MMR vaccine and autism: examining the evidence and concerns

1 MMR Vaccine Link to Autism Introduction The measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine has been linked to the rise of autism, beginning in the 1980s, when autism prevalence was 4 in 10,000. By the 2000s, prevalence had increased to 1 in 1000 (Autism Science Foundation, 2020). While the criteria for diagnosing autism has changed over the decades, there is another variable that can be correlated with the rise of autism—it is the rise of vaccinations, particularly the MMR vaccine. The linking evidence is largely anecdotal, with testimonies from families and doctors, and a special vaccine court established by the US to handle lawsuits, serving as the bulk of the evidence for the linkage. However, there is also new research that suggests the anecdotal evidence may have substantial merit based on findings with regard to aluminum (a common vaccine adjuvant) found in the brains of people with autism (Mold, Umar, King & Exley, 2018). While studies have been published arguing that there is no direct link between the MMR vaccine and autism, these studies have also been criticized for not conducting a gold standard double blind randomized controlled trial experiment and also for having a conflict of interest in terms of funding coming from entities related to the vaccine industry (Yahoo Finance, 2020). As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. notes, no gold star study has compared an unvaccinated population to a vaccinated population to see which is healthier (Yahoo Finance, 2020). Some studies have claimed to do this, but in reality they have not and do not bear the markings of a gold star standard. One thing is clear: vaccines have skyrocketed among the young over the past few decades and so too have the cases of autism. Regardless of whether this is mere coincidence or whether it is a case of something in the MMR vaccine reacting in certain ways with certain body types, one can certainly argue caution. Primary Argument Why is this issue important and relevant to people right now? Today, this issue is more important than ever because of the rise of COVID-19 panic. Many people are concerned about the effects that a mandatory vaccine might have. Indeed, poll after poll is showing a growing skepticism in a COVID vaccine. Americans more than ever are questioning the safety of not only a COVID vaccine, but all vaccines. Does this skepticism hold any merit? It is possible to be skeptical of vaccines while still holding that they have been helpful at times. This paper will argue that vaccines are not harmless for all people, at all times, at all ages, and in all quantities. Indeed, there is overwhelming medical and scientific evidence available that indicates as much. For example, it cannot be said that vaccines do not cause harm because the opposite has been shown to be true throughout history. In 1986, the US Congress established the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for the precise purpose of compensating the families of children harmed by vaccines. The Act established a vaccine court because vaccines were causing harm—if they were not there would be no need for a special court set up strictly to handle the compensation of families adversely affected by them. According, to the HHS (United States Department of Health Human Services) since 1988 20,428 petitions have been filed with the VICP (Vaccine Injury Compensation Program), 17,718 petitions have been adjudicated; 6,430 of those have been determined to be compensable and 11,288 were dismissed. In addition, with Congress creating this “vaccine court,” the Act removed full liability and responsibility from companies that produce vaccines. In other words, the government took on the liability that should be assumed by vaccine producers—but because the vaccine industry and the federal government have a business relationship (which in and of itself serves as a conflict of interest the same way that the for-profit private prison industry does in criminal justice) the government covers for the failings of the industry. And that is where industry barons like Bill Gates and health bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci come into play: they work in tandem to promote a narrative not only that viruses are bad but also that vaccines are necessary to save lives. Yet virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka (2015) has proven that no virus has ever been isolated and that measles is not caused by a virus. He has excoriated a for-profit health industry that uses “germ theory” to sensationalize a narrative about dangerous viruses—a narrative that is completely based on assumptions rather than on evidence. Lanka (2015) argues that what is known as measles is best explained as a skin issue that is psychosomatically induced and that the effect produced on the skin is the body’s way of dealing with a natural event process. Mold et al. (2018) have shown that aluminum in the brain tissue of people with autism is a significant finding and they raise the question of how the aluminum is getting there if not through vaccines. They show that pediatric vaccines like MMR use aluminum (Mold et al., 2018). This is not disputed, as aluminum is a common vaccine adjuvant—i.e., an agent that is meant to improve the immune response to the vaccine. What the authors indicate is that the aluminum is having a secondary effect on the development of the child. This evidence is supported by stories of families who had perfectly healthy children one day, took them to get their MMR vaccine, and then the child all of a sudden changed and was later diagnosed with autism (The Vaccine War, 2010). These claims are corroborated by the claims of CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, who has stated in public that he and other colleagues of his at the CDC Vaccine Safety Branch “were ordered to commit scientific fraud, destroy evidence and manipulate data to conceal the link between autism and vaccines” (PRNewswire, 2016). As the CDC is part of the federal government that has a working business relationship with the vaccine industry it should not be surprising to learn that it would suppress dissident voices attempting to raise the alarm bells about data manipulation and evidence actually linking vaccines to autism. There is a tremendous conflict of interest at the heart of the relationship between the government and the for-profit industry it ostensibly regulates. Counter Argument The counter argument is centered on claims, all similar in essence, that the research has been done and that there is no linkage between MMR vaccine and autism. Studies like those by Karwowski et al. (2018) are routinely cited as evidence to support this claim. The counter argument is that measles, mumps and rubella can all be prevented with the MMR vaccination and that if the vaccine is not given to children, these diseases will reappear and millions of people will get sick. Those who cite the film Vaxxed, which was produced by Dr. Wakefield, a strong critic of vaccinations, argue that the film is based on manipulated data. They say that critics of vaccinations are not trustworthy. They are essentially ad hominem attacks. For instance, Rao and Andrade (2011) accused Dr. Wakefield and colleagues of fraud and disputed the ethics of the doctors suggesting a link between MMR and autism in their 1998 study. Dr. Wakefield’s reputation took a serious hit through a number of similar publications. For instance, one argument made against Dr. Wakefield’s character was that he took money to produce the study from lawyers representing a family suing for damages after their child was diagnosed with autism following the reception of the MMR vaccination. Rao and Andrade (2011) note that a great deal of money has been spent refuting the research of Dr. Wakefield. Resolution In spite of the attacks on Dr. Wakefield and his research, the film Vaxxed has received a great deal of attention and the concern of parents around the world has been expressed in numerous stories like those expressed in the film and in The Vaccine War (2011). The accusations made against Wakefield could just as easily be made against those researchers who conduct studies at the behest of the vaccine industry or for universities that receive large donations from vaccine companies. There are conflicts of interest throughout the industry and particularly within the journal publications themselves. It is very difficult to get federal grants to research the issue since the federal government is lobbied to such a great extent by the vaccine industry and since the federal government has essentially given the industry carte blanche by assuming all the risk on itself with the adoption of the vaccine courts. Moreover, the issue raised by Lanka has never factually been addressed. Lanka even went so far as to wager a bet in Germany that no one could produce a single study in which the measles virus had been isolated. One person took up the challenge and pointed to six studies that all leapfrogged on the same misleading notion that the virus had been isolated when really it had not. The court initially ruled against Lanka when he refused to pay the challenger; but the appeals court ruled in favor of Lanka, stating that the bet had not been won by the challenger according to the terms expressed in the wager (Learning GNM, n.d.). What that showed was that Lanka’s argument about the entire field of virology being built on inaccurate science and unverified assumptions was legitimate. No one has ever isolated a single virus. This is especially important to consider in the age of COVID-19 where bureaucrats dictate extremely hurtful policies to the global economy that end up ravaging the social and mental health of communities over speculation that the novel coronavirus is the Black Plague 2.0. The same rush to judgment seen throughout history since the adoption of germ theory by the scientific community is prevalent today. Many doctors have argued against this knee-jerk reaction, including those who signed the Great Barrington Declaration—many of them doctors and professors of Ivy League colleges. But even if one chooses to believe that viruses are the cause of skin issues like measles and mumps, one should know the risks of vaccinating against these skin issues. One of the biggest risks is that aluminum can be found in the MMR vaccine (Mold et al., 2018), and as even Karwowski et al. (2018) show in their cross-sectional study, one cannot dismiss the argument of correlation between aluminum and autism based on a single research study that use a small sample population that in turn does not allow for generalizeability of findings. Karwowski et al. (2018) admit this in their study, yet their study is taken as evidence that there is no correlation between aluminum in the body and autism. Karwowski et al. (2018) explicitly state in their study that nothing conclusive can be taken from their study. But that does not stop people from using it to make an argument in favor of vaccinations. It just goes to show that when it comes to small samples and suggestive deductions, those who argue against the safety of MMR—like Dr. Wakefield and colleagues—are reviled by the industry, while those who use similarly small samples to make deductions are not reviled; on the contrary, they are lauded. This double-standard within the academic industry suggests that the industry is compromised. It is not hard to see why it is compromised. There is a strong influence from the vaccine industry within the academic community. The journals of reputable colleges are essentially coerced by funds from these companies to prevent any critical studies of vaccinations from seeing the light of day. That is why so many concerned parents rely on anecdotal evidence from real-life parents, whose stories are shared in films like Vaxxed and The Vaccine War. These are parents who can tell their side of the story—how they had a normal, healthy child prior to vaccination and after they found they had a child who was autistic. While not every child who is vaccinated ends up with autism—obviously—the argument can be made that many cases have occurred in which strong evidence suggests that ingredients like aluminum in the vaccines are harmful to the child’s development. At the end of the day, it is all going to come down to faith: one is either going to trust the industry and assume it has everyone’s best interests in mind (in spite of the obvious conflicts of interest), or one is going to be skeptical of a government and an academic industry that has gone to great lengths to protect the vaccine industry by silencing whistleblowers and heaping scorn upon doctors who have dared to question the mainstream narrative that vaccines are safe. If they are so safe, then why do so many families end up suing in vaccine court?