As Seen On REDDIT | A Kaiser Permanente study of more than 80,000 children born over a 4-year period showed that the prenatal Tdap vaccination was not associated with increased risk of autism spectrum disorder in children.

[–]mveaMD-PhD-MBA | Clinical Professor/Medicine[S] 852 points 

The post title is a copy and paste from the first paragraph of the linked academic press release here:

A Kaiser Permanente study of more than 80,000 children born over a 4-year period showed that the prenatal Tdap vaccination (tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis) was not associated with increased risk of autism spectrum disorder in children.

Note that the linked academic press release actually links to the wrong paper in JAMA Pediatrics. The correct paper is below in the journal Pediatrics.

Journal reference:

Prenatal Tetanus, Diphtheria, Acellular Pertussis Vaccination and Autism Spectrum Disorder

Tracy A. Becerra-Culqui, Darios Getahun, Vicki Chiu, Lina S. Sy, Hung Fu Tseng

Pediatrics Aug 2018, e20180120;

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2018-0120



BACKGROUND: Increasing vaccination of pregnant women makes it important to assess safety events potentially linked to prenatal vaccination. This study investigates the association between prenatal tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) risk in offspring.

METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of mother-child pairs with deliveries January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals. Maternal Tdap vaccination from pregnancy start to delivery date was obtained from electronic medical records. A diagnosis of ASD was obtained by using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes. Children were managed from birth to first ASD diagnosis, end of membership, or end of follow-up (June 30, 2017). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between maternal Tdap vaccination and ASD, with inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for confounding.

RESULTS: Women vaccinated were more likely to be Asian American or Pacific Islander, be nulliparous, have a higher education, receive influenza vaccination prenatally, and give birth at term. ASD was diagnosed in 1341 (1.6%) children, and the incidence rate was 3.78 per 1000 person years in the Tdap exposed and 4.05 per 1000 person years in the unexposed group (HR: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.88–1.09). The inverse probability of treatment weighting–adjusted analyses revealed that prenatal Tdap vaccination was not associated with an increased ASD risk (HR: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.77–0.95).

CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal Tdap vaccination was not associated with an increased ASD risk. We support recommendations to vaccinate pregnant women to protect infants, who are at highest risk of death after pertussis infection.

[–]nonamebeats 159 points 

I had to look up the word “nulliparous”. Are you using this word to mean “first time mothers” or “women who have miscarried”?

[–]VoraciousGhost 124 points 

Had to look it up too, it sounds like having had a miscarriage is a subset of first time mothers. So the word means “first time mothers” but includes first time mothers who have had a miscarriage before.

[–]nonamebeats 24 points 

It just seems like an odd word choice since the word seems to be intended to describe non-mothers, but I guess there’s no other single word that comes closer to “first time mothers”. And then the definition I read was a bit syntactically ambiguous regarding the possible use for those who have miscarried.

[–]noage 95 points 

In obstetrics, there is ‘gravidity,’ or number of times becoming pregnant, “parity” or how many times given birth (technically reaching viable gestational age), and abortus which can be elective or not. Nulliparous (parity = 0) means that they haven’t given birth.

[–]noctiluca3 35 points 

Parity, by definition, is a pregnancy that has lasted longer than 20 weeks. A woman who has had multiple pregnancies that ended before 20 weeks would have a high abortus number, but would have no parity.

[–]sexysecrets 10 points 

Well, there’s “primiparous” for having given birth once, vs “nulliparous” and “multiparous”. Not sure if it’s used in reference to people, but I’ve definitely read that in rodent studies.

[–]kalbiking 5 points 

Yep, and to further clarify (as you’ve done with primiparous), nulliparous means no births, and multiparous means two or more births.

A common tool used in OB is called GPAL, which stands for gravida, para, abortion, living. It’s a tool used for incoming mothers to see how many pregnancies she has gone through. So a GPAL of 2010, would be two pregnancies (including this one), 0 births, and 1 abortion, with no living children. If this current pregnancy goes to term, then the GPAL would become 2111, as there would be a child who was born (P), and living (L).

[–]mrsmagneon 7 points 

Afaik nulliparous means a woman who has never had a pregnancy last until viability. Someone who has never been pregnant would be nulligravida.

[–]saturatedscruffy 3 points 

Think this was explained below but nulliparous means someone who hasn’t given birth. So moms who’ve been pregnant and the fetus wasn’t born are nulliparous. Gravid is the word to describe pregnancies regardless of whether the baby was born or not.

