CDC reverses stance that vaccines don’t cause autism, breaking with years of scientific consensus

Why it matters: If overhauling childhood vaccinations starts to rise up the list of topics that voters are most focused on, the polling really isn’t going to break in the Trump administration’s favor.

• There may be plenty of convincing arguments as to why specific policy changes aren’t going to matter by next year’s midterm elections.
• But it’s risky to take unpopular actions in the hopes they won’t resonate or be remembered a year from now.

Driving the news: The CDC’s website as of Wednesday uses language describing a debunked theory of vaccines’ link to autism that’s more reflective of anti-vaccine activists’ thinking.

• “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism,” it reads, in an about-face from its previous guidance that studies haven’t found a link between the two.
• “Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities,” it adds.
• This new language is at odds with long-standing scientific consensus, formed through dozens of studies.

Where it stands: With the exception of COVID shots, vaccines are just as easy to get today as they were a year ago and still covered by insurance, despite increasingly hostile federal rhetoric.

• But big changes could be around the corner. The CDC’s vaccine advisory committee meets next month, and topics on the agenda include the childhood immunization schedule, vaccine ingredients, the CDC’s vaccine risk monitoring and the hepatitis B shot.
• More specifically, the committee — which was stacked over the summer with Kennedy allies — is expected to consider changing the recommendation that newborns get the first hepatitis B dose shortly after birth. It may also discuss the use of aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines (which could be a big deal).
• The acting CDC director has also called for splitting up the MMR vaccine into three different shots.

Between the lines: What voters think and what voters care most about are two different things.

• The vast majority of Americans may have opinions at odds with some of Kennedy’s most controversial actions, but they may not be paying enough attention to know about them. Even if they are, that doesn’t mean vaccine policy will ultimately determine how they vote.
• Voters, even those supportive of vaccines, may not know or care about changes to a federal vaccine information page.
• But parents will definitely notice if, for example, they have to get their child three separate shots for measles, mumps and rubella instead of all at once — or if changes down the line trigger vaccine shortages.
• There’s also the downstream effects of other parents choosing not to vaccinate their children, like the resulting increase in vaccine-preventable diseases, like measles or whooping cough.

What they’re saying: “Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is delivering the transparency and accountability Americans overwhelmingly voted for,” department spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement.

• “We’re driven by Gold Standard Science and committed to honest, open communication that empowers people to make informed health decisions. … The goal is to make Americans healthier and that’s one of the most unifying issues in the country.”

The bottom line: It’s reasonable to think voters will care more about vaccine policy if they see more people getting sick around them — though that may take much longer than a year to play out!

Keep reading for specifics …