Tag Archives: Aaron Carroll

New York Times Lies Autism and Vaccines Were Studied in 15 Million Kids

Carroll The New York Times

Aaron Carroll, MD, MS is a pediatrician and contributor to The New York Times, Credit: Writer Junkie

For every vaccine promoter who drops a whopper of a lie, another comes along to top it. Who better than The New York Times in direct response to President Trump’s statements on vaccination? In The Times’ published and then republished article “Not Up for Debate: The Science Behind Vaccination,” pediatrician Aaron Carroll wrote:

There is simply no scientific evidence that links vaccines to autism. Many, many, many studies have confirmed this. The most recent Cochrane systematic review of research on the MMR vaccine included six self-controlled case series studies, two ecological studies, one case crossover trial, five time series trials, 17 case-control studies, 27 cohort studies and five randomized controlled trials. More than 15 million children took part in this research. No one could find evidence that vaccines are associated with autism.

a statistically significant link found at this point would almost have to be a false positive, given the millions of children already studied.

Contrary to Carroll’s article, 15 million children were not studied for an increased risk for autism from vaccination. The review objective makes that clear:

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects associated with the MMR vaccine in children up to 15 years of age.

The review analyzed studies relevant to the overall safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Studies relevant to autism were only a fraction of those in the review. Does it confirm vaccines don’t cause autism as Carroll said? No.

The methodological quality of many of the included studies made it difficult to generalise their results.

Here were the review’s actual conclusions:

The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

“Largely inadequate” – that’s what the review concluded about vaccine safety. Carroll cites this review to declare vaccination “not up for debate.” It’s doubtful a doctor with a master’s in “health services research” misread the review abstract. This is someone who would describe himself as “immersed in the science of vaccines”:

It would be better for our vaccination policy for this not even to be a topic for debate, certainly not by those who aren’t immersed in the science of vaccines.

He completely distorted that science, and he’s a total liar. His article should be retracted by The New York Times, not that this crooked newspaper ever will.