One last thing before knocking off for the evening.

My original interest in the subject matter was related to the waiver passed as a late-night rider to the Homeland Security bill in late 2002 (and repealed in early 2003 due to the outcry over the sleazy circumstances related to its passage) shielding vaccine makers (most notably Eli Lilly) from thimerosal-related lawsuits (i.e., such claims would have to go through the no-fault Vaccine Industry Compensation Program).

As set forth in the recent NYT front-page story, the lawsuit-fueling furor over the "link" isn't going away, regardless of the lack of sceintific evidence for it.

In my opinion, the enduring disconnect between the scientific evidence and popular belief (to be expressedin lawsuits) make this case an ideal one for legislative action along the lines of what was proposed in 2002 (though not what was passed, as the haste led to all kinds of foul-ups). If you're going to have such legislatively-created alternatives to the tort system, you may as well have them where there is a clear disconnect between the scientific evidence and the mass of claims being pressed in court.