[–]l00katmyscreen 74 points 

Not an anti-vaxxer but I will certainly have this discussion with lots of people. Why was age four chosen to be the cutoff when most of the children are not diagnosed at that age (


I have done some more digging and the study addresses my concerns

Thus, we likely did not capture some children with ASD born in later study years considering that some children with milder ASD would not be diagnosed until they reach school age. Similarly, maternal Tdap vaccine uptake varied by birth year because of evolving ACIP recommendations and pertussis epidemics in California. However, because we identified minimal variability in study results when stratifying by birth year, these variations likely did not affect our results.

[–]Emaknz 60 points 

Thank you for pointing that out, and for quoting the explaination. Just because we support vaccines does not mean that we should not be critical of research supporting that view.

[–]Sufficient_Condition 21 points 

Well it’s entirely possible the study is still ongoing and they will publish again in a few years. But more likely is that it saves money to shorten the study. It’s comparing apples to apples anyway, since they are looking at ASD rates in children of the same age.

[–]l00katmyscreen 6 points 

Assuming the anti-vaxxer were right, wouldn’t it be likely that depending on what caused a specific instance of autism it would show a different stages of development?

[–]Sufficient_Condition 4 points 

Maybe… I suppose that can’t be ruled out a priori, but there is also significant evidence that autism manifests quite early in development. By the time it is actually diagnosed the child has usually been displaying symptoms for a reasonable length of time. The main driver of how early ASD is diagnosed is the severity of the symptoms and not when those symptoms manifest.

[–]High-IQ-Jokes 2596 points 

Is there any research on how effective these kinds of studies are in convincing anti-vaxxers?

One of the largest issues with conspiracy theorists is that any pushback against their belief seems to have the opposite effect, and only emboldens them. They don’t take research like the linked Kaiser Permanente study and re-examine their views, but claim that it has been fabricated to fool people.

I don’t feel like there are many fence sitters on this issue. The overwhelming majority of people agree that vaccines are vital, and then some tin foil hat wearers disagree. I just don’t understand who this research is supposed to appeal to anymore.

[–]R0cketsauce 795 points 

True, but this isn’t for them. You aren’t convincing a conspiracy theorist of anything… but with enough news and headlines, Jenny McCarthy got non-crazies thinking about it and wondering if the vaccines were dangerous. This study and the subsequent news stories will cover the hundreds of thousands of parents who weren’t quite sure what to believe.

[–]jkeegan123 462 points 

Jenny Mccarthy has done more to harm herd immunity than American lack of insurance.

[–]f36263 106 points 

Another point is that it backs the legal challenges that plague (excuse me) the vaccination debate – both in terms of litigation and legislation. Solid evidence targeted at each anti-vax argument means it’s easier to hold negligent parents accountable, and public policy can be implemented/enforced without opposition if the opposition can conclusively be ruled as incorrect.

[–]Gr3mlin0815 21 points 

This. I never get the logic of “Well, but if you can’t convince the most extreme position about X with this then this is useless”. No, it’s not!

Unfortunately extreme cases always get the most covarage because of sensationalism and shit. But in reality those are very rare cases. The vast majority is still convincable with the right sources. Therefore studies like this can make a big difference.

[–]DoctorWaluigiTime 72 points 

For me, though, it’s maddening that we’re having to spend time/money/effort trying to do something you can’t really do: Prove a negative.

“Prove that vaccinations don’t cause autism.”

The opposite should be the case, and any and all beliefs or claims on the subject should be rejected outright until the opposite indeed occurs.

[–]binarycow 36 points 

I hate it, but it is very easy to frame that question so that we aren’t proving a negative. The tide turns quickly when I say “Prove that vaccines are safe.” – and that is already one of the requirements!

Of course, if I say “The FDA has accepted the proof that it is safe,” then it’s a conspiracy theory on big pharma being in bed with the FDA, who rubberstamps anything pharma wants.

[–]ZeAthenA714 14 points 

They’re not trying to prove a negative, they are studying the effect of vaccine on autism.

Scientific studies doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) try to prove anything, they should simply take an hypothesis and test it as best as they can. Whether this testing leads to positive results or negative results doesn’t matter, both are equally valuable.

