Is the childhood vaccine schedule safe?

In 2011, the Supreme Court decided a case called Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. It started when the parents of a girl who was thought to have serious side effects from a vaccine sued the company that made the vaccine. Her parents believed that the vaccine was poorly designed, which caused her problems.

However, the Supreme Court agreed with the vaccine manufacturer. They said that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects vaccine makers from being sued if a vaccine causes injuries or death as long as the side effects are unavoidable and the vaccine is made and labeled correctly. They explained that the law stops any lawsuits that claim a vaccine’s design is defective.

The court didn’t say that all vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” The ruling was just about whether the parents could sue under this specific law. The phrase “unavoidably unsafe” was mentioned in the court’s discussion, but it relates to the terms set by the law, not a general statement about vaccines.

So, are vaccines the cause of the rise in autism rates? Reasons for the rise in autism rates are many: changes in diagnostic criteria, increased awareness, educational changes, and lowered rates of intellectual disability account for most of the rising rates. Biological risk factors such as the father’s age and premature birth could also play into a rise in some incidence of autism.

And there’s plenty of evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. Not only do the studies done to date show vaccines are not in any way linked to autism, but studies indicate disorganization of the prefrontal cortex in the brains of autistic people. This part of the brain develops before birth. Of all the risk factors in developing autism, we know genetics looks the most likely, and being vaccinated is not among them.

As for the myth that unvaccinated children are healthier than their vaccinated counterparts, almost all of the studies are similar in nature. One such study was funded by two different anti-vaccine organizations (Generation Rescue, Inc., and the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute). The study, which was retracted a month after it was published, relied on surveys sent out to parents of homeschooled children. They didn’t specify how many people were eligible to take the survey, but they only received 415 responses.

Along with self-selection bias, a study design like this introduces other biases, such as recall bias and reporting bias. The study itself shows that the unvaccinated group was less likely to seek medical or dental care and less likely to use medications. They might also have a different perception of illness or neurological disorders than someone from the vaccinated group.

A study this small with so many clear biases needs to be discarded (or retracted–which it was).