January 27, 2026

Reviewed by Reva Mathieu, EdD, BCBA, Duquesne University and
David Celiberti, PhD, BCBA-D, Association for Science in Autism Treatment

This review was written in response to the New York Times article, The Playbook Used to ‘Prove’ Vaccines Cause Autism (2025). The article is an opinion piece that explores the rise of autism diagnoses and the ongoing challenges of information and misinformation surrounding its causes. This topic holds significant implications for autistic individuals and their families, as it shapes public perceptions, influences policy and funding decisions, and impacts access to appropriate supports, services, and treatment. Moreover, continuous misinformation is a tremendous source of distraction and can contribute to increased stigma, misunderstanding, and barriers to meaningful inclusion and access to evidence-based treatments making a critical analysis of such narratives both timely and essential.

The author of this piece, Dr. Steier, is a public health scientist who specializes in science communication. She serves as the Chief Executive Officer of Unbiased Science which is a scientific communications firm that bridges health, pharma, and medical technology information by translating rigorous data into clear messaging for both experts and the public. Overall, the article synthesizes scientific findings that examine how research integrity, authority, and the misuse of pseudoscience can shape public discourse on autism, which has the potential to result in significant and lasting harm to autistic individuals and their families.

The following sections of this review highlight several key points from this comprehensive article. The authors of this review encourage readers to use it as a starting point for a deeper exploration of Steier’s (2025) analysis, which compiles and examines a substantial body of data and research related to autism, vaccines, ethical considerations in research, and real-life implications for individuals and families. We also hope that this review inspires readers to engage more deeply with research on effective treatments and interventions, fostering a greater understanding that can ultimately support positive outcomes for autistic individuals and their families.

Non-Scientifically Proven Claims of Causation

A recurring theme in the autism discourse has been the alleged connection between vaccines and autism. This claim has been repeatedly refuted by decades of high-quality research both here in the United States and abroad. We are resharing some of Steier’s findings to help readers appreciate the degree and impact that flawed, and often retracted research has had on this critically important public health conversation.

  • Steier (2025) states that this discussion began after a landmark study was published which linked autism to the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1998 (Wakefield et al., 1998). This study was later refuted and retracted due to falsified data and unreported conflicts of interest including funding.
  • Following that article, there have been approximately 70 studies exploring the possibilities of a direct link between vaccines and autism. Out of those 70 studies, 40 studies were conducted by a variety of scientific researchers and found no direct link between autism and vaccines. It is important to note that these studies were not identified to have methodology flaws, data manipulation, or issues with conflicts of interest.
  • Additionally, out of those 70 studies, 26 of those studies linked vaccines to autism. However, two-thirds of those 26 studies were written and published by one research team lead by Wakefield which have been heavily criticized for employing flawed data and questionable research methods.
  • The additional eight studies have been redacted for data manipulation, flawed research methods, a combination of undisclosed conflicts of interest or a combination of those issues.

In her article, Steier (2025) provides a fascinating and informative visual illustrating this point of concern, which these reviewers highly recommend examining as you digest the data.

Much like other pseudoscientific practices, the claim that vaccines cause autism can seem compelling at first glance, offering simple answers to a complex situation. However, such bold and inaccurate claims can harbor significant and extreme consequences for autistic individuals and their families. Despite extensive studies across multiple countries and populations confirming that vaccines do not cause autism, resources continue to be directed toward disproven questions, drawing attention away from more promising areas of research such as behavioral interventions like Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and Speech and Language Therapy. The vaccine-autism myth serves as a reminder of how non-evidence-based claims can take hold and persist despite overwhelming contrary evidence and when this occurs time, money, and lives can be greatly and negatively impacted and important conversations about how we can best help and support those diagnosed with autism can be sidelined.

Pseudoscience, Bias, and the Importance of Research Integrity

Unfortunately, it can be difficult to differentiate rigorous research from research that lacks scientific validity, especially when you are not an expert in the field of study or not familiar with how to detect flaws or conflicts of interest. Critics of studies claiming a link between vaccines and autism have noted that such findings are often vulnerable to methodological bias and data manipulation. Further epidemiological findings can be skewed using selective sampling and reporting methods, as well as inadequate attention to threats to internal validity (Frampton, 2024; Frampton & Rocheleau, 2024). Every time such unfounded claims are reexamined, scarce resources are diverted from areas where genuine progress could be made.

In contrast, research in applied studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of educational, behavioral, and community-based supports in connection with autism. Continuing to relitigate disproven connections not only slows scientific research but also potentially delays the funding and delivery of services and interventions that have been shown to improve outcomes for autistics and their families who have immediate needs.

Steier also notes concerns around self-citation in research which can become more worrisome if it intersects with conflicts of interest in which incentives or bias can impact ethics and scholarly judgment. While some degree of self-citation is expected in academic writing, excessive reliance on one’s own prior work raises concerns about bias and credibility. Self-citation often occurs when researchers are building on a conceptual idea or intervention they have developed, and in some cases, it can be reasonable and appropriate if the research is novel or other researchers are not engaging in the line of study. However, when authors consistently cite only their own studies to justify claims, it can signal a lack of independent evidence supporting their position often produced through systematic replication by other researchers (Lang, 2024). Such practices not only weaken the arguments but also limit engagement with the broader body of scholarship, which is essential for advancing knowledge, mitigating conflicts of interest, and ensuring balanced interpretation of findings.

Authority, Power, and Responsibility in Research and Practice

The article also highlights the significant influence that individuals in positions of authority can have on public perception and research priorities. This influence extends not only to researchers themselves but also to those who oversee research, such as journal reviewers and funding bodies. It also includes individuals in less direct positions of power, including educational leaders, policymakers, political figures, professional associations, accrediting organizations, advocacy groups, and the larger media (e.g., newspapers, magazines, social media). Even ethics committees and institutional review boards (IRB) play a role in shaping which research is conducted and how it is implemented. For example, IRBs may require researchers to modify or exclude certain methodologies such as the use of aversive procedures, restrictive interventions, or consent processes that inadequately center participant autonomy. Collectively, these authority figures carry substantial responsibility, as their decisions, priorities, and messaging can shape both scientific agendas and public understanding.

When those in power support scientifically sound methods, trust in research grows, and funding flows toward interventions that make a meaningful difference thus increasing social validity of approaches. However, when authority figures amplify unsupported claims, resources can be diverted toward unproductive or misleading directions. The imbalance of power in such situations can leave families and even countries without clear guidance, perpetuating misinformation, and create barriers to accessing effective, evidence-based care. Just as in clinical contexts where professional authority carries great responsibility, leadership at the institutional and policy level must also be exercised with integrity, transparency, and a commitment to science and services toward the people.

Lack of Attention to Evidence-Based Behavioral Interventions

In addition to concerns around rigorous research and the influence of positions of power, the article also highlights how these areas can contribute to the lack of focus on proven interventions for autism. Interventions such as ABA and Speech and Language Therapy use individualized interventions to increase academic and functional skills, promote independence, increase functional communication, and create opportunities for self-determination.  These interventions are grounded in decades of rigorous research published in peer reviewed journals, replication, and continuous refinement based on cumulative efforts

ASAT provides a number of treatment summaries including direct instruction, self-management, the Picture Exchange Communication system (PECS), and functional communication training (FCT), for the interested reader.

When both media attention and public discourse remain centered on disproven causal claims, such as the link between vaccines and autism, attention and resources are diverted away from interventions that can have immediate and meaningful impact. This diversion can delay access to services during critical developmental periods such as early intervention, increase confusion for families seeking a clear path forward, and perpetuate existing disparities in access to services.

Conclusion

The Playbook Used to ‘Prove’ Vaccines Cause Autism article reminds us that scientific research is our strongest tool for distinguishing between valid findings and unsupported claims. It also reveals the potential stark consequences when pseudoscience overshadows evidence-based practice and attention, and resources remain fixated on questions that have been answered. The responsibility of researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and consumers alike is to ensure that individuals and families have access to interventions and supports grounded in science that will provide them with the most effective opportunities for progress and to increase their quality of life. Ultimately, the future of autism research and treatment depends on focusing resources where they will have the greatest impact. Although misinformation may persist, advocating for rigorous science, replication, ethical leadership, and evidence-based practice remain the clearest and most effective path forward. Families and professionals deserve access to the best that science has to offer. Revisiting disproven theories will undoubtably delay progress for individuals and use funding that could be put toward interventions that work denying autistic individuals’ opportunities for meaningful support and increased quality of life. By keeping the pressing needs of individuals with autism and their families at the forefront, we will be better positioned to hold those in power accountable and committed to forward moving policies and initiatives.

References

Frampton, S. E. (2024). Science corner: History as a threat to internal validity. Science in Autism Treatment, 21(10).

Frampton, S., & Rocheleau, A. (2024). Science corner: Maturation as a threat to internal validity. Science in Autism Treatment, 21(09).

Lang, R. (2024). The crucial role of replication in scientific validation and identification of evidence-based practices. Science in Autism Treatment, 21(05).

Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A. P., Thomson, M. A., Harvey, P., Valentine, A., Davies, S. E., & Walker-Smith, J. A. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0

Reference for this Article:

Mathieu-Sher, R., & Celiberti, D.  (2026). Review of The playbook used to ‘prove’ vaccines cause autism.  Science in Autism Treatment, 23(2).

Related ASAT Articles:

Related ASAT Reviews

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email