What the Snopes article doesn't say is that Thompson is a senior scientist with CDC, a key figure in this controversy. His work has been cited in congressional testimony, the study in question -- the one he just admitted suppressing data on -- a major tool used against claims of those who for years have publicly stated their children developed autism after vaccination.

Given what the Snopes article does admit however, their conclusion seems odd. One must wonder what proposition their "FALSE" rating attains to, because it clearly isn't:

Thompson's own statement qualifies him as a whistle-blower who admits to suppressing significant data on the vacine-autism link.

Snopes does, however, appears to agree with these 2 points:

a) A phone call was recorded without Thompson's knowledge, after which he lawyered up.

b) Shortly after that, Thompson issued a press release with the following admission: "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."

What do you think "statistically significant" means? It seems obvious that if Thopmson could have stated something like "the data my team deleted would not have changed the outcome or validity of this research"... that he definitely would have... wouldn't he act in his own best interest to control the damage? That he did not make such a claim in his confession, and that it implicates the whole team, is palpable. One would be naive not to suspect that the suppressed data set must be discoverable at this point.

So... Snopes reprints what is fact a direct confession of precisely what the vaccine skeptics have been saying. That is an objective fact. By definition Thompson is a CDC whistle-blower who has admitted grievous scientific fraud on key research -- unless you think he is a delusional nut, which would raise other interesting questions about CDC.

If he were just being misquoted by a vaccine nut, as implied by Snopes, wouldn't CDC

i) back him up, and

ii) provide any legal protection needed for him on their own dime?

iii) coordinate any media response.

Because that's not what has happened. At all. Instead, after the recording was exposed Thompson issued a press release making his personal role in scientific misconduct even more clear, and he got his own lawyers. Are you naive jonnathanson, or what can you say to explain this? If a nut twisted your own work, would you then schedule a press release admitting fraud in clear terms, making it clear you weren't along while you were at it? Obviously his hand was forced on this, and he now sees a conflict between his own interests and CDC's.

CNN could easily verify everything I just said... e.g. the statement is posted on Thompson's lawyer's website. That would be why they reposted it, obviously... if the press release with Thompson's stunning admission hadn't been real, they would not have done so. Surely you don't equate some disclaimers about ultimate science -- which should not be decided on this story alone -- with the idea that Thompson's revelation is unimportant? This should be more widely covered... and I'd have to bet we'll see more on it.

Summary: Snopes doesn't deny at all that a high-level whistle-blower just admitted tainting one of the key studies used to "debunk" the vaccine-autism link. The site confirms that, then goes on to reiterate the PC position that the vaccine-autism link doesn't exist. Well, if you look at Snopes as a whole they clearly have a position on the science, but none of what has been said here is sufficient reason to ignore the very real Thompson incident.

Snopes also does not use the word "hoax" -- jonnathanson does. So, jonnathanson, beyond an apparent need to soothe yourself/others by quickly Googling something that says "FALSE" in big letters, can you respond to the specific points above? Particularly why you think Thompson felt the need to double down on his confession and get his own legal team after the recording surfaced? Surely he isn't part of the "hoax" (conspiracy?) you envision on the anti-vaccine side?