Do we need more studies on vaccines, GMOs, climate change, etc.?

anti-vaccers want more studies but refuse to accept studies memeI frequently encounter people who state that, “I’m not anti-vaccine/GMO, I just think that we need more studies” or “we need more research before we take major action on climate change.” I have, however, noticed that whenever someone declares, “I’m not X” they usually end the statement with some pathetic justification for why they are in fact X, and that is definitely the case in this situation. The cry for more studies on vaccines, GMOs, etc. is nearly always hypocritical and stems from a willful ignorance about just how many studies there actually are. The reality is that topics like vaccines have been so well studied that they have achieved the status of settled science. So, the problem isn’t that there aren’t enough studies; rather, the problem is that people refuse to read or accept the hundreds of studies that we already have. To be fair, I have occasionally encountered people who asked for more studies out of honest ignorance rather than willful ignorance, and those people quickly retracted their statements once I directed them to the veritable mountain of published literature. That type of ignorance is fine. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something, then updating your view when presented with evidence, but in my experience, those people represent a tiny minority, and most of the people who demand more studies are doing so out of willful ignorance.

Before I present some examples of this flawed excuse for denialism, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not suggesting that we should be doing less research or should spend less funding on science. I am a scientist, and like most scientists, I spend a minimum of 60 hours a week collecting and analyzing data for my research. So obviously I place a high value on scientific research, and I think that we need more of it. The amount that most governments invest in research is pathetic (granted, I’m clearly not objective on that issue). So, I’m not saying that we need less research, but I am saying that there are certain topics that have been so well studied that we should move on and focus our efforts on real questions.

The autism scare is the perfect embodiment of this situation. Anti-vaccine parents continue to insist that we need more research on the link between vaccines and autism, when the reality is that there is no link. Study, after study, after study, after study, after study has failed to find any link between vaccines and autism. In fact, we have dozens of these studies including a massive meta-analysis with over 1.2 million children which failed to find any significant difference in autism rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. That is one of the largest sample sizes that I have ever seen, and the larger the sample size, the more certain you can be of the result.

Now, if you’re an anti-vaccer, you’re probably thinking, “fine, there are studies, but they were all paid for by Big Pharma,” but you’re wrong. Many of those studies (including the meta-analysis) had no conflicts of interest. Even a recent study that was funded by an anti-vaccine group failed to find any evidence that vaccines cause autism. Finally, you have to evaluate each paper individually. You can’t just blindly accuse all of them of being bought off.

In the spirit of openness and honesty, I will acknowledge that if you dig around, you can find a few studies which have suggested that vaccines cause autism, but these are nearly always poorly designed and executed correlation studies rather than proper comparisons, and the few studies that made proper comparisons all had tiny sample sizes (you can find details about most of the papers here). A study that found a difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated children with a sample size of at best a few hundred is utterly meaningless when compared to a meta-analysis with a sample size of 1.2 million. Sometimes you get false results, just by chance, but the odds of that happening are much lower with larger sample sizes, and when numerous large studies all agree with each other (as is the case for vaccines) it is extremely unlikely that the results are incorrect.

My point in all of this is simply that the supposed link between vaccines and autism has been studied so many times by so many researchers that we are extremely confident that the link is imaginary and we should move on. Nevertheless, anti-vaccers continue to insist that we need more studies; therefore, every year more studies on vaccines and autism are conducted, but that’s absurd! We know that vaccines don’t cause autism, but we don’t know what actually causes it, nor do we know how to cure it or even effectively treat it, not alone prevent it. That is what we should be studying. We should be trying to understand its real cause, and we should be looking for ways to actually help the people that have it rather than pouring money down the toilet looking for an answer that we already have, especially when the group that is demanding the studies is never going to accept the results of those studies. Are we really naive enough to think that study number 100 will convince them when the past 99 haven’t? If a sample size of 1.2 million isn’t enough to persuade you, than nothing will ever be good enough for you. That is why the claim that we need more studies is nearly always hypocritical. You can’t sincerely claim that there aren’t enough studies while simultaneously willfully ignoring all of the studies that we actually have.

