Verified by 
Appreciation and gratitude to those who have read and commented on "Vaccines Cause Autism: the Lie that Never Dies.” Several of these comments provide an opportunity to discuss key elements about the nature of evidence and public health data--and how gaps in scientific knowledge can lead to misunderstandings.
Commenters presented expert witness testimony as a contradiction to the scientific data on whether vaccines cause autism. Legal testimony—even from expert witnesses--is not considered scientific evidence. The rules of "evidence" in the legal world are quite different from those in the scientific world. Asserting that vaccines do cause autism as a professional opinion, even if given under oath, is simply that—an opinion. The opposing counsel could (and does) just as readily bring their own expert witnesses who testify that vaccines do not cause autism—also under oath. Sworn testimony is legal evidence but not scientific evidence. Moreover, scientific evidence includes hypothesis driven research--and the data arising from these studies—but not sworn testimony.
To be sure, proving or disproving a causal link between vaccines and autism is difficult and subject to controversy--and interpretation. An ideal and conclusive experiment would include random assignment of children to vaccine and no vaccine groups to directly test whether the unvaccinated children have a lower rate of autism than those who receive the vaccines. But, this would be an unethical experiment because we know that vaccines provide a benefit (protection against deadly diseases). Therefore, randomly withholding vaccines against a family’s wishes is completely unethical. Because of this, scientists instead have to employ epidemiological approaches wherein patient data are reviewed for potential links between vaccines and autism using sophisticated statistical modeling. After multiple replications, with large data sets, this approach can and does provide credible information on many public health questions--including the replicated finding that vaccines are not associated with an increased risk of autism.
The most compelling epidemiological studies compare autism rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated children and have shown that there is no difference in autism incidence between these groups.[1] If vaccines cause autism, the autism risk in unvaccinated children should be far lower than those who are vaccinated—and it is not.
Another point some of the commenters raised on "Vaccines Cause Autism: the Lie that Never Dies” is that the scientific conclusions are “old.” Two points here: First, the fact that the “vaccines cause autism” narrative was originally founded upon a fraud is a scientific fact that will not change no matter how much time passes. No doubt new discoveries will provide insights into what causes autism, but conclusions and treatments (and lawsuits) based on the fraudulent study are not valid.
Second, more broadly, when a discovery is made has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of that discovery. The sun centered model of our solar system dates to the third century BC (Aristarchus of Samos)[2] and was validated in the 16th century by Copernicus. It was also accepted by the Roman Catholic Church—in 1992[3] (in the form of a retraction of church actions against Galileo, presumably a consequence of seeing more than 350 years of daily replications of the observations supporting a heliocentric solar system). As an example for vaccines, Pasteur and his collaborators developed an anthrax vaccine in 1881,[4] so this discovery is also “old” but nonetheless valid. Scientific theories—and conclusions—are continually refined and updated and many are indeed refuted as new studies are conducted. But but simply saying a finding is “old” has no impact on whether a finding is accurate (e.g., trisomy 21 causes Down Syndrome—discovered in the late 1950s—and continues to be a valid scientific finding).
Moreover, the comments on “"Vaccines Cause Autism: the Lie that Never Dies” illustrate the uncertainties—and arguments—that arise in the absence of a known cause for autism. All of us can look forward to the day when science provides conclusive answers to this important question. Until then, those of us doing our best to support people with autism and their families are honor bound to use the best available evidence to do—and we will update our methods as new evidence emerges. As 2019 arrives, that “best evidence” is that vaccines do not cause autism and that treatments based on the premise that vaccines cause autism are not evidence based.
[1] Taylor, Brent, Elizabeth Miller, Raghu Lingam, Nick Andrews, Andrea Simmons, and Julia Stowe. "Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study." British Medical Journal, 324, no. 7334 (2002): 393-396.
[2] Aristarchus of Samos. "Index of Ancient Greek Philosophers-Scientists". Ics.forth.gr. Archived from the original on January 27, 2018. Retrieved December 24, 2018.
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-g…. Retrieved on December 24, 2018.
[4] Pasteur, L.; Chamberland, C.; Roux, E. (1881). "Le vaccin de charbon". Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences (in French). 92: 666–668.