[–]GeneralGraybeard 3 points 

This is a very important point that people on both sides of the debate regarding the value of science are increasingly ignoring.

It has been found that in multiple studies that no vaccines in use cause autism or any major negative harm unless the patient has an allergy. But no autism in any cases.

That language of saying scientists need to prove this or disprove that is dangerous because it leads to a major misunderstanding of the fundamentals of biological science which is that we still dont know everything about the human body or biology and also would lead to a major no no in science which is confirmation bias.

Theres a process for scientific studies for a reason and it isn’t just because it keeps things orderly. Its to help keep the people performing the studies as objective as possible.

I fully believe in the positive effect of vaccinations and I fully understand the importance of herd immunity but i would be pissed if scientists just ignored the anti vaxxers and said “nah the dude that started that rumor has been discredited and thats all we will discuss on the matter” because that would indicate that they are actually being subjective.

Instead they continued performing legitimate studies to see if there was any validity on the claims and if there was actually a link you can bet your ass that Big Pharma would fix that issue because they want to sell as many of their vaccines as possible because thats business.

[–]Revinval 3 points 

I think the best answer is showing them iron lung kids of the 40s and 50s. Or any number of diseases. I would take some autism over most of those diseases 10/10. And the perk is you don’t even have to convince them of science.

You are right of course. The thing is, scientists are trained to deal with ignorance with a single tool, more data. In the science world, this totally works. Throwing data in their face usually tends to shut up the doubters. In the real world, when dealing with non-scientists it’s not so easy. That’s a job for educators, religious leaders, political leaders and policy makers. I think the hope is that this research will convince some of those people who then do their bit to educate and inform the public. It’s going to be a long slow fight. If this particular nonsense gets resolved, they can always come up with something equally preposterous like “Vaccines are made from unicorn blood”

[–]tyrsbjorn 101 points 

Which is ironic because the Wakefield study was literally faked to fool people. Which is why he lost his license.

[–]spook327 59 points 

Faked so he could sell his version of an MMR no less. That’s how much of a dirtbag he is.

[–]Lloclksj 30 points 

The sad think is abtivaxxers were right — pharma company conspiracy to fake science to sell vaccines. They just didn’t realize which phrama company it was.

[–]TechyDad 11 points 

Yup. He wasn’t anti-vaccine. He was just anti-“vaccine he wasn’t making money off of.” He only turned anti-vax when he smelled money in that direction.

[–]bicatlantis7 23 points 

He wasn’t even a psychiatrist or neurologist or a doctor specializing in developmental diseases. He was a goddamn gastroenterologist.

[–]CountedCrow 19 points 

In 2014:

It appears that anti-vaxxers are more likely to double down or embrace even crazier viewpoints when presented with contradictions to their beliefs.

[–]tm1bf4td4tgf 18 points 

I saw something a couple of years ago that said pictures of children suffering from preventable diseases were more successful at getting through to anti-vaxers than actual data. It was an interesting article that indicated that the issue for these people is more emotional than logical.

[–]SpapeggyAndMeatBall 55 points 

There are a lot of fence sitters, actually, who appreciate continued study of the safety of new medicines. Personally I would rather they look at other chronic diseases’ relation to vaccines, just to be cautious, since asd has been studied well enough at this point to establish high confidence.

[–]Bibidiboo 82 points 

Vaccines are literally the most important medical invention ever. They save billions. Although this study does nothing to further vaccination research – as this was 100% confirmed already -, any increase in vaccination % is worth the money.

[–]mfkap 17 points 

This is a different study. This is about giving the shot to the mom when she is pregnant.

[–]l00katmyscreen 42 points 

Vaccines are literally the most important medical invention ever.

I’d give that to penicillin and then probably to knowledge about not to shit where you eat. But third place is still good.

[–]tomdarch 11 points 

knowledge about not to shit where you eat.

“medical invention” versus “public health.” Public health is what has really extended our lifespans, though I’m glad that, at least for the time being, we’re much less likely to suffer and potentially die from a lot of infectious diseases.

[–]Bibidiboo 46 points 

It’s definitely vaccines. Penicillin doesn’t come close. Vaccines save billions every year. Young kids died by the score when they were young from viral diseases. Having 2/7 children survive past 10 was not an uncommon occurrence.

[–]damnationltd 4 points 

Bah! Third place is just second loser.

[–]ReflectiveTeaTowel 5 points 

That’s a high burden — to cross correlate all possible risk factors is not only a massive task, you have a fairly high risk of false positive correlations simply because of the number of identifiable conditions (some of which have extremely few sufferers). OTOH the risks of non-vaccination are well known. So. Y’know. Vaccinate.

[–]paultimate14 13 points 

If you say things like, “hey, some pharmaceutical companies have acted in the interests of their profits rather than the health of their customers. Maybe we should be careful with them” you get labaled a lunatic conspiracy theorist.

If I had kids, I would inform myself a lot more and almost certainly end up vaccinating them for just about everything. But just because someone has a degree doesn’t me a they can’t make mistakes, or that they don’t have other interests they are serving.

There’s a balance between letting our children die of preventable illnesses and fully trusting pharmaceutical companies to do whatever they want. And there’s probably going to always be extremists on each side.

[–]Th3Element05 7 points 

I totally agree, I wish there would be more studies looking at other potential health risks of vaccines. The autism thing has been beaten to death, and no amount of additional studies are going to convince anyone who has disregarded all of the existing data. On the other hand, I know a number of people who have other concerns about vaccines, such as their affect on long term immune system health. I would love to see more studies investigate things like that, in order to either further support the safety of vaccines, or in order to find ways to minimize any risks which are found. Every time I see another study about vaccines and autism, I can’t help but ask myself what if there are other risks with vaccines that aren’t getting researched and corrected because everyone is so stuck on autism?

[–]pm_me_your_albatross 4 points 

The trouble is the only folks with the funding and technical / scientific chops to run this kind of study are the kind of large, well-funded organizations that they explicitly don’t trust.

[–]cfschris 3 points 

Good research is not done for the sake of winning some rotten popularity contest.

[–]intredasted 3 points 

The overwhelming majority of people agree because of studies like this.

They’re not useful to convince anti-vaxxers because they’re the filter that separates the people who are impervious to facts from those who aren’t.

You become an anti-vaxxer by rejecting studies.

[–]platdujour 3 points 

No quite what you’re asking, but this related study is really interesting:

  • Matthew Motta, Timothy Callaghan, Steven Sylvester, 2018, Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Social Science & Medicine, Volume 211, Pages 274-281,

[–]killerturtlex 11 points 

I think you are right. Not many fence sitters. 40 years ago I’m pretty sure most people knew that a vaccines benefit would outweigh any negative. So really it’s more of a trickle of people jumping over that fence.

There has been research into how effective studies are on convincing anti vaxxers. There was a good article in New Scientist but those bastards paywall and I WILL NOT link to it[–]pedrosneakyman 299 points 

What part of the vaccine do anti-vaxxers think causes autism? The dead/inactive diseases or the solution it is contained in?

[–]Leapracy 410 points 

Usually the mercury. Of course, ignore the fact that not all vaccines even have it. Of course, also ignore the fact that not only is there far more mercury within a single can of tuna than every vaccine you’ll take in your lifetime, but also that several vaccines have had their trace amounts of mercury removed entirely to pander to the psuedoscientists.

[–]jonathanMN 180 points 

Also the mercury that was in vaccines is from thimerosal, which is metabolized into ethylmercury. The WHO says exposure to small doses of ethyl-mercury is safe. The mercury in some fish that is toxic to humans even in small doses is methyl-mercury, completely different from ethyl-mercury.

It’s like the difference between methyl and ethyl alcohol. One kills you, and the other is fun to drink.

[–]Mercwithapen 69 points 

I think this is where people get confused because the CDC doesn’t do a great job of explaining thimerosal. I just read their page and I still don’t understand it. It says thimerosal is completely safe with no links to autism at all and then turns right around to explain it was taken out of vaccines in 2001. Why take it out if it is safe??? Edit: Oh god…this took me down some rabbit hole that says the mercury in thimerosal has been linked to neurological problems. I just figured out why there are so many anti-vaxxers.

[–]jonathanMN 60 points 

Yeah the CDC really doesn’t explain it well. They removed it because there was so much outrage over it that scientists decided it just wasn’t worth it to keep the thimerosal when they could just replace it.

[–]magicmanfk 22 points 

This is very much a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” sort of situation. Either keep using the same thing and people will continue to be outraged, or replace it to affirm their incorrect belief that there was something wrong with it in the first place.

[–]Shat_on_a_turtle 16 points 

The big part that I’ve heard as a “contributor” is that all the vaccines are being administered so shortly after birth.

I’d usually hear something along the lines of “it’s such a shock to the tiny infant’s immune system.” Or something of the sort.

[–]Used_Somewhere 17 points 

“it’s such a shock to the tiny infant’s immune system.

What do they imagine live measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, polio etc are?

[–]myheartisstillracing 4 points 

It’s also a compound of mercury, not elemental mercury.

Sort of how table salt is made of Chlorine, a deadly gas, and Sodium, an extremely reactive metal, and you eat it every day of your life and it’s completely fine.

It’s a basic lack of understanding of about how an atom of something and a molecule containing that atom can have completely separate properties.

[–]atomicsoar 13 points 

The solution. Because of one faulty, awful study, they thought there was mercury (the harmful kind in your tuna) acting as a preservative. Turns out it’s a compound containing mercury that is only dangerous at huge volumes, and there’s a very tiny amount in the average vaccine.

[–]l00katmyscreen 21 points 

The aluminium and other metals contained in the vaccine are to most common arguments.

[–]misskelseyyy 24 points 

Part of the solution. Every one I’ve spoken to thinks it has to do with the aluminum.

[–]TransitionalAhab 19 points 

So it’s not the Mercury? What else could it be ?looks at list of ingredients in vaccines

[–]misskelseyyy 36 points 

Honestly I think they keep changing it so they can’t be actively disproven. “oh so mercury is safe but what about the ALUMINUIUNM?!”

[–]Lloclksj 4 points 

It’s not unreasonable to wonder if known toxins are toxic in vaccines. There was a time notnlong ago when scientists put lead in paint and gasoline. It was a miracle chemical.

[–]Canadian_kat 11 points 

It’s not unreasonable to wonder. It is unreasonable to ignore scientific studies because IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE DOCTORS SAY, ITS ALL BIG PHARAM (or FARMA as I’ve seen a few call it) THERE ARE CHEMICALS IN VACCINES AND THEY ARE DANGEROUS /rant.

[–]TransitionalAhab 12 points 

Pretty much. If you’ve made up your mind that vaccines are the cause this is the thought process you take: ah but what about the COMBINATION of aluminum and mercury?!?!?

Jokes aside i read somewhere, don’t remember where, that aluminum was linked or might be linked to alzheimer disease or do I remember wrong?

[–]LordOfBadaBing 217 points 

Autism epidemiologist here. Warms my heart to see great research rise to the front page. Crushes my soul when I think about the extremely limited autism research resources being spent to unnecessarily replicate well established vaccine safety data that, I assure you, will never change anyone’s mind about vaccine safety.

To the defense of parents of kids with autism or to-be/new parents, we still know so little about the complexities of autism etiology that it’s confusing, frustrating, and sometimes scary when your kid doesn’t babble or point by 12 months. So I get why folks cling to any shred of an answer. But, vaccines are not that answer. It’s easy to conflate the timing of a vaccine (18 or 24 months) with the timing of autism’s symptoms or a diagnosis, but one thing we do know from all the research is that autism develops before birth. Some research suggests even before conception with multigenerational effects. But this study – and it’s a good one – shows that even maternal vaccination before birth of a child does not increase risk for autism.

[–]theagirl7 11 points 

Would love for you to expound upon what you all DO know, at this point!!! Are there any new hypotheses being enthusiastically tested in your field currently?

[–]LordOfBadaBing 32 points 

In terms of “causes” of autism, there is no single cause, but research has shed light on factors that increase risk. Besides the dozens of genes and other genetic abnormalities (like CNVs), the non-genetic risk factors (that likely interact with underlying genetics) include exposure to air pollution during pregnancy (particulate matter measured by proximity to heavy traffic roads), short inter-pregnancy intervals (time between births), and advanced parental age at the time of conception (older moms and dad). Some of the strongest research findings coalesce around these pre and peri-natal exposures. This is how we know pregnancy is a critical time period for the development of autism, much like many other neurological and developmental conditions. We do have rather strong evidence that folic acid supplementation, ideally starting before conception, could be protective against autism, as it is against other conditions.

[–]Laucy 8 points 

You are correct and that is refreshing to see. I’m on the spectrum myself and felt it might be interesting to say that I also have the MTHFR homozygous mutation, (which a summary of that is “Patients with the MTHFR C677T mutation have a reduced ability to convert folic acid into its active form, L-methylfolate. Both L-methylfolate and folic acid are possible treatment options for these patients.”) and a few other genes (one SNP I know of is “rs4307059 (T;T)”) that is known to contribute to Autism.

It bothers me a lot, this whole anti-vax and extreme fear of ASD, but ignorance fuels it and it’s unfortunate these people do not try to educate themselves or accept the evidence that proves their view wrong. I’d think Autism should be the least of their worries than all these diseases and risks their child will continue to face as they grow up, with their ability to survive now hindered.

[–]ricamnstr [score hidden] 

It’s sad that ultimately, parents are basically saying they’d rather have a dead child than a child with autism. Like, wtf? I would much rather my child live a long healthy live, even if that means she is somewhere on the spectrum, than for her to die from a preventable disease. It’s amazing how people can compartmentalize things like that.

[–]KingJonStarkgeryan1 3 points 

Hi, I have Asperger’s Syndrome so I’m on the Autism spectrum. Is there anything that can help me convince my dad that getting vaccinated on the normal timeframe didn’t give me Asperger’s Syndrome and that is due to a combination of genetics and mom having me at 37?

Scientists are often blamed by politicians for wasting resources on pointless science. In this case, this particular experiment was only made necessary by the drivel peddled by conspiracy theorists. Such a sad state of affairs.

[–]penny_eater 32 points 

One, it’s not an experiment, it’s a study. Two, there has not been much research on prenatal vaccine exposure. The only pointless science is that which is done without true scientific standards.

[–]Anon_Amous 98 points 

As silly as it may seem to some, this is important study material. Sure some will NEVER accept it but there are plenty of people who can be persuaded with evidence and the more you got the better the chance.

[–]tmntnut 39 points 

I’m not an anti-vaxer but I appreciate studies like this, just as a reassurance really, vaccines are obviously extremely important but I’d prefer knowing that what is being injected into my son is indeed safe and have the info to back it up rather than just taking someones word for it.

[–]Impulse87 35 points 

It’s sad that over 2 decades worth of research isn’t enough for some people though

[–]SloightlyOnTheHuh 72 points 

A couple of points being ignored here that will not help this influence any anti-vaxxers. Firstly i’s not independent. It was clearly sponsored by an interested party and secondly Tdap does not include measles which is the big worry for these people. So, a fine study for most of us. Reassuring. Sadly not going to have any impact on people who are suspicious of big pharma and government links to big pharma.

[–]FlyingTrampolinePupp 29 points 

It doesn’t matter. They ignore independent studies too by claiming the researchers were bought off.

[–]sciencejaney 25 points 

They don’t even believe the results of their OWN antivax funded study.

[–]areyousquidwardnow 3 points 

“Over 40% of parents agree or strongly agree that vaccines played a part on the development of their child’s autism”

Holy… Did she really just use that as an arguing point?

[–]Run_bodoquito 7 points 

I don’t get the impression that this study was sponsored by big pharma. Per the funding disclosure, the study was sponsored by Kaiser Permanente which is an HMO. There is a disclaimer however that the authors have been sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and the CDC for other studies.)

[–]Nwambe 62 points 

There’s no Big Pharma at work here to incentivize doctors to prescribe vaccinations:

A) They’re very low-margin. Many pharmaceutical companies push towards MUCH higher-profit drugs such as lifestyle or pain medications. It hurts Big Pharma we get vaccinated.

B) It’s a captive audience with no real way to grow. Kids get a full schedule of vaccinations, but adults rarely do.

C) Creating a new vaccine, as opposed to pain meds, is incredibly expensive because of the significantly higher threshold of clinical proof required to establish that it works.

Yes, pharma is an unethical monster when it comes to pain meds (Like Purdue Pharma shipping 21 million doses of painkillers to two pharmacies in one town in West Virginia)

D) But that’s not vaccines. Vaccines save lives: The mechanism is fundamentally solid after 200 years of experimentation and testing we’ve made it safer, more effective, and better. Millions of people around the world have avoided illnesses that, in previous years, have killed whole swathes of populations (Polio myelitis, smallpox, anthrax, measles mumps and rubella, the list goes on), and we’ve eradicated two viruses (Smallpox and SARS) thanks to vaccinations.

E) Put in basic terms: Ingesting high quantities of soy sauce is more dangerous than getting a vaccine.

