The Autism-Vaccine Myth is Dead. So Why Are We Still Talking About It?

Autism and Vaccine Myth

Lately there’s been an elevation of vaccine disinformation propaganda that vaccines cause autism — and we have Andrew Wakefield, disgraced former doctor and grifter to thank for that myth that has perpetuated ever since his bunk study was exposed in 1998. 

Sadly, parents can fall prey to this anti-vaccine stance via online Facebook groups and “autism moms” who are looking for something or someone to blame for their child’s neurodivergence — declaring their child is “vaccine injured” — and look anywhere but their own family tree. 

Early in 2025, a paper published on a WordPress blog called "Science, Public Health Policy and the Law" (not a real scientific journal) claimed that vaccinated children in Florida's Medicaid program had much higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism. 

This study, by Mawson and Jacob, was funded by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a group that is known for being against vaccines. Despite the fact that this paper repeats a previous study that was taken back and goes against decades of strong research showing no link between vaccines and autism, it's spreading quickly among parent groups and going viral on social media.

To dig into this, we look to the work of Dr. Bertha Hidalgo, an expert in studying data, to take a closer look at the paper. Let’s break it down.

Study Claim

The paper says that children in the Florida Medicaid program (from 1999-2011) who were vaccinated had much higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, like autism. It also says that more vaccine visits meant a higher risk for autism.

Note: This completely contradicts decades of research that shows there’s no connection between vaccines and autism.

Study Design

The study was an observational study using Medicaid billing data from Florida.

• Population: 47,155 children enrolled in Florida Medicaid from birth to age 9.

• It compared children who were considered "vaccinated" (based on billing codes for vaccines) to those who were "unvaccinated" (no vaccine billing codes).

• The study used these billing codes to look at both vaccine status and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Key Problems with the Study

1. Publication & Funding Issues

• The paper was published on a WordPress blog, not in a peer-reviewed journal.

• It was funded by the NVIC, a known anti-vaccine group.

• The study was "peer-reviewed" by Peter McCullough, a person who is known for spreading false medical information.

• This study contradicts years of reliable research that has shown no connection between vaccines and autism.

The way the study was published is a big problem. In real science, research gets reviewed by independent experts to make sure it’s done correctly before it’s published. But this paper skipped that process, appearing instead on a blog, and the person who reviewed it has spread incorrect information in the past. The lead author, Anthony Mawson, has even had other studies about vaccines retracted due to mistakes.

2. Problems with Data Collection

The study relied on billing codes, which are meant to help with payment, not to study vaccines. Just because a child doesn’t have a vaccine code doesn’t mean they weren’t vaccinated – they could have been vaccinated through other programs or at other doctors’ offices. This makes their "unvaccinated" group unreliable. They also didn’t check to see if the codes for disorders like autism were accurate.

The study also didn’t consider other important factors that could affect the results, like family history, environmental factors, or changes in how autism is diagnosed over the years. These things could influence the results but were ignored in the study.

3. Selection Bias

The study only looked at children in Florida who were on Medicaid for the full 9 years. This group doesn’t represent all children and only includes children from low-income families. Also, the study didn’t consider things like the age of the parents at conception of the child, or how the diagnosis of autism changed over time.

Additionally, the study only looked at 9-year-olds, even though autism is usually diagnosed between the ages of 2 and 4. By ignoring earlier diagnoses, they created a bias that made it seem like vaccines were linked to autism when they might not be.

4. Statistical Problems

The study’s math doesn’t add up. They used simple calculations without digging deeper into the data. They didn’t consider how autism diagnosis practices changed over the years, which could’ve affected their results. Their approach treats data from 1999 the same as data from 2011, even though the way autism is identified has changed over this time span.

A better study would have looked at how vaccinations relate to autism diagnoses over time, adjusted for other factors, and done more detailed analysis. Without these, the study’s findings can’t be trusted.

5. Causal Inference Problems

The study makes big claims about vaccines causing autism, but it’s just an observational study. This means it can show patterns but can’t prove cause and effect. The authors also ignored important issues like whether children with developmental problems were more likely to get vaccines later or if families chose not to vaccinate based on developmental concerns.

6. Data Quality & Transparency

The study says it tracked data on individual children, but then admits it couldn’t track which specific vaccines they got. This is a major problem. The paper also doesn’t give enough details about how the study was done or share the data, so other researchers can’t check if the findings are correct.

7. Research Design Issues

The design of the study looks like it was set up to find connections between vaccines and autism, rather than to test a hypothesis fairly. Without random selection of children or adjusting for changes in autism diagnosis, the study is biased.

Final Thoughts

This study has huge flaws: it wasn’t published in a real scientific journal, it was funded by a group that’s against vaccines, it used bad data, and it ignored many important factors. The claim that vaccines cause autism has been proven wrong over and over again by careful research. The scientific community is tired of seeing these incorrect studies come up again and again. Instead of wasting time on debunking these claims, we should ask better research questions that 1) focus on understanding the true causes of autism, and 2) how to improve support for autistic individuals. We need research that supports public health, not fuels fear based on false information.