However, the following story buries the true news below the fold.
The lede brings us to the conclusion that a girl definitively developed autism from childhood vaccines.
In a move autism family advocates call unprecedented, federal health officials have concluded that childhood vaccines contributed to symptoms of the disorder in a 9-year-old Georgia girl.
Further down, buried as an off-hand reference, is this line:
The language in the document does not establish a clear-cut vaccine-autism link. But it does say the government concluded that vaccines aggravated a rare underlying metabolic condition that resulted in a brain disorder "with features of autism spectrum disorder."
So here we have a case where the girl had an underlying mitochondrial condition, unnamed, perhaps one that should have been tested for, and one that could have perhaps eventually lead to autism on its own. The issue here is that her condition may have been avoidable, and, due to what might be incompetence on the parts of her doctors, caused a secondary condition that appears to be autism.
Even further down, past where most people would read, this is said:
Hannah, who has two older brothers, continues to have mild to moderate symptoms of autism.
Her symptoms are mild to moderate, but she needs one-on-one care? That doesn't seem right. I've known a couple of autistic kids, and beyond the basic "keep an eye on them so they don't hurt themselves or others" situation, I haven't seen an excessive need to watch them. Certainly not one-on-one.
Perhaps NH State of Mind could respond with his opinions. I'm curious about how much care an autistic child needs, and getting an expert's point of view on an article like this is always helpful (yes, he's an expert. When you have a child with a disorder, you become an expert on it by virtue of dealing with it every day of your life).