The link between vaccines & autism has been clear for over 25 years since the CDC did the VSD study.

Question

The link between vaccines and autism has been clear for over 25 years since the CDC did the VSD study
kirschsubstack.com/p/the-link-b...

Answer 1

This is medically incorrect. Firstly, scientists throughout time have disputed the connection of autism and vaccines. The most notorious connection of these shown was a 1998 study done by Andrew Wakefield, who found that in 12 children who were given a specific vaccine, that being the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, 8 were found later to have autism, as shown here (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-evidence-on-vaccines-and-autism). 

However, this same article goes on to show flaws in the study, as it details a lack of a control group in the study, and the showing that autism begins to show its symptoms at a very young age, similar to that age of when babies are first getting their vaccines. As well, you yourself said this has become evidently clear since the CDC completed their VSD study. However the CDC themselves disputed the claims here (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html).

Finally, your source is unreliable. The author of the article, which you accessed from a tweet, was written by Steve Kirsch. Kirsch has a Bachelors and Masters Degree in electrical engineering and computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/steve-kirsch). Kirsch has no ground to stand on to be considered a trusted source. As well, he has previous history of making false claims on medical problems throughout the last five years. In 2020, he famously said that the COVID-19 vaccine caused shingles, a claim that has been refuted on multiple fronts (https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/steve-kirsch-and-seduction-simplicity). 

Comments

It is smart to look at the authors record of previous false claims to help support your argument!

---

Although I had heard of these claims before, I had never thought to look at it through the lens of the author. Thank you for the well researched and heavily detailed answer. Were there any other interesting arguments against the claim?

---

I didn't know that the forum was written by an engineer! Makes you think why he feels like he has a say in medical talk.

---

I think you did a really solid job here explaining why the vaccine–autism claim is medically incorrect, and I like how you walked through both the history of Wakefield’s study and the credibility problems with Steve Kirsch. One suggestion I have is to make the structure a little clearer for the reader. Right now, you cover three big points, the history of the 1998 study, the CDC’s official stance, and then the credibility of the author, but they kind of run together. Maybe labeling those sections or summarizing them at the end would help drive home why the claim is false from multiple angles. I also think it would be useful if you briefly explained what the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) is, since not everyone will know that it’s a huge CDC project tracking millions of medical records. That context would make your evidence even more persuasive.

---

Sammi,
I completely blanked on mentioning or bringing to attention to important of the VSD. Thank you for the suggestion, I'll know better for next time. And thank you as well for the criticism on making the writing more condensed and concise. I had thought to separate everything into paragraphs with their own explanations to flesh out the different problems with the original question, but I could've done a better job of making it all flow better. Thank you!

---

Thank you for all your information on this topic. You explained it perfectly. Autism and vaccines have NOTHING to do with each other. The way you fact-check every article to be incorrect just proves the time and effort you put into putting this "engineer" in their place. I'm curious how you found these sources, and how you were able to prove them wrong?

---

This was a great answer because it uses so many different sources to show that the claim is very false. It is important to make sure people are properly informed especially about medical topics.

---

The structure of your answer is concise. The reasons why the question is considered false are explained properly. Additionally, the answer is well-supported by references to various articles in each section. Overall, your answer is very easy to read and understand.

Answer 2

The claim that vaccines are a cause of autism is a misleading and medically incorrect statement. Scientists and medical professionals have accomplished thorough research on the ingredients of vaccines, and there has been zero correlation between the two. The evidence to support the claim proves the invalidity of the information above, and scientists have been able to dispute this information.

A study done in 2013 was performed to see if this claim may be true. Antigens that are found in vaccines were given to children during the first two years of life, and they concluded that the amount of antigens was the same in both children who had and didn't have autism, therefore, meaning no trace of relation between the two, as shown here (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html).

On the other hand, the source provided for this specific claim doesn't provide valid information. First of all, the author of the article, Steve Kirsch, graduated from MIT with a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Computer Science. Additionally, it was revealed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, he shifted his focus towards vaccines and faced accusations of spreading misleading information about vaccine safety, as reported in an article (https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/steve-kirsch). Furthermore, it was stated that Steve Kirsch was left jobless after promoting false information to the public. (https://www.unmc.edu/healthsecurity/transmission/2022/11/28/this-tech-millionaire-went-from-covid-trial-funder-to-misinformation-superspreader/) 

Comments

I liked how you did further research into the first source that you used to show more evidence for your claim. However, I think you could go into even more detail about the second and third sources you used.