Home » Vaccine Misinformation » Did the CDC Concede That There Are No Studies to Support Claim That Vaccines Given in First 6 Months of Life Do Not Cause Autism?

Did the CDC Concede That There Are No Studies to Support Claim That Vaccines Given in First 6 Months of Life Do Not Cause Autism?

Why do some folks think that the CDC lost a lawsuit and were made to say that they had no studies to support the consensus idea that vaccines are not associated with autism?

Shouldn't we let the CDC focus on the COVID-19 pandemic?
Shouldn’t we let the CDC focus on the COVID-19 pandemic?

The usual suspects…

Did the CDC Concede That There Are No Studies to Support Claim That Vaccines Given in First 6 Months of Life Do Not Cause Autism?

So what is this all about?

As they have done several times before, anti-vaccine folks abused Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to push their agenda.

This time, when the CDC should be using all of their time and resources handling the COVID-19 pandemic, Del Bigtree‘s ICAN hit them with a 36 page complaint, a lawsuit to get studies proving vaccines don’t cause autism.

Even anti-vax folks aren't buying the latest bombshell about vaccines and autism...
Even anti-vax folks aren’t buying the latest bombshell about vaccines and autism…

Interestingly, it seems like even folks in anti-vaccine groups have gotten used to the tricks that ICAN has been playing with these FOIA lawsuits and they understand that this really isn’t any kind of win.

Vaccines still aren’t associated with autism!

When it comes to autism, vaccines are the one suspected culprit that the CDC claims to have exhaustively investigated, yet the CDC could not provide a single study to support that any of the vaccines given during the first six months of life do not cause autism.

Del Bigtree

Wait, if Del Bigtree now thinks that autism is associated with the vaccines given during the first six months of life, is he saying that Andrew Wakefield is indeed a fraud?

And if it is just vaccines given during the first six months of life, then why wasn’t more autism diagnosed in the 1950s and 1960s, when kids already got a lot of doses of vaccines when they were infants?

This study found no association between autism and vaccination at three months, seven months, and two years.
This study found no association between autism and vaccination at three months, seven months, and two years.

Also, if it is vaccines in the first six months of life, then why wasn’t that found in this study that was submitted by the CDC to ICAN, which they either didn’t read or didn’t understand?

“We found no evidence indicating an association between exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides contained in vaccines during the first 2 years of life and the risk of acquiring ASD, AD, or ASD with regression. We also detected no associations when exposures were evaluated as cumulative exposure from birth to 3 months, from birth to 7 months, or from birth to 2 years, or as maximum exposure on a single day during those 3 time periods. These results indicate that parental concerns that their children are receiving too many vaccines in the first 2 years of life or too many vaccines at a single doctor visit are not supported in terms of an increased risk of autism.”

DeStafano on Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism

Although ICAN complains that this study is just about antigen exposure, most folks will understand that those antigens come from vaccines!!!

They looked at all vaccines in this study!
They looked at all vaccines in this study!

And it isn’t even the only study to prove that there is no association between “general vaccinations” and autism.

“In this study, we could not find the evidence that MMR vaccination increases the risk of ASD onset. The present results support the findings from the previous case–control studies conducted in Caucasian populations. Furthermore, we could not find any evidences that other types of vaccines or a combined effect of multiple vaccines was associated with ASD onset. Therefore, this study did not support the theory that vaccinations should be avoided to reduce the risk of ASD onset. We should be more concerned about acquiring infectious diseases by avoiding vaccinations.”

Uno on The Combined Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccines and the Total Number of Vaccines Are Not Associated With Development of Autism Spectrum Disorder: The First Case-Control Study in Asia

The 2012 study, The Combined Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccines and the Total Number of Vaccines Are Not Associated With Development of Autism Spectrum Disorder: The First Case-Control Study in Asia, looked at MMR, measles, mumps, rubella, DPT, polio, B-encephalitis, and BCG vaccines and found no association with autism.

Again, vaccines aren’t associated with autism.

More on Vaccines and Autism

Last Updated on

20 thoughts on “Did the CDC Concede That There Are No Studies to Support Claim That Vaccines Given in First 6 Months of Life Do Not Cause Autism?”

  1. You know the amount of vaccines children receive in the 1950’s compared to the 70’s and even today?? You truly believe we are stupid right??? Only an idiot can trust what you are stating here!!

    1. What an intelligent rebuttal. I mean, it’s not like we’re protecting our children against more vaccine-preventable diseases today, right?

      And it’s not like even with more vaccines, we’re taxing children’s immune systems less now thanks to improved vaccine quality, right?

