CDC Tries to Run the Table (Again)

Behind the scenes, the CDC PR machine is running at full tilt to make a splash tomorrow regarding a study being published in the New England Journal of Medicine (thank you to www.autismlink.com for an early copy) titled: Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 and 10 years old, New England Journal of Medicine

Our sources have shared with us that CDC is looking to position this study to try to refute the vaccines-autism hypothesis once again. This is particularly interesting for two reasons, both of which will likely be missed by the mainstream press:

1. The study addresses “neuropsychological outcomes” – but autism is not one of the outcomes they study!

2. The conflicts page, which reads:

Conflicts:

Supported by the CDC.

Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune;

Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;

Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices;

Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis;

and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.

After which, the study makes the point that:

No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was supported.

Some questions for our readers:

How many more conflicts can one study have?

Why are public health authorities willing to feed the press a study to try and squelch the autism-vaccine controversy when the study does not even mention autism?