“The whole thing about ‘vaccines have been tested, and there’s been this determination made’ is just a lie,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently stated in defense of his directive to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to change its language surrounding childhood vaccinations and autism. He added, “The phrase ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ is not supported by science.”

Kennedy has given people reason for doubts in the past, but the controversy sparked by the CDC’s language change on the subject of childhood vaccines and autism has been a bit of a tempest in a teapot.

For example, The Washington Post reporting on the CDC’s language change put it this way:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised its website to contradict the long-settled scientific conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism, shocking career scientists, delighting anti-vaccine activists, drawing a rebuke from a key Republican senator and sparking an uproar among medical professionals and autism advocates who questioned whether the agency’s credibility is now gone.

Of course, there’s that ironically unscientific and equally condescending term “settled science,” suggesting that anyone daring to question a widely accepted scientific claim is outing themselves as an unscientific quack.

Furthermore, the Post reported that the CDC’s website “now makes several false claims about a connection” between vaccination and autism, while pointing out that Kennedy “has a lengthy history of disparaging vaccines and linking them to autism.” The inference is that Kennedy is a kook who is using the CDC to push his pseudoscientific quackery on autism and vaccines.

But what does the CDC webpage actually state? While the website still contains the statement, “Vaccines do not cause autism,” it now offers the following disclaimer:

Pursuant to the Data Quality Act (DQA), which requires federal agencies to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information they disseminate to the public, this webpage has been updated because the statement “Vaccines do not cause autism” is not an evidence-based claim.

It then adds,

Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy.

The CDC webpage includes three “Key Points” that read as follows:

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.

Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.

HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.

None of these statements is “false,” as The Washington Post describes them. What the CDC does now is expose and challenge the often-stated but scientifically unproven claim that there is no link between childhood vaccines and autism. It’s true that a nearly 30-year-old study supposedly proving that there is a causal link between vaccines and autism was garbage, but the opposite has not been proven, either.

The statement “no detected association” does not mean “no possible association.” This does not mean that the CDC is now saying there is a link between autism and vaccines. To the contrary, the CDC has cleaned up its language on the issue to make it more scientifically precise.

The CDC has engaged in a bit of humility rather than hubris. The CDC is now admitting that experts don’t actually know with scientific certainty that there is no connection between autism and vaccines because it has not actually been thoroughly researched.

It’s merely an admission that more research is needed. And this is not a bad thing.

With the rates of autism diagnoses rising, appearing to correspond with the increasing number of early childhood vaccines, would it not be a good idea to at least research this to determine one way or the other if the increasing number of childhood vaccines has played any role?

Let’s hope rigorous, honest, and scientifically sound research is now conducted that will answer this question.