Argumental Evidence in Support of the Absence of an Affirmed Determination on the Issue

    While there is evidence to both support and falsify corroboration for vaccines causing autism, some researchers do not have a definitive viewpoint on the issue. Dr. Amy Pakula, a developmental pediatrician at Emory Center, argues that further research is needed to validate either argument. Others base their viewpoints on statistics, including facts such as “500,000 Americans are autistic, but that number is growing daily” (“Autism & Vaccines: A New Look at an Old Story”). While Dr. Pakula agrees that statistics of autism diagnosis are higher now than in the past, she mentions that “a part of this lies in the broader awareness of symptoms,” while also stating, “no evidence exists for a causal relation between vaccines and autism” (2009). According to Dr. Pakula (2009), there is also a strong scientific background in the belief that a mixture of errant genes causes autism, and not vaccines.

The Great Debate Regarding Vaccine Additives

The topic of mercurial additives in vaccines has been an issue for concern. Pakula mentions that thimerosal, a “mercury-based compound previously used as a vaccine preservative,” (2009) has been removed from current vaccines because of the speculation that it causes autism. In 1999, the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) regulated that thimerosal be taken out of vaccinations (Offit, 2007). According to Dr. Paul Offit, cases beginning in 2000 documented parents who were concerned their children had autism due to faulty vaccinations. However, Dr. Offit argues, the hysteria and media attention “diverted attention and resources away from efforts to determine the real causes...of the disorder” (2007). Likewise, Dr. Pakula points out that Denmark has not had thimerosal in their vaccines for years, but “none of these changes have produced a decline in autism” (2009). Both doctors still argue for further research, as ultimately, until there is more solidifying evidence, the future will dictate the theory that vaccines cause autism.

Utilization of the Hannah Poling Case as Evidence for the Unknown   

There is an argument for defining what exactly the criteria is that determines a vaccine’s harm to those who are injected, writes Dr. Paul A. Offit (2008). His particular argument comes from the controversial Hannah Poling Case. When Poling was 19 months old, she received five vaccines. While described as a “interactive, playful,” young girl, Poling became “lethargic, irritable, and febrile” (2008) only ten days after vaccination. She was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial disease, while exhibiting autistic features (2008). Poling began to display symptoms of autism in time. The Polings took the case public, with clinicians at a loss for what had happened, when federal health officials had declared vaccines do not cause autism. In Hannah’s case, Offit points out that Hannah was troubled with bodily “challenges” before the vaccines were administered to her. There is no clear evidence supporting the fact that the vaccines triggered Hannah’s mitochondrial disease, and, as a result, her autistic characteristics as well. Offit states “no clear evidence exists that vaccines cause [autism]” and argues that the “the message [of vaccination’s harm] will further erode confidence in vaccines” (2008).