I was unable to listen to yesterday’s meeting. But according to a press release from Autism Speaks:
Autism Speaks is encouraged by yesterday’s decision of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) to include vaccine research studies in the objectives of the updated Strategic Plan for Autism Research. The new language, approved unanimously, calls for studies to determine if there are sub-populations that are more susceptible to environmental exposures such as immune challenges related to naturally occurring infections, vaccines or underlying immune problems. “This revised plan is an important step toward a more comprehensive approach to exploring the wide range of risk factors that may be contributing to autism,” said Geraldine Dawson, Ph.D., Autism Speaks chief science officer.
Left Brain Right Brain 
I don’t think the Autism Speaks release is quite accurate. From what I have heard, there is little to no mention of vaccines in the plan that got approved yesterday. I get the impression they are taking a victory lap when they actually came in last.
I don’t think the Autism Speaks release is quite accurate. From what I have heard, there is little to no mention of vaccines in the plan that got approved yesterday. I get the impression they are taking a victory lap when they actually came in last.
It seems rather odd. The Age of Autism blog had as their lead story, “David Gorski Jumps the Shark” (Or some such nonsense). SafeMinds has nothing (and SafeMinds president is on the IACC). If those groups aren’t trumpeting this, is it real?
Sag mir wer die blumen sind? When will they ever learn? apologies to Marlene Dietrich.
Autism Science Foundation has the accurate information on their blog. “Autism Science Foundation Agrees with Decision to Keep Vaccine Research Out of the IACC Autism Plan.”
http://autismsciencefoundation.wordpress.com/
This is on AoA, a little above Handley’s latest swing at Gorski/Orac. AoA calls it “duelling press releases”, I suspect a phantom quote. I am interested in hearing more…
Also, off topic, I wrote up a rebuttal to Handley’s second attack on Amy Wallace, though don’t know if I’ll bother to post hit. A highlight: Handley criticizes Wallace for not mentioning a Nature article published less than two weeks before hers saw print and presumably well after it was submitted. We should do everything possible to discourage AoA from putting up more posts by Handley. He makes Olmsted look good.