My reflective writing is on the debate over whether or not vaccinating

children comes with the risk of an increased chance of contracting autism.

Some people believe that vaccines given to infants that contain the
chemical thimerosal can be linked to causing autism.
However, I stand with the opponents of this theory, who state that
vaccinations do not cause autism, as research does not support this
theory.
Both sides have facts they are fond of presenting. One fact presented by
the Yes side of the Do vaccines cause autism? argument is that, in
1982 a ban was proposed by the FDA that would stop products containing
thimerosal from being sold over the counter in drugstores. A second fact
presented by the Yes side is that thimerosal has been shown to kill mice
and dogs when injected.
Now let us examine the other side of the vaccination coin. Facts presented
by the No side are that though thimerosal was removed from Denmark in
the 1990s, autism rates continued to increase there. A second fact
presented by the No side is that autism is diagnosed based on social
behavior, and does not have any concrete physical or genetic symptoms.
Thus, an expanded definition of autism can lead to a much higher rate of
diagnosis.
Opinions, while appearing constantly in the arguments of today, are not
as important as scientific facts. An opinion presented by the Yes side is

that the government is not concerned with protecting childrens health. A

second opinion held by the Yes side is that the studies which showed
there were no links between vaccinations and autism did not convince
anyone.
An opinion held by the No side is that the debate about whether or not
vaccines cause autism has been driven more by members of the public
than by scientific study and research. A second opinion held by the No
side is that some of those who have spoken out publicly against
vaccinations are in a position to benefit if the public believes that there is
a link between vaccinations and autism.
A misleading statement from the Yes side is that scientists who say
Science is best left to the scientists are resentful of questioning. This is
misleading because it casts the scientists in a negative light, when in
reality they are stating a fact. They might as well say, Surgery is best left
to the surgeons. Well, theyre right! On the other hand, I could not find
any misleading statements from the No side.
I personally feel that the No side of this debate is correct, because
science simply does not support the claim that vaccinations cause autism
in any way. While threats to the worlds children should always be
investigated, research has shown that there is no link between vaccines
and autism. With this in mind, it is irresponsible, almost criminal, to not
vaccinate children. The unsubstantiated risk of autism is not comparable

to the accidental reintroduction of diseases to the public, and the

thousands of deaths this could cause.
The No side was more empirical in presenting their findings: they had
names, dates, numbers, and studies mentioned, as well as other scientific
details. The first article presented facts without as much data backing
their views, and in fact had their studies discounted in the No article.