Addressing Inaccuracies and Shortcomings in Research About Vaccines and Autism
- ccaplan7
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
Credible public health guidance considers transparent, reproducible, and rigorously peer-reviewed evidence. Decades of empirical data and high-quality studies have shown no connection between vaccines and autism diagnoses, reinforced again this summer by a 24-year analysis of 1.2 million children showing no association with 50 chronic conditions, including autism.
But the long-debunked myth persists, and a new publication that used flawed methods to reach a misleading conclusion could impact vaccine guidance – and, in turn, Americans’ access to vaccines – as the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets in early December.
Below are five reasons why the McCullough Foundation’s self-published report should not be used to deliver medically sound recommendations.
There is no independent evidence, data or verification.
Despite presenting as a scientific assessment, the report introduces no original data, no new analysis, and no independent verification of the studies it cites. The tables and figures embedded simply restate previously published work, much of it outdated or already discredited.
The authors repeatedly imply they are offering fresh insight, writing that “this analysis provides a uniquely comprehensive perspective on the relative contribution of vaccination within the broader context of autism causation.” But nothing in the document reflects new methodology, new evidence or additional rigor.
By contributing no new findings, the report functions more as an advocacy summary than a scientific analysis, failing to satisfy the evidentiary standards ACIP traditionally has applied.
Treating weak sources as firm scientific findings presents a distorted landscape of autism research.
The paper leans heavily on case reports, self-selected surveys and anecdotal accounts that cannot establish cause and effect between vaccines and autism. It cites a 1943 case description and a 1996 uncontrolled series as if they offer insight into vaccine risk. These sources lack comparison groups and validated diagnostic criteria.
The report also highlights animal experiments and speculative lab studies on mercury or aluminum. While these findings cannot be generalized to human neurodevelopment, the document treats them as proof of harm. This approach elevates evidence that researchers often label as only preliminary or exploratory.
Decades of conclusive data must prevail over vague criticism.
Large population studies from Denmark have repeatedly found no link between childhood vaccination and autism, including analyses of both MMR and aluminum-containing vaccines. The report dismisses these findings with broad, passing claims of bias.
Rather than addressing the strengths of these well-controlled studies, the report highlights post hoc analyses that support its narrative without assessing their quality. This cherry-picking creates the impression that established evidence is unreliable while fringe interpretations are definitive.
Author histories and conflicts of interest are not disclosed.
The report leans heavily on a small group of authors whose work has been widely rejected for methodological errors and ethical misconduct. It cites Andrew Wakefield as a credible source even though his original MMR research paper in 1998 was retracted from The Lancet for falsified data, and his medical license was revoked for professional misconduct.
It also draws extensively from David Geier and Mark Geier, whose thimerosal studies have been criticized for poor design, inappropriate statistical methods and unverified autism diagnoses. Their work appears repeatedly in the report’s “positive association” sections despite long-standing credibility concerns.
Claims about aluminum and autism frequently rely on Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic, whose papers have been challenged for misusing data and overstating conclusions. The report creates a false impression of scientific support that does not exist in mainstream research.
Other authors include Peter McCullough, who has had multiple board certifications revoked by the American Board of Internal Medicine, and John Leake, a nonfiction author whose biography lists no medical or scientific credentials.
To learn more about research on vaccines and autism: