Each one of the articles employ similar approaches to tackling the inaccurate idea that vaccines can induce autism. By this, I mean each of the articles structure a very logical argument against this belief about vaccines. This is accomplished primarily by presenting a series of evidence, rooted in research and studies which span the world, in which there is a unanimous conclusion between all three articles that no such link exists. Though all of the texts refer to Wakefield’s work, and the three hypothesises he postulated, each focus on them in varying degrees. For instance, both “Autism and Childhood Vaccinations: Debunking the Myth,” and “MMR Vaccine and Autism: Vaccine Nihilism and Postmodern Science” heavily centre around MMR vaccines, with brief, or no, mentions of thimerosal and multidose vaccinations. In contrast, “Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses” thoroughly examines all three of the topics and provides scientific proof to refute each.
Each article provides a multitude of evidence, which act to disprove all notions held by anti-vaccinators. In fact, the only report that seems to support more than just a casual link between vaccines and autism, is Wakefield’s. Even though proof is given in all three of the reports, there is differing amounts used in each, some of which overlap. Both required articles, reference multiple of the same studies. Research conducted in California which shows that rates of MMR being administered remained stable, and consistent, whilst the amount of autism being diagnosed expanded (Plotkin, Gerber, & Offit, 2009), can also be found in “Autism and Childhood Vaccinations: Debunking the Myth.” Similarly, Dachs et al. discusses how the amount of autism, in Quebec, grew as MMR vaccines began to be administered less (2010), which is referenced in “Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses” as well. Although the third article uses evidence to support the same line of reasoning, as the others, it does not list numerous studies. Rather, “MMR Vaccine and Autism: Vaccine Nihilism and Postmodern Science,” uses excerpts from organizations of their findings, instead of describing the research itself. For example, Poland mentions that studies completed by the Centres for Disease Control Prevention failed to find a connection between autism and MMR vaccines (2011). Nevertheless, all of the pieces of evidence used in each text serve the same purpose: to counter myths regarding vaccines with scientific proof.
Aforementioned, all of the articles reach the same conclusion, wherein vaccines do not lead to autism. Though the way in which each article presents its argument and findings varies, only slightly, the content is relatively the same for each. Although, “MMR Vaccine and Autism: Vaccine Nihilism and Postmodern Science,” offers insight into the importance of moving past these notions, unlike the other two texts. Poland makes the point that since there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that disproves any link between autism and vaccines, the beliefs of non-vaccinators should no longer be perpetuated. He describes this could be achieved, in part, if the media stops creating worry among parents, and if more money and resources were put towards researching what truly causes autism (2011). This insight Poland provides, along with the general evidence presented in each article, will help to strengthen my position on this topic. Since I will be arguing that there is no validity in the idea that vaccines lead to autism, these texts provide a wealth of information and scientific proof, which support my main thesis.