    2. Here is my shot record I had as a kid because I was an Army brat, and as a teenager I went to the post clinic on my own to get my vaccines in 1974:

      Smallpox:
      23 Jan 58 (no take)
      20 Mar 58
      13 Aug 59
      30 Mar 68
      6 Apr 68
      7 Sep 71
      20 Jun 74

      Typhoid:
      18 Jul 59
      26 Aug 59
      31 Aug 59
      6 Apr 68
      14 Jun 74

      Diptheria/Pertussis/Tetanus:
      23 Jan 58
      20 Feb 58
      20 Mar 58
      21 Jun 59
      3 Aug 62

      Diptheria/Tetanus:
      30 Mar 68
      14 Mar 74

      Typhus:
      13 Apr 68
      18 May 68

      Polio:
      29 Jun 59
      12 Oct 59
      16 Aug 61
      3 Aug 62

      Yellow Fever (father’s overseas assignment):
      26 Aug 59
      3 May 68

      I remember getting mumps and it was miserable. Do tell me if some of those are on the present American pediatric schedule.

  2. Richard Winkel

    It’s the adjuvants and the contaminants, not the antigens. The CDC’s response to the FOIA request was not responsive to it. You aren’t even following this issue. Why write about it?

      1. Its the adjuvants and preservatives and other toxins like Mercury and Aluminium that have been under fire since day one of complaining about vaccines. hence why Thimerosol was taken out of many vaccines.
        But also the Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts. You have to test the whole health outcome of children through the government health records for those that are vaccinated and those that are not.

        Imagine trying to figure out how a car works (cause of autism) and you take away the wheels and steering wheel (thimerosol) and put in tank tracks (aluminium adjuvant) to replace it. Then you say see there is no difference between vaccines with aluminium or thimerosol the car still works and moves(Autism). You still have all the other car parts (ingredients) that haven’t been tested as a whole. What if we tested not having a car at all(no vaccines) versus those with a car (with vaccines) and see if the car works still. The health department already has the data they just have to give it to scientists to study.

  3. Roger Tennison

    This is such a weak response, but that’s to be expected because the result of ICAN’s court case is so unambiguous.

    The CDC has a webpage that states that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”.

    As the links on that page completely fail to support this assertion, ICAN sued to get the scientific studies that the statement is based upon. Specifically the studies that show that the vaccines on the first 6 months of the CDC schedule are safe:

    All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that the DTaP vaccine does not cause autism.

    All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that neither Engerix-B nor Recombivax HB do not cause autism.

    All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that Prevnar 13 does not cause autism.

    All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that Hib vaccines do not cause autism.

    All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that inactivated polio vaccine (‘IPV’) does not cause autism.

    Copies of the studies the CDC relies upon to claim that the cumulative exposure of vaccines it recommends that babies be administered during the first six months of life do not cause autism.

    In response the CDC provided 20 studies, most of which deal with thimerosal and/or the MMR. Only 2 of the studies had anything to do with vaccines in the list above. One is an antigen study, which is irrelevant as nobody is claiming that vaccine injury is caused by too many antigens. The other is the infamous 2013 IOM review that says: “The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism.” In other words, that there is not enough evidence to say the DTaP dies or does not cause autism.

    The CDC thus provided zero studies to show that DTaP, Engerix-B, Recombivax HB, Prevnar 13, Hib, IPV, alone or in combination do not cause autism. Yet they have the gall to state on their website that “vaccines do not cause autism” and remain silent when ever single mainstream medical journalist, doctor, pediatrician nurse, TV pundit etc claim that there are “thousands upon thousands” of studies that show that vaccines do not cause autism.

    When there are so many thousands of parents claiming that their child regressed into autism and that this was directly after a vaccine, this state of affairs is unconscionable. CDC should immediately remove this unproven statement from their website. Second they should finally begin the scientific process to get to the bottom of the link between vaccines and autism.

    1. you can’t prove a negative. You might as well tell the ICAN to prove that vaccines can’t make a child immortal.

      1. If you can’t prove a negative then the CDC should take down their statement that “Vaccines do not cause autism”. Because, based on your logic, that can’t be proven. So, how can they claim that statement is true?

      2. because no correlation has ever been proven, and numerous studies have shown that vaccines do not cause autism. There is no mechanism by which a series of chemicals that not only mostly already exist in the body, or are ingested in far higher doses, that is injected into muscle tissue, could cause someone to have a genetic neurological disorder.

        It is impossible for vaccines to cause autism, but enough quacks and manipulative parasites have made the claim enough that the CDC had to make the claim. The ICAN did not prove anything here.

      3. Yes, you can prove a negative. That’s just not true. Contradictions are an amazing example of this.

      4. Alright, then I’ll make the claim that vaccines have the capability to make you perfectly immune to every single disease ever made, and give you the capability to lift a mettric ton.