Note: I want to be clear that there are many researchers studying the real causes of autism and potential treatments, but my point is that every year money and countless man hours get spent doing yet another study on vaccines and autism, and that time and money would be better spent elsewhere.

If we expand the situation beyond autism, we find the same pattern across vaccine issues. Anti-vaccers ardently insist that there aren’t enough studies despite the fact that there are literally thousands of studies. We’ve looked for relationships between vaccines and SIDS, (Hoffman et al. 1987; Griffin et al. 1988; Mitchell et al. 1995; Fleming et al. 2001; Vennemann et al. 2007a; Vennemann et al. 2007b), asthma (Kramarz et al. 2000; Offit and Hackett 2003Grabenhenrich et al. 2014), allergies (Koppen et al. 2004), general health (Schmitz et al. 2011), etc. You name it, we’ve done it. Vaccines are probably the most well studied topic in medical history, and if you claim that they haven’t been well studied, you are simply displaying your own ignorance.

To be clear, I obviously think that any new vaccines should be rigorously tested before being released to the general public (which they are, btw), and I have no problems with doing research on any novel concerns that arise if that there is good justification for them. However, it is a pointless waste of time and money to continue to study topics for which we already have very clear and well established answers. Further, you absolutely cannot justify opposing vaccines on the basis of a lack of studies because in reality, there is a plethora of studies.

Moving beyond vaccines, we find the exact same story for GMOs. In fact, I personally encounter this argument more often for GMOs than for vaccines. People tell me all the time that we need more research before eating GMOs, but is it really true that they haven’t been properly studied? If you are one of the people who thinks that it is, then let me ask you this: how many studies would be enough to convince you? A few dozen? A few hundred? How about 1,700? Would that be enough? Because we have well over that. This review from 2013 examined 1,783 studies and failed to find any evidence that GMOs are dangerous. Say it with me: there are over 1,700 studies on the safety and environmental impacts of GMOs. Further, several hundred more studies have been conducted since that review, and they have consistently found that GMOs are safe. So please, don’t sit there telling me that we need more studies unless you can also give me a logically and scientifically valid reason why you reject all of the 1,700+ studies that we have already done (you should also check out this massive review looking at the health of livestock before and after the introduction of GMO feed).

Finally, let’s look at climate change. On this topic, people are prone to claim that we don’t have enough evidence to warrant action, but that’s once again absurd. We have extremely clear evidence that we are causing it, and thousands of papers from numerous fields of study have confirmed the results. To be fair, it is true that we don’t know exactly how much we are causing it to change, or exactly what will happen in the future, and we should continue to study those topics; however, we have plenty of data to be extremely confident that we are causing the climate to change, the changes will have negative consequences for us, and the changes will continue unless we modify our behavior. On those key points, there is no serious debate among scientists. So the claim that we should wait for more data before we take action is misguided and dangerous. Further, in my experience, this claim is nearly always made by people who completely deny climate change and will never accept the results of any study that opposes their preconceived views. So once again, the claim is disingenuous.

In summary, do we need more studies on vaccines, GMOs, climate change, etc.? Yes, of course we do, but we need to be studying the actual issues rather than pandering to people who will never accept any study that disagrees with their biases and preconceptions. Replication is certainly important in science, and we should try to replicate any important results, but once a result has been consistently replicated over and over again, we should move on. We should be focusing on how to improve vaccines and make vaccines for more diseases rather than producing yet another study on vaccine safety. We need more research on making GMOs that provide vitamins and economic benefits to developing countries, and less research on whether or not the fundamental technology is safe. We should continue to study the climate, but we shouldn’t wait for future studies before taking action. In short, we should be studying new and marvelous things rather than repeating something that we have already done hundreds of times in the vain hope that people are actually reasonable and will be willing to change their views when presented with one more study.

