Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

That's a dangerous question to answer these days. To say "yes" or "maybe" is to be accused of inviting a public health disaster as millions of parents refuse to vaccinate their children against dread diseases. But to say "no" is to deny the experience of parents who need no more proof than the fact that their children were fine before a shot and not fine after. The issue has become a flashpoint of contention, pitting science against faith, doctors against parents, and parents against one another.

Health headlines often broadcast that one study or another has "proven" that vaccines do not cause autism. Look a little deeper, and what those studies have actually done is failed to prove that there is one. Others claim to have indeed proven a connection, but their results are not embraced by the scientific community. Disagreements rage over the way studies are set up, and who funds them.

Complicating the issue further is the possibility that, while vaccines or their components are not primary causes of autism, they may cause autism in a subset of genetically susceptible children, or a neurological condition that resembles autism. Many have questioned whether it's not so much the vaccines themselves, but the fact that so many are given in so short a time, that may cause neurological chaos in some kids.

The research done thus far mostly indicates that more research needs to be done -- into the causes of autism, and into the possibilities of vaccine injury. As that research continues, so do the firefights between those who believe fervently that vaccinations damaged their children, and those who believe fervently that vaccinations are an important tool for public health that we dare not challenge. The result is a Holy War that is played out daily in medical circles and the media and the Internet and support groups and message boards and anywhere people with strong opinions gather to yell at each other. The stakes couldn't be higher, on either side -- which is what makes uncertainty so unbearable.

One way or another, it always comes down to blame. In the early years of autism research, that blame came down squarely on "refrigerator mothers" who were thought to have so damaged their children by withholding love and affection that those children withdrew and never came back. That theory was replaced with one involving genetics: Some families are susceptible to autism, and it's just going to happen no matter what. The damage was done in the womb and in the genes, not in the pediatrician's office with a syringe. While this theory technically shifts the blame from bad parenting to bad genes, it still keeps responsibility all in the family.

It's hard to blame parents for wanting someone or something else to blame. When many noticed that the onset of their child's autism seemed to coincide with a heavy dose of vaccinations, it looked like it might finally be possible to shift the blame away from the family and onto medical science. Suspicions fell most heavily on the mercury-containing preservative thimerasol and on the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) triple-jab. Medical science, in return, suggested that the onset of autistic symptoms at the age of 18 to 30 months, shortly after MMR vaccines are given, is just a developmental coincidence, not a causal connection. Lots of things happen to kids in that age group, say the doctors. You can't blame everything on shots. To which some parents say, "Wanna bet?"

Some definitive research would be helpful, but most of the studies done to date -- even the studies trumpeted in the media as disproving any vaccine-autism connection -- end with an indication that more research needs to be done. People who defend the need for vaccines have interpreted that to mean there is no compelling evidence, and people who believe vaccines are dangerous have interpreted that to mean that the truth is out there. Meanwhile, more and more children are diagnosed with autism. More and more children are being vaccinated, with more and more vaccines. And more and more animosity is building. Which argument sounds true to you?

Next page