. Public not highly knowledgeable about safety of MMR vaccine or risks of getting measles
Public also unclear whether RFK Jr. supports MMR vaccination
Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
Nearly 1,650 cases of measles in 42 states have been confirmed this year in the United States by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the largest annual number in 34 years. This includes a fresh outbreak of over a hundred people that began in late summer in Arizona and Utah. Public health experts such as Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suspect the actual total could be higher.
The outbreaks come over two decades after measles was declared “eliminated” from the United States in 2000, a status that signifies the absence of “the continuous spread of the disease” for more than 12 months, the CDC says, thanks largely to a “highly effective vaccination program.”
After decades without many cases, however, and several years in which the safety of new Covid-19 vaccines and others have been called into question, an Annenberg health survey finds that the public is less informed than it should be of the dangers of measles – a highly contagious disease that can lead to death or disability – and less certain than it used to be of the value of vaccination.
The survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania shows that while most U.S. adults (82%) would recommend that eligible children in their household get the MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps, and rubella, the percentage has declined significantly since November 2024 (90%). The survey also finds that:
The public is confused about whether the top U.S. health official, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., recommends that children be vaccinated against measles;
Most Americans believe that vaccines like the MMR vaccine do not cause autism – but significantly fewer know this than in recent years;
Over half of those surveyed are not sure whether a mercury-based preservative in some vaccines affects a person’s chances of developing autism, when evidence has shown no link between the preservative and autism;
A quarter of the public thinks getting the measles is likely to be less deadly than it is.
“Mixed messages about the safety and efficacy of measles vaccination from those leading health agencies fuel confusion and cultivate a climate that is hospitable to an otherwise preventable and sometimes deadly disease,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC).
The survey was conducted August 5-18, 2025, among nearly 1,700 U.S. adults on a nationally representative panel. See the end of this news release or the topline for additional details.
Views on the MMR vaccine
The survey finds that most American adults know…
… What MMR prevents: Given the choice of a number of different diseases and conditions that begin with the letters “M” and “R,” around two-thirds of those surveyed know that the MMR vaccine is designed to prevent measles (68%), mumps (65%), and rubella (64%). As many or more people correctly did not select alternatives such as meningitis (66% did not select), mpox (68% did not select), rhinitis (69% did not select), menopause (70% did not select), and rigor mortis (70% did not select). However, more than 1 in 4 people (27%) overall say they are not sure what the MMR vaccine is designed to prevent.
… Vaccination is the best way to avoid getting measles: Given the options of vaccination, a healthy diet, or neither, a strong majority knows the best way to prevent getting measles is to be vaccinated (81%), while 1% say “eating a healthy diet,” 6% say neither, and 11% are not sure.
… The MMR provides lifetime protection against measles: Most people (67%) know it is true that the MMR vaccine usually protects people who receive it from getting measles for their entire lifetime, though 21% are not sure and 13% think this is false. The CDC says the MMR vaccine usually protects people for life against measles and rubella, though immunity against mumps may diminish over time.
Giving children the MMR vaccine
The CDC recommends that children get a first dose of the MMR vaccine at 12 to 15 months old and a second dose between ages 4 and 6 years old. The CDC says one dose is 93% effective at preventing measles and two doses are 97% effective.
Recommending MMR for a child: Although a large majority of people support giving children the vaccine, the number declined significantly in just over nine months. The August 2025 survey finds that 82% would recommend that an eligible child in their household get an MMR vaccine, compared with 90% in November 2024.
Why childhood measles is less common than a century ago: A majority (77%) knows that “the main reason” children in the United States are much less likely to get measles today than a century ago is effective vaccination, rather than better sewage treatment and water purification (4%) or better nutrition (2%), though 13% say they are not sure and 3% say “none of the above.”
Two doses: Less than half of those surveyed (42%) know children need two doses of the MMR vaccine for full protection from measles, mumps, and rubella, while 48% are not sure.
RFK Jr. and the measles vaccine
The American public is unclear about where Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime critic of vaccines, stands on the MMR vaccine. Less than a quarter of the public (23%) says that he recommends that children be vaccinated against measles, while 29% say he does not recommend it, and almost half of the public (48%) is not sure.
In January confirmation hearings for HHS secretary, Kennedy “refused to say that vaccines do not cause autism – despite a large body of evidence showing there is no link,” according to FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. In fact, Kennedy “also pointed to a flawed paper to suggest that there is credible evidence to claim vaccines cause the disorder.”
According to the CDC: “There is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism.”
As secretary, Kennedy has made misleading and unsupported claims about the MMR vaccine, the measles, and vaccination in general. He has downplayed the risks of measles and this year’s large measles outbreak in Texas. FactCheck.org has reviewed a number of his claims on various issues – see its articles.
Last spring, during the Texas outbreak, Kennedy did make positive statements about vaccination. On April 6, he wrote on X (formerly Twitter), “The most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine.” In an April 8 CBS interview, he said, “We encourage people to get the measles vaccine.” Yet Kennedy also said, “We don’t know the risks of many of these products because they’re not safety tested.”