        Prove they can’t. Before you act like it’s a strawman, it’s exactly the same argument that ICAN is insisting the CDC do with lawsuits like this. There is no mechanism by which vaccines could even POSSIBLY cause autism. Every single study that even BEGINS to SUGGEST a link has been so horribly constructed that it’s obvious that the constructors of the studies took their conclusion and worked backwards. Considering the entire ‘Vaccines cause autism’ argument was based on Mr. Wakefield’s hilariously awful study on MMR(because he was trying to sell a competing measles vaccine), the fact the CDC used MMR as the basis for most of their presented studies makes sense.

      5. You need to understand how a hypothesis and science works. You make a statement/hypothesis like “vaccines cause autism”, then you test the null hypothesis and try to prove “vaccines do not cause autism”, ICAN are asking for the studies which show Prevnar 13, Hib vaccines,inactivated polio vaccine (‘IPV’) does not cause autism. Therefore they either haven’t hypothesised these vaccines cause autism or they never did the studies. If they never did the studies they have never proven “Vaccines do not cause autism”. It is only a hypothesis
        However it is a very broad hypothesis. They could never test all variations of vaccines all brands of vaccines in all subset of genetic diversity among humans to conclude such a broad statement like “Vaccines do not cause Autism”

        The only thing they can say is that the studies they have done on a particular vaccine suggest there is no link between vaccines and Autism. “However further studies might find a significant difference black poor people which we did not test in this study” for example. Hence why science never can prove anything it can only disprove a hypothesis (null hypothesis).

      6. “You need to understand how a hypothesis works”

        oh the irony. You can’t just make a claim and perform tests that support said claim, dismissing the massive, MASSIVE body of evidence that counters your claim. Even in the famous wakefield study, his findings were not supportive of his hypothesis. Now, in any PROPER science, that would result in him acknowledging that the evidence does not support his hypothesis(namely, that MMR was causing autism). Instead, he dismissed all the evidence that countered his hypothesis, invented data, and published it.

        But sure, we can never ‘disprove fully’. As I said, you can’t prove a negative, which is why this lawsuit was stupid in the first place. There is not, and has never been, reputable evidence showing a link between vaccines(any vaccines) and autism.

        Never. Not once.

        Therefore, the onus is on the people claiming the link to prove there IS a link before any scientific body should be expected to disprove it. That’s how the russel’s teapot fallacy works. You can’t prove there ISN’T a teakettle flying around in space, thus it must be there! To put it in your terms, “You can’t prove any vaccine CAN’T cause autism, so clearly vaccines must cause autism!”

      7. and further, the scientific method, you know, the thing you’re insisting we follow? It begins with an observation. In this case, one would assume the observation might be ‘autism rates are higher in vaccinated children’. Tests would then be done to determine the hypothesis of ‘is the vaccine what’s causing higher autism rates?’, and tests would be done to determine that. If the evidence supports the hypothesis, then it would be a valid hypothesis and further study. If the evidence didn’t support the claim, then further tests would be done.

        But that’s not what happened. One guy went ‘well, autism rates are up…I bet it’s a gut problem. Oh, it’s not a gut problem, well I have this measles vaccine I’ve been testing…I BET I COULD LINK IT TO THE MMR VACCINE’, and he then released a study in a reputable journal that got torn apart…but from there, other disgraced personalities and NON-SCIENTISTS began to spread the myth that vaccines caused autism, which caused actual scientists to release dozens, if not hundreds of studies showing that there is no discernable link between thimerosal, between aluminium hydroxide, and between any vaccine and autism. The fact the CDC produced ‘only’ twenty(compared to the ICAN’s 0) does not ‘prove’ they have no evidence

    1. @Dave Burke Why was it a fail? They got their 20 CDC research articles that the CDC relies upon to claim “Vaccines do not cause Autism”. That was ICANs goal and they achieved it. Now ICAN can tell people unequivocally that CDC has no studies to say Prevnar 13, Hib vaccines,inactivated polio vaccine (‘IPV’) does not cause autism? Which means it is possible that these vaccines and thus “Vaccines” in general might cause autism and their are NO studies with the null hypothesis that these vaccines dont cause Autism.
      It also means that CDC has no data to say cumulative exposure to vaccines recommended in the schedule do not cause Autism. Which means cumulative exposure of vaccines might cause Autism, it hasn’t been tested and thus we dont know.
      The goal was to break down the CDC claim that “Vaccines do not cause Autism” and the CDC has not enough evidence to back up that claim. This was what this court case succeeded in achieving.

      1. The papers the CDC brought were all publically available. ICAN didn’t get anything through the court order that wasn’t already public information.

        So no, they didn’t win ANYTHING. The court case proved nothing and was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. That is, in no way, a win.

  4. How can they say they are evaluating ‘the level of immunologic stimulation’ by using those antigen numbers. Do they have a study to show that 3000 antigens stimulates more than a 4 antigen vaccine? Why didn’t they just use number of doses and number of vaccines?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: