New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Vaccinated Kids Show No Long-Term Ill Effects

No measurable increase in risk for neurological conditions could be found in a large cohort of pre-adolescent children who had been vaccinated on schedule when infants. Wayt Gibbs reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As any new parent knows, vaccines are a pain in the tuchus—and not just for the infant. A baby born in the U.S. today is supposed to get 20 shots by the age of two. Unsurprisingly, many parents put it off. What is surprising is why: in a 2011 survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 82% of parents who didn’t vaccinate their children on schedule cited worries about side effects, like learning or behavioral problems.

So the CDC commissioned a big study to look at this question. Researchers gathered vaccination records and ran a wide range of tests on more than a thousand 7- to 10-year-olds. The scientists then searched for any sign that fully vaccinated kids had an elevated risk of cognitive deficits, tics, speech impediments, learning disability or issues with attention or executive function.

The results were clear: there was no measurable increase in risk for any of these conditions among children who got vaccinated on schedule. The study is in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. [Shahed Iqbal et al, Number of antigens in early childhood vaccines and neuropsychological outcomes at age 7–10 years]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This good news should ease some of the anxiety from those visits to the pediatrician—unless, of course, you’re the one getting stuck.

—Wayt Gibbs

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.] 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe