Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size

Ending the Silence on The Fraudulent Vaccine-Autism Link

By Christopher J. Elias, president and CEO of PATH

When news from the British Medical Journal emerged last week discrediting the notorious Wakefield study as “an elaborate fraud,” I expected a chorus of celebration from the vaccine community, but what I observed was relative silence. I suspect that if the news had instead given more credence to the spurious argument that childhood vaccinations cause autism, Wakefield’s supporters would have had a field day. Why then did members of our community choose not to shout this from the rooftops, and put to bed a debate that has gone on, frankly, for much too long?

In my role as the president and CEO of PATH, I have witnessed first-hand the power of vaccines in combating some of the world’s most nefarious diseases. Indeed, just last month, I stood in the streets of Ouagadougou—the capital of Burkina Faso in West Africa—as thousands of parents brought their children to be vaccinated against meningococcal A meningitis, the strain of the disease most destructive to people living in Africa’s 25-country meningitis belt. On that day, there were no debates about whether this safe and effective vaccine would cause more harm than good. On the contrary, there was only a palpable sense of hope that, at last, a century-old, debilitating and deadly disease would finally be eliminated.

What we so often take for granted in the developed world is our right to choose and, in this instance, choosing whether to vaccinate our children. Conversely, in the developing world, one’s choices are much more curtailed. Even when a vaccine does exist, reaching the people who need it most is challenging, given the many obstacles in poor countries to accessing care. So, when news spreads in developing countries that there might be a solution to prevent pertussis, a disease which kills almost 300,000 people every year, the only question is will my child be able to get it.

For more than 30 years, PATH has been a part of some impressive breakthroughs in vaccine development and delivery. What we’ve learned throughout this time is that vaccines are the most successful and cost-effective public health tools we can employ to save lives, particularly among the world’s children. Vaccines are responsible for preventing more than 2 million deaths each year. Complacency or hesitancy about vaccination, however, can cause diseases previously thought to be eliminated to reemerge. In the aftermath of the Wakefield study we saw the reemergence of measles, which became endemic in England and Wales in 1998.

Perhaps the silence within our community occurred because the repudiation of the Wakefield claims seemed so obvious to us. We knew that when it comes to the link between vaccines and autism, the science has never wavered—there simply is no proven connection.  But we need to appreciate how easily fraudulent or suspect science can influence public perceptions and political support. When “junk science” has the power to drown out the evidence, we have to use our voices to keep the focus on the real science.  After 13 years, it seems that vaccines are finally vindicated. This important moment certainly calls for celebration, but also for reflection. One man’s fraudulent assertions in a respected medical journal led to a flurry of needless infections and deaths, not to mention a black eye on one of the world’s most successful public health interventions. While we hope that such a tragedy never happens again, we need to be ready for it if it does. Silence is no longer an option.

Christopher J. Elias is president and CEO of PATH, an international nonprofit global health organization. He also serves as the co-chair of the Decade of Vaccines Collaboration steering committee and secretariat, which aims to develop a global action plan to help research, develop, and deliver vaccines to the world’s poorest countries.


  • Roger Bumgarner

    I suspect that part of the “silence” is a realization that with Wakefield’s believers scientists lost this battle of communication a long time ago. Those who have become believers in the vaccine/autism link are likely the view the most recent news as evidence of “the mainstream scientific community” attacking someone whose views don’t fit with accepted ideas. Shouting from the rooftops that this specific work was fraudulent isn’t likely to help us in the long run as it simply reinforces the idea that some science is bad and hence ALL of it can be called into question (or worse yet, dismissed) by anyone.

    I certainly don’t see recent news from the BMJ as a cause for celebration. Rather I see it as a sad story that should motivate deep reflection on how to better communicate science findings and the PROCESS of science to the public. Moreover, the fact that it took 12 years for this research to be identified as fraudulent suggests that we in the scientific community have a lot of work to do to develop more effective and transparent approaches to dealing with such issues in the future.

  • Tonybateson

    What is this ‘one man’s fraudulent assertion that more research is needed? My copy of the Lancet is to do with the possibility of an association between gastric conditions found in a small number of autistic persons and the MMR vaccine. It concludes that more research is needed. Only the massive steamroller of a hugely corrupt industry which does not want this question answered could have about-faced the whole episode into its present mess. Like Wakefield I think there are answers needed. Mine can be expressed in five words ‘Is vaccination neutral to autism?’ Yes or No? No one but no one is willing to answer this question because they can only do so by lying. Whoever you are, wherever you come from ask every autistic person’s family you know ‘was your child vaccinated? Tell me if you find a No.

    Tony Bateson, Oxford, UK.

  • Adrian Meli

    Mark, good post. It is a tough topic and agree with a lot of your points. I was very surprised that this story came and went very quickly given how long the vaccine argument has been out there and how many people believed it. – adrian meli

Diplo Tweets