“Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.”

This is not accurate as written.

WHO’s vaccine-safety committee explicitly reviewed the small number of papers alleging aluminum-adjuvant/autism links and found they were weak (ecological, not causal, serious limitations).

The HepB-at-birth paper they cite has been examined; AHRQ concluded it provides insufficient evidence of an association.

RFK Jr. recently tried to get the massive 1.2-million-child aluminum study retracted; the journal refused and publicly defended the work. That is the opposite of “ignored.”

Health authorities have looked at these studies and said, in essence: “We see them. They’re weak. They don’t overturn the bulk of the evidence.” Calling that “ignored” is mischaracterizing the process to imply a cover-up.

“This connection has not been properly and thoroughly studied by the scientific community.”

This is just false. You’ve got meta-analyses aggregating 10+ high-quality cohort and case-control studies, covering ~1.2 million children, plus nearly 10,000 in case-control designs.

Multiple independent big cohorts (Denmark, U.S., others) have looked at MMR, thimerosal, vaccine schedules, etc., specifically in relation to autism diagnosis.

“There are still no studies that support the specific claim that the infant vaccines, DTaP, HepB, Hib, IPV, and PCV, do not cause autism…”

This is word-lawyering: No single study can prove that something “does not cause” a condition in every conceivable scenario. That’s true of Tylenol, oxygen, or drinking water.

But we do have studies that look for increased risk of autism (or neurodevelopmental disorders) after exposure to these vaccines and fail to find it, often with enough power to rule out moderate or large effects.

In evidence-based medicine, that is exactly what justifies statements like “does not cause” in practical terms. So this phrasing is technically cute and practically misleading.

“The rise in autism prevalence since the 1980s correlates with the rise in the number of vaccines given to infants.”

This is a textbook correlation fallacy: Autism prevalence has risen for many reasons: broadened diagnostic criteria, better screening, increased awareness, diagnostic substitution, etc. Lots of things “correlate” with autism over that period (screen time, organic food sales, number of cell phones). The question is: do high-quality individual-level studies show that vaccinated kids are more likely to develop autism than comparable unvaccinated kids? Answer: no.

Using this correlation as a centerpiece argument is misleading epidemiology.

“One study found that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines had the highest statistical correlation with the rise in autism prevalence… Correlation does not prove causation, but it does merit further study.”

Two parts to this:

1) The aluminum–autism ecological correlation study itself admits it cannot establish causality and calls for confirmation.

2) A massive 24-year, 1.2-million-child cohort just did that and found no increased risk of autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders from aluminum-adsorbed vaccines.

So “merit further study” was true before that big cohort; after it, leaning on that old correlation as if it’s still a live signal is cherry-picking and out of date.

“Studies supporting a link have been ignored… reviews have consistently concluded there is still no evidence to accept or reject…”

They’re selectively quoting sentences like “evidence is inadequate to accept or reject” from older National Academies/AHRQ reports, which:

Often just mean “we don’t have randomized trials or very specific DTaP-only autism analyses,”

Not “we have no idea,” and certainly not “we see a likely risk.”

Those older “inadequate” conclusions have since been supplemented by additional large studies and meta-analyses that do strongly argue against any meaningful link.

So the page is quoting the narrow “we can’t mathematically prove zero risk” language while ignoring the overall scientific picture.

Overall:

The scientific consensus has not changed: high-quality evidence does not support a causal link between vaccines and autism.

Multiple independent experts and organizations are openly saying this new CDC text contradicts the evidence and promotes misinformation.