Share This Page

Evidence builds that vaccines, autism unrelated

| Thursday, March 28, 2013, 6:42 p.m.

At least 10 percent of parents of young children skip or delay routine vaccinations, often out of concern that kids are getting “too many shots, too soon.”

A new study finds that children who receive the full schedule of vaccinations have no increased risk of autism.

“This is a very important and reassuring study,” said Geraldine Dawson, chief science officer at Autism Speaks, who wasn't involved in the new paper. “This study shows definitively that there is no connection between the number of vaccines that children receive in childhood, or the number of vaccines that children receive in one day, and autism.”

The study, published on Friday in the Journal of Pediatrics, is the latest of more than 20 studies showing no connection between autism and vaccines, given either individually or as part of the standard schedule. The paper is the first to consider not just the number of vaccines, but a child's total exposure to the substances inside vaccines that trigger an immune response.

Study authors say they sought to address the fear that multiple vaccines are “overwhelming” children's immune system, possibly contributing to long-term problems. Twenty years ago, children were vaccinated against nine diseases. Today, they're vaccinated against 14, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which funded the study.

Though kids get more needle sticks, the next-generation vaccines they receive are easier on the immune system than those used two decades ago, says Frank DeStefano, lead author of the new paper and director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC.

That's because modern vaccines are more sophisticated, using just a few critical particles — called antigens — to stimulate the immune system, DeStefano said. These antigens, found on the surfaces of bacteria and viruses, spur the body to make antibodies, which block future infections.

For example, an older version of the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, used until the late 1990s, was made using an entire, killed bacteria. That vaccine, called DTP, exposed the body to more than 3,000 antigens.

A newer, streamlined version, called DtaP, uses only the four to six antigens critical to producing immunity, DeStefano said.

Thanks to these sorts of improvements, fully vaccinated 2-year-olds are exposed to a total of 315 antigens, the study said.

That's a drop in the bucket compared with the billions of microbes — from bacteria to yeast — that babies encounter in their first hours of life.

The new research confirms the findings of a 2010 study in Pediatrics, which compared babies who received all vaccines on time in the first year of life with those who skipped or delayed their shots. That research found no neuropsychological differences, such as stuttering, facial tics or lower scores on IQ tests.

“A lot of parents are concerned about the number of ‘owies' that children get,” says Michael Smith, an author of the 2010 study and pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Louisville School of Medicine.

“But there's no benefit to delaying vaccines,” said Smith, who wasn't involved in the new study. “When you delay your child's vaccines, you put them at risk.”

Myths about autism and vaccines have persisted, in spite of the scientific evidence, partly because researchers don't really know what causes autism, Dawson says. “Until we conduct the research to answer the questions about autism's causes and risk factors, parents will continue to have questions,” she says.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.