As FactCheck.org writes, hours after his post on X, Kennedy praised two Texas physicians as “extraordinary healers” for using two unsupported treatments for measles. On March 2, Kennedy wrote on Fox News that vaccines “not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity…” But as FactCheck.org also notes, he did not explicitly say the vaccine is safe, nor did he specifically advocate vaccination.
During the Texas outbreak, Kennedy suggested that poor nutrition and a lack of exercise play a role in measles and misleadingly focused on vitamin A, including from cod liver oil, as a treatment. Even so, nearly 4 in 5 Americans (79%) know it is true that “healthy, well-nourished children can get measles.” Just 7% think that is false and 14% are not sure.
A CDC page dated January 17, 2025, (accessed Oct. 27) states: “The best way to protect against measles is to get the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Children may get the measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine instead, which protects against chickenpox too.”
Most see no link between vaccines and autism
No evidence vaccines cause autism: About two-thirds of the public (65%) say it is false to claim that vaccines given to children for diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella cause autism, though that represents a significant decrease from prior years (June 2021-July 2024), when 70-74% of the public agreed it was false to link autism with vaccines. In 2004, the National Academy of Medicine (then named the Institute of Medicine) determined that “the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism evidence.” The CDC, on a web page dated Dec. 20, 2024 (accessed Oct. 29), wrote that “studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD” (autism spectrum disorder).
Vaccines are safe: A substantial majority of the public (70%) similarly says that vaccines approved for use in the United States are safe, though that also represents a decline from past years (April 2021-January 2022), when 76-79% said vaccines are safe.
No evidence of an autism-thimerosal link: Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in some vaccines since the 1930s, has been the target of unfounded and misleading claims by anti-vaccine advocates, including claims that it is ineffective, a neurotoxin, and may be tied to autism. In its 2004 report, the National Academy of Medicine determined that evidence “favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.” Numerous studies since have also supported thimerosal’s safety, according to FactCheck.org. Thimerosal has not been in childhood vaccines other than flu vaccines since 2001. In July 2025, Kennedy signed off on recommendations by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to remove thimerosal from U.S. flu vaccines.
Asked about any connection between thimerosal and autism, half of those surveyed (51%) are not sure whether thimerosal increases, decreases, or has no effect on the chances that a person getting a vaccine will develop autism. Over a third (37%) correctly say it has no effect on the chances of developing autism, and 10% say it increases the chances.
To learn more about autism and the challenges it may pose for young people, see “If Your Adolescent Has Autism: An Essential Resource for Parents” (Oxford University Press, 2025), a new book in a series developed by the Adolescent Mental Health Initiative. The initiative is a joint project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands under the guidance of Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute.
Knowing about the consequences of getting measles
Most Americans have little firsthand experience with measles, which, as noted above, was declared “eliminated” from the United States in 2000, according to the CDC. If current trends hold, however, “there would appear to be grounds for the U.S. to lose measles elimination status,” according to KFF researcher Josh Michaud. The survey finds that many Americans are unsure about the possible consequences of getting measles:
Only 22% correctly know that some people experience a swelling of the brain, known as encephalitis, as a result of having measles. A small number (3%) say you can get encephalitis from the measles vaccine, which is extraordinarily rare. Ten percent say you cannot get encephalitis from measles or the measles vaccine, 6% say you can get it from both, but most people (60%) are not sure.
Less than a third (30%) know that getting measles increases the chances of getting some serious illnesses later in life, while 24% say it has no effect on getting serious illnesses later, 8% say it decreases the chances, and 38% are not sure.
Most people are not sure how many children die as a result of getting measles (58%) – only 9% correctly know it is about 1 in 1,000, while a quarter of those surveyed (26%) chose lower rates, and 8% chose higher rates. This year’s U.S. outbreaks have so far resulted in three deaths, two of them children.
About 1 in 5 people (19%) believe that among children who get the MMR vaccine none are likely to die as a result. Half of those surveyed (50%) are not sure, and about a third (32%) chose higher rates. According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, “There have been no deaths shown to be related to the MMR vaccine in healthy people.”
Annenberg Science and Public Health survey
The survey data come from the 25th wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,699 U.S. adults conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. Most have been empaneled since April 2021. To account for attrition, replenishment samples have been added over time using a random probability sampling design. The most recent replenishment, in September 2024, added 360 respondents to the sample. Wave 25 of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey, fielded August 5-18, 2025, has a margin of sampling error (MOE) of ± 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel for more than four years. In addition to APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson, APPC’s ASAPH survey team includes research analyst Laura A. Gibson, Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, and Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research.
