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:
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?