Literature Cited
Anders et al. 2003. Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism. JAMA 290:1763–1766.

Anders et al. 2004. Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders: a retrospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association. Pediatrics 114:584–591.

Destefano et al. 2004. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics 113:259–266.

Fleming et al. 2001. The UK accelerated immunization programme and sudden unexpected death in infancy: case-control study. BMJ 322:822.

Gadad et al. 2015. Administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines to infant rhesus macaques does not result in autism-like behavior or neuropathology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 112:12498–12503.

Grabenhenrich et al. 2014. Early-life determinants of asthma from birth to age 20 years: a German birth cohort study. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 133:979–988.

Griffin et al. 1988. Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine 319:618–623.

Hoffman et al. 1987. Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis immunization and sudden infant death: results of the national institute of child health and human development cooperative epidemiological study of sudden infant death syndrome risk factors. Pediatrics 79:598–611.

Jain et al. 2015. Autism occurrence by MMR vaccine status among US children with older siblings with and without autism. Journal of the American Medical Association 313:1534–1540.

Koppen at al. 2004. No epidemiological evidence for infant vaccinations to cause allergic disease. Vaccine 22:3375–3385.

Kramarz et al. 2000. Does influenza vaccination exacerbate asthma? Archives of Family Medicine 9:617–923.

Madsen et al. 2002. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. New England Journal of Medicine 347:1477–1482.

Mitchell et al. 1995. Immunisation and the sudden infant death syndrome. Archives of Disease in Childhood 73:498–501.

Nicolia et al. 2013. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineering research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 34:77–88.

Offit and Hackett. 2000. Addressing parents’ concerns: do vaccines cause allergic or autoimmune diseases? Pediatrics 111:653–659

Schmitz et al. 2011. Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents. Medicine 108:99–104.

Patz et al. 2005. Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature 438:310–317.

Taylor et al. 2009. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 353: 2026–2029.

Taylor et al. 2014. Vaccines are not associated with autism: and evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Elsevier 32:3623–3629.

Van Eenennaam and Young. 2014. Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. Journal of Animal Science 92:4255–4278.

Vennemann et al. 2007a. Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunisation. Vaccine 25:336–340.

Vennemann et al. 2007b. Do immunisations reduce the risk of SIDS? A meta-analysis. Vaccine 26:4875–4879.

This entry was posted in Global Warming, GMO, Vaccines/Alternative Medicine and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Do we need more studies on vaccines, GMOs, climate change, etc.?

  1. In the case of climate change, there is the additional motive, as well as justifying unwarranted rejection, that more research would mean more time before action. To quote “Yes Minister” from memory: the civil servant advising the Minister on how to avoid acting on a scientific report, says “Sayscientists disagree. Say more research is needed.” “But is it, and do they?” “Of course. Scientists *always* disagree and there is *always* a need for more research.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on Primate's Progress and commented:
    An undefeatable strategy for delaying or doubting. As Sir Humphrey As the Civil Servant Sir Humphrey advised Jim Hacker in Yes, Minister, when he wanted to evade taknig action about smoking, “Ssay the scientists disagree. Say there is a need for more research. Scientists always disagree with each other about something or other, and there is always a need for more research.”


  3. If the denier says that the science isn’t settled, and also wants to take away funding for research, how can the science ever be settled? Then again, consistency or intelligent thought are not their typical strong suits. Categorical denial, no matter the quantity or quality of evidence, is more their speed.


  4. Steve Brügge says:

    Another approach with the anti-vaccine crowd is to ask if they would want to go back to the early 1900s when millions and millions of children died from all the diseases for which we now have vaccines. In the case of smallpox, it’s not even given as a vaccine because it’s eradicated. What parent would choose polio over autism? The choice is obvious even if this imagined risk were real–vaccinate!


Comments are closed.