See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:
The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) Survey Aug. 2025, N=1699, MOE=+/-3.5%
Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) Surveys Jun. 2021 - Aug. 2025
Credit
Annenberg Public Policy Center
Method of Research
Survey
Subject of Research
People
Americans have widespread misbeliefs about the cancer risks of alcohol, study finds
Credit: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
More than half of American adults misunderstand or underestimate the link between alcohol consumption and cancer
Alcohol drinkers are especially likely to believe that drinking has no effect on cancer risk
Correcting these misbeliefs may strengthen adherence to U.S. Surgeon General’s alcohol consumption guidelines to lower cancer risk
HOUSTON, OCTOBER 30, 2025 – Despite clear evidence linking alcohol use to increased cancer risks, public awareness of this connection remains low in the U.S., according to new research from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Researchers found that more than half of American adults (52.9%) did not know alcohol affects cancer risk.
The cross-sectional study, published today in JAMA Oncology, revealed 37.1% of U.S. adults do understand there is a correlation between cancer risk and drinking, and 1% believed that drinking decreased cancer risk. People who had recently consumed alcohol, or who believed that cancer isn’t fatal or preventable, were more likely to think that drinking alcohol doesn’t influence cancer risk, the study also found.
“It’s concerning that people who drink alcohol are the ones most likely to believe it has no effect on cancer risk,” said lead author, Sanjay Shete, Ph.D., professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, and Betty B. Marcus Chair in Cancer Prevention. “Given people’s beliefs play a critical role in whether they choose healthier behaviors, we need to work on correcting these misperceptions, which could be essential to reducing the growing burden of alcohol-related cancers.”
According to the study, what may impact a person’s view of alcohol and cancer risk?
While it is known that individuals’ beliefs strongly influence their willingness to adopt healthier behaviors, few studies have examined this on a national scale. Researchers found that the prevalence of beliefs varied according to certain health-behavioral factors.
Current cigarette smokers, Black individuals, those with lower education levels (below a college or high school level), and those who do not believe cancer is preventable were more likely not to know that alcohol influences cancer risk.
What do we know about alcohol and cancer risk?
According to the World Health Organization, alcohol is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen, the same category as tobacco, asbestos and radiation. Drinking alcohol has been linked to at least seven types of cancer. About 5.5% of all new cancer diagnoses and 5.8% of all deaths from cancer are attributed to drinking alcohol, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Addressing misbeliefs could reinforce individual compliance with alcohol consumption guidelines, particularly those recently endorsed by the U.S. Surgeon General in his 2025 advisory, and may help mitigate preventable cancer-related deaths.
How was the study conducted?
In this analysis, researchers looked at responses from almost 7,000 Americans over the age of 18 (mean age 48) from the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey data. Almost half were female (48.4%), 60.7% were white, 17.5% were Hispanic and 11% were Black. More than half of respondents had consumed alcohol in the last month. Nearly 10% had a personal cancer history.
The belief about the effect of alcohol on cancer risk was measured with the question: “In your opinion, how does drinking alcohol affect the risk of getting cancer?” Possible responses to this question were: "decreases the risk of cancer," "has no effect on the risk of cancer," "increases risk of cancer," and "don't know."
***
This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute (P30CA016672) and the Betty B. Marcus Chair in Cancer Prevention. For a full list of collaborating authors, disclosures and funding sources, read the full paper in JAMA Oncology.
Journal
JAMA Oncology
‘Split-brain’ study: just a few fibres enable communication between the two hemispheres of the brain
Just a few fibres are enough for the two hemispheres of the brain to communicate with each other. This was shown by a new international study led by Professor Dr Michael Miller (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Professor Dr Lukas J. Volz (Department of Neurology at University Hospital Cologne and the University of Cologne’s Faculty of Medicine) in close collaboration with Professor Dr Christian Bien’s team at the Bethel Epilepsy Centre (University Hospital OWL at Bielefeld University). The results were published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and underline the human brain’s amazing ability to reorganize – even when the most important connection between the hemispheres, the corpus callosum, is partially severed.
Until recently, damage to the corpus callosum – the brain’s largest fiber bundle – has been associated with impairments in speech, motor functions, or perception. However, the new study with so-called ‘split-brain’ patients shows that preserving around one centimetre of the corpus callosum’s fibres is enough to largely maintain the exchange of information between the two brain hemispheres and thus prevent neurological symptoms.
Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the research team investigated how partial or complete transections of the corpus callosum affected neural synchronisation. While a complete transection largely prevented information exchange between the hemispheres, communication remained almost normal in patients with few residual connections.
These findings challenge long-held assumptions about the relationships between brain structure and function. “Our results underline the immense adaptability of the functional architecture of the human brain,” explains Prof Volz. “Even a few fibres between the cerebral hemispheres appear to be sufficient to maintain a complex network architecture.”
These findings offer valuable insights for rehabilitation research after brain injur with targeted therapeutic interventions aiming to exploit the brain’s neuroplastic potential to facilitate the reorganization of impaired networks.
The study was carried out in close collaboration between the University Hospital Cologne and the University of Cologne’s Faculty of Medicine, the Bethel Epilepsy Centre (University Hospital OWL, Bielefeld University), the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Indiana University Bloomington. The Cologne team was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of Collaborative Research Centre 1451 “Key Mechanisms of Motor Control in Health and Disease”.
.JPG)