If you’re planning on getting married and having kids, ask your partner about their beliefs on vaccination, and take them to update their own vaccination schedule.

Hell, we’ve got a rabies vaccine for our dogs and cats. Does that mean some of us care more about our dogs than our kids?

[–]W4t3rf1r3 8 points 

We haven’t eradicated SARS. The other virus that we eradicated was Rinderpest. Your point obviously still stands though.

[–]discimus 4 points 

It’s certainly a growing audience for the Flu Vaccine and a constant revenue source.

[–]ferretface26 5 points 

We’ve got rabies vaccines for our cats and dogs

A lot of anti vaxxers are starting to jump on this, refusing to vaccinate their pets, claiming vaccines cause cancer and behaviour problems, and even taking their pets to dog chiropractors and naturopaths.

They claim distemper, parvo and even rabies are actually minor illnesses and it’s all a big pharma conspiracy. 🙄

[–]veganinromania 3 points 

Rabies in urban areas? That’s “24 weeks later” material right there.

[–]Use_The_Sauce 36 points 

More science isn’t helping people who don’t believe in science.

[–]WillCodeForKarma 12 points 

I forget where I heard it, but echoing that sentiment, I really like the phrase “you can’t logic someone out of a position they did not logic themselves into.”

[–]karmainitiator 6 points 

My mom was an anti-vaxxer after my older brother was diagnosed with autism when he was 3 and now I’m dealing with the repercussions of it. I’m in college and I’m getting shots that I should’ve gotten when I was a child. It sucks because I know I’m putting others at risk but it takes a long time to make up for the shots I didn’t get. I don’t blame her for her decisions back then in 1993 and after but anti-vaxxers nowadays are just ignorant. My mom didn’t have the scientific information that we do now.

[–]fdtc_skolar 28 points 

This is a very real problem caused by the anti vaxxers. Limited research money is being used to confirm that vaccines are safe, a fact that is already known, rather than advancing medical science. Those research labs and scientists could be doing much more productive work rather than trying to convince the anti vaxxers of something they won’t believe.

[–]Butterfleyes_tomach 21 points 

Is anyone else bothered by the idea that so many educated groups are wasting time disproving nonsense purported by uneducated and wholly misguided groups of people instead of actually conducting productive research?

Maybe calling this unproductive isn’t the right word, but I guess you get what I mean. Like is the only reason this whole study happened because a bunch of people decided vaccinations give kids autism? I don’t understand.

[–]BearfootNinja 16 points 

Verifying old results with new studies is an inherent part of doing science. Different population, different methods etc all contribute some new information to the theory.

[–]Holtian 7 points 

I see the point in scientifically rebuffing silly claims from time to time when they gain popularity. May not change the minds of those who already believe these conspiracies but it may prevent more from being recruited to their baseless viewpoint.

[–]caleb0339 4 points 

These things have to be vetted and the results released because parents are still attempting to use this lie to justify not vaccinating their children.

[–]le_vybrosit_account 3 points 

Thing is, the anti-vax crowd isn’t just uneducated people. Plenty of them are moms with college degrees and are fairly wealthy. They are those who have so much money they can afford to go on an insane all-organic everything kick to the point of it seeming like some sort of illness.

Think of how much money we have to spend to fight something like the anti-vax movement… they stop us from spending money in ways that help… for this. It’s so exhausting to think that sometimes the best use of time, money, and brilliant people is this kind of thing.

[–]AZBusyBee 15 points 

Not only did I get the Tdap when I was pregnant with my son, I made anyone that wanted to be around him regularly in the first 3 months (like grandma) get one too… I have no regrets.

[–]procom49 3 points 

How did this rumour even start?

[–]smileymn 3 points 

It might be because you are born with autism/Aspergers and there’s nothing that you can do or can be done to you to “catch it.”

[–]thefunkygibbon 3 points 

This is great and all but most antivaxers here in the UK are specifically caring most about MMR jabs which children are given at intervals between a few months and 2 years old … Shame , as the AV cretins will just dismiss this on that basis alone (let alone that it was ran by a company with vested interests)

[–]Alex_11111 10 points 

Sadly people who are against vaccination will probably never read this…..

2 thoughts on “As Seen On REDDIT | A Kaiser Permanente study of more than 80,000 children born over a 4-year period showed that the prenatal Tdap vaccination was not associated with increased risk of autism spectrum disorder in children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.