Increasing Autism through Vaccine Opposition
The new Washington opposes vaccines -- and supports policies that will increase autism-related pollutants
The new US administration, which is bringing a world of upheaval upon Washington, is of the opinion that forceful change is the best way to improve government. This fervor is evident in every department of our federal government. But in the matter of public health, strong opinion should take a secondary role to science, particularly concerning epidemiological research, whose primary focus is to collect data from large populations. Rather than engaging scientific process, certain conservative extremists have attacked science altogether as being biased, and politically motivated. Is this accusation true?
In my days at Harvard University, I was exposed to a steady stream of science research, owing to the work being undertaken at the Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health. These two schools, which are essentially conglomerates of teaching and research labs, have continued to produce an enormous amount of very conservatively vetted research in the quest to understand health causalities, treatments, and cures. The experiment designs in the research I saw were so strong that no one could think of loopholes or oversights in them. It is a little known fact that any research study can spend years being perfected in its design phase, before a single data point is collected. Therefore, once data collection begins, any causal relationships or other correlations that are found will exclude external politics, researcher bias, or simple oversight.
With this in mind, recent news takes us to the matter of vaccines, lately in the public eye in the form of Congressional hearings to confirm a Health Secretary, and the current administration has nominated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. An avowed enemy of vaccines, Mr. Kennedy has refused to answer all questions in this matter (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/30/rfk-hhs-confirmation-hearing), and so, perhaps this is a good time to see what answers scientific research has produced over a longer period of time.
The main question about the use of vaccines has no relation to the science upon which they are built. Instead the problem with vaccines relates to the suspicion in ardent but uninformed political quarters that they cause autism. This is an old accusation, and in the absence of research to hand, the argument becomes partisan, religious, and ferocious, so let us put the question as clearly as it can be stated, Specifically, has the number of people receiving vaccines in the U.S. and the number of autism diagnoses grown or decreased in a manner that shows a correlation over time? Here is what scientific research has done to investigate this question.
Firstly, many people do not know that the relationship between vaccination rates and autism diagnoses in the U.S. has been extensively studied for decades. Consistently, research indicates that while autism diagnoses have increased over the past few decades, vaccination rates have remained relatively stable or even declined in certain periods. Notably, multiple large-scale studies have found no causal link between vaccinations and autism, but the fact that numerically the number of new diagnosed cases and the number of persons receiving vaccines are not together should by itself be taken as evidence that there is no correlation between vaccine use and ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder). What is fueling the fervor against vaccines is a raft of “theories” that have been scientifically studied and systematically discredited. When science speaks with one voice across many studies, then it is easier to discredit science entirely and retrench into believing everything that everyone in a belief group tells each other. The logic isn’t that science is sacrosanct, but that year on year, all advancements that make the luxury of modern life possible over those who lived in primitive societies is directly related to scientific and technological advancements — all of which are being utilized by the same people who discount the data on vaccines.
What, then, of the rise in autism diagnoses? If a rise in diagnosed cases cannot be tied to any rise in the number of vaccines being administered, where does the increase in ASD cases derive from? Again, large-scale studies have found the increase to be largely attributed to enhanced awareness, improved screening methods, and broader diagnostic criteria (see my previous reference for data on this rise). This is not difficult to measure; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that in 2020, 1 in 36 U.S. 8-year-olds were identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), up from 1 in 44 in 2018. This increase points directly to better identification and diagnosis, rather than an actual surge in prevalence.
And so, we have two models, two forms of measurement that show convergence: vaccine administration has not increased, while ASD awareness has. The final culprit against this evidence would seem to be the worldwide 2019-2020 pandemic. What happened in the period following the COVID-19 pandemic and the introduction of its vaccines? Supporting the two patterns just mentioned, there was no change in the relationship between vaccination rates and autism diagnoses, which, if one believed in the causal link between vaccines and autism, should have provided relief and comfort. But it didn’t — while all scientific consensus established that, due to these divergent patterns, it was clear that vaccines, including those for COVID-19, do not cause autism, the political right was meeting in Washington D.C. to ponder how to bring criminal prosecutions against Anthony Fauci, who until 2022 was the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. I think for all his decades of service, he is owed at least a fair riposte against the attacks brought by people who didn’t know him, don’t know his record, and know nothing about science or management.
Where does all of this leave someone looking for a culprit to the ASD problem? Vaccines are the easiest target because they are invasive, mysterious, and enter the body early on in the life cycle. If it seems subjectively difficult to exonerate them as the convenient cause of ASD, it will be even more difficult to face a harsher reality: we are (and have long been) living in a society, not a laboratory, and in this “wild” of contemporary societal complexity, everyone is exposed to a vast number of environmental risks that were not present decades ago in the concentration levels that have been found to be on the rise in the last two decades. Again, putting this into a context, we should keep in mind that the anti-vaccination constituent that is most militant is the political right wing whose leader has just withdrawn the US from its promises and commitments in the Paris Agreement, and rescinded its promised funds (“The U.S. International Climate Finance Plan is revoked and rescinded immediately. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, within 10 days of this order, issue guidance for the rescission of all frozen funds”) and is fervently opposed to any form of environmental preservation, including electric vehicles (how these vehicles threaten anyone other than stockholders in oil companies is impossible to determine). And so, the pro-industrialization anti-vax movement is likely working against its own self-interest, given that there is another much more prevalent group of chemical by-products that should be nowhere in the human body, and will be seen in record numbers in the near future. In fact, research has consistently indicated that certain environmental factors, particularly exposure to specific pollutants and chemicals, may be associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Here's an overview of some key findings, and it will contradict the “drill, baby, drill” aspirations of Washington conservatives:
Point: Traffic-Related Air Pollution. Anyone not driving an electric vehicle will be contributing to an actual increase in ASD, for studies have found that prenatal exposure to traffic-related air pollution, including pollutants like nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is associated with a higher risk of ASD in children.
Point: Plastics and Endocrine Disruptors. Bisphenol A (BPA): BPA, a chemical commonly found in plastics and food packaging, has been linked to developmental issues. Research from Melbourne’s Florey Institute discovered an actual connection between prenatal BPA exposure and a sixfold increased risk of autism in teenagers.
Point: Heavy Metals. Ecological studies have demonstrated an association between environmentally released mercury emissions and significant increases in autism rates.
Point: Flame Retardants. Chemicals added to electronics, appliances, mattresses, and other home products to decrease the risk of fire have been studied for apparent links to autism. The same source has examined phthalates, used in plastics, soaps, shampoos, and other products.
Let us conclude with the sober reminder once again that our lives are lived in a multifarious mosh pit of a society, not an experimental laboratory. Out here, anyone who is blaming vaccines for autism and supporting the surreal pro-pollutant cabaret in Washington, is also guilty, regardless of belief to the contrary, of supporting exactly those policies which increase all major risk factors that are linked to autism. Political faith alone can never lessen the effect that these pollutants will continue to have on those who are susceptible to their harmful interactions. Science has spoken, politicians are shouting, and what will happen will be the loudest statement.