Perhaps that is referring to this:

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/03/sticking-point-government-concedes-vaccine-case/

ed

Also, why is it described as a “secret ruling”?

That was really an interesting revelation about mercury used in manufacturing binding to other vaccine ingredients. That should bring about some really interesting research– whenever it’s allowed.

By the way, Pharmalot isn’t Fumato or the “Inconstant Gardiner”. Go to Pharmalot’s search window, type in “thimerosal” and check out the articles. It’s not an apologist free-for-all, which should be good news in today’s media climate.

http://www.wddty.com/03363800370817441035/mmr-and-autism-us-court-says-there-s-a-link-and-awards-compensation.html

“MMR and Autism: US court says there’s a link, and awards compensation

06 March 2008

The MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine can cause autism, a US court has concluded.

In a secret ruling that has only just come to light, the US Court of Federal Claims has conceded that the mercury-based preservative thimerosal, which was in vaccines until 2002, caused autism in the case of one child.

The ruling is one of 4,900 cases currently being considered for compensation payments, and it is feared by health officials that it could open the floodgates for even more claims. It also appears to support the controversial findings of Dr Andrew Wakefield, who, in 1998, suggested a link between the vaccine and autism.

The ruling, made by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler, was made last November, and was one of three test cases into the MMR-autism link that was being considered by a three-member panel, which Keisler chaired…”

Thank you.

Sincerely– A

You make some good points, and I agree there could have been more info - to and fro - about the issues surrounding the IOM report in the AP story. And I appreciate that you took the trouble to get my attention. I will be mindful of this going forward. Thanks for writing.

Regards
ed

I should have been more clear that by “forum”, I meant the discussions following your article, not the articles themselves.

In the past, you’ve inserted your own asides into stories picked up from other press sources. I don’t find this particular story from AP that straightforward and believe it could have used a bit of balancing. For instance, the AP may remind us that “In 2004, a committee with the Institute of Medicine concluded there was no credible evidence that vaccines containing thimerosal caused autism”, but I think there’s something here that the AP itself needs to be reminded of.

The above is the only “expert” judgement cited in your recap which can’t be counter-weighted just by the stated opinions of the plaintiff lawyers, not in a journalistic, qualitative way. There are other “worthy expert” opinions on the other side of the coin, most recently that of Bernadine Healy, though she’s by no means alone in questioning the government’s out-of-hand rejection of the link. I know you’re aware of some the research which puts the question to the IOM’s findings. Also, that members of this particular IOM panel were riddled with considerable conflicts of interest is really notable here. I wish that it had been noted, not to mention that I would have liked to see investigation of the statement that thimerosal has been removed from all pediatric vaccines save for the flu shot.

I’ve followed your coverage of the vaccine-autism debate for some time and appreciate that you were one of the first people to point out Paul Offit’s conflicts of interest when he criticized Omnibus parents in a well-publicized piece. To this day, few publications will cite Offit’s and other’s true COIs. I appreciated your mention of Dr. Pichichero’s COIs in a story covering the thimerosal debate as well as the polls you’ve thrown, allowing readers’ opinions to be heard on the matter. Compared to most coverage on this, you’ve been exemplary.

But there are some matters of disinformation which I think are worthy of the microscope. Some of us do require a very, very fine filter of the facts and consistent listing of COI on this issue, not only because this topic is “hard” for effected families but because it could be harder still for those yet to be initiated by the epidemic, the percentage who won’t dodge the (possible) bullets. They need the clarity a hell of a lot more than some of us do.

— A