The questions that make up the controversies swirling around vaccines and autism are themselves complex, and virtually all of them can be argued from at least two sides (and have been). These questions relate not just to the cause or causes of autism, but also to the contents of different vaccines, the implementation schedule of different vaccines, the possible significance of various reactions to vaccines, the significance of a single settled case in the federal Vaccine Court, and the intentions and connections of a range of government officials, researchers, lawyers, journalists, actors, and individual families.
Here are just a few of the questions that have rolled themselves together into the "Vaccine and Autism Debate:"
- Did thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in most vaccines until last year, actually cause a rise in cases of autism?
- Did measles virus, introduced into children's bodies at approximately age 2 through the Mumps Measles Rubella (MMR) vaccine, cause inflammation which led to a rise in cases of autism?
- Did the rise in the number of standard vaccinations in general, because they include of a variety of potentially toxic elements, cause a variety of reactions which variously led to a rise in cases of autism (and other neurological disorders)?
- Is there any legitimate (meaning scientifically validated) evidence that unvaccinated children are less likely to be autistic than vaccinated children?
- Based on the Vaccine Court case which awarded a large settlement to the family of Hannah Poling, are children with autism actually children with a mitochondrial disorder which is set off by typical vaccine reactions?
- Did various government agencies, such as the CDC and NIH, knowingly and deliberately urge pediatricians to vaccinate infants with the intent to cause harm?
- Even if they did not actually intend to cause harm, did these agencies connive with big pharmaceutical agencies to hide evidence of harm caused by vaccines?
- Is there an incentive for lawyers to represent families claiming vaccine injury, since the Vaccine Court underwrites the cost of legal counsel for families filing claims? If so, are lawyers pressing families to file suits even if the suits are unlikely to win?
- Is there an incentive for journalists and media personalities to take on vaccines as a cause, since the issue has become a major focus of television, radio and Internet outlets? And by the same token, are those few doctors who are best known for their anti-vaccine advocacy actually campaigning for the public good -- or are they in it for the fame and money?
- Is the CDC deliberately choosing to avoid certain types of vaccine-related studies because they fear the outcomes, or have they legitimately researched the subject extensively enough to claim that the outcomes have already been made clear?
Parents should, however, be warned that many voices claim to have the absolute answers to these questions. You may hear or read that you have only to do your research and you'll agree with a particular perspective. In fact, if you really do start digging into the research, you'll find many more than one legitimate perspective -- and you'll further find that each perspective has its own collection of research studies, spokespeople and recommendations.
Which researcher's work is most plausible? Which spokesperson's leadership is most credible? At this point in history, there are no final answers. As a result, it's possible to be swayed not by facts but by passion and personality. In short, do your research. But be sure you know who and what stands behind the material you read.
