Autism Researchers Speak Out Against Misleading CDC Vaccine Claims
A recent update on the CDC’s website has sparked controversy and concern among autism scientists and researchers. On November 19, 2025, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) altered its language on a vaccine safety page, suggesting a link between infant vaccinations and autism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This move has prompted a strong backlash from the scientific community.
The updated page contradicts decades of research showing that vaccines do not cause autism. It cites ‘fringe studies’ with poor methodologies, which has been widely criticized by experts. Eric Fombonne, professor emeritus of psychiatry, expressed his concerns, stating that the page’s authors have ‘cherry-picked data’ to support their preconceived beliefs, misrepresenting well-conducted research.
The controversy has raised questions about the CDC’s credibility and the trustworthiness of its information. David Mandell, a professor of psychiatry, warns that the agency’s statements could confuse families and threaten solid scientific research. He emphasizes the importance of honest answers and reliable sources for families seeking accurate health information.
Despite the controversy, some scientists remain optimistic about the CDC’s overall credibility. Maureen Durkin, a professor of population health sciences, believes that the CDC’s other resources on autism are accurate and helpful. However, she acknowledges the need for more skepticism regarding the specific vaccine-autism claims.
The situation highlights the importance of evidence-based information and the role of professional organizations in providing reliable guidance. Anders Hviid, a professor of epidemiology, suggests that scientists should actively engage with the public on social media and be prepared to comment as experts when needed. He also mentions the efforts of organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics in providing evidence-based vaccine schedules.
The controversy also brings attention to potential conflicts of interest and the influence of anti-vaccine advocates. Eric Fombonne warns of ongoing litigation involving aluminum adjuvants and the involvement of RFK and others as plaintiffs, creating a hidden conflict of interest. He expresses concern about the manipulation of CDC databases by discredited anti-vaxxers, predicting more unreliable statements from the agency.
In summary, the CDC’s vaccine-autism claims have sparked a heated debate, with scientists calling for more skepticism and evidence-based information. The controversy highlights the need for transparency, accurate data, and reliable sources in public health communication.