Critics may gripe about whether the new Homeland Security Act fights terrorism well, but no one can say it doesn't do a great job of protecting drug companies from autistic children.

A short provision at the end of the act, added quietly just days before its passage, exempts and other firms from direct civil litigation over whether vaccine additives cause autism. Parents suing on behalf of their autistic children are shunted to a federal "vaccine court," where damages are capped. Conveniently, in late November 2002 the Justice Department also requested that the court seal documents relating to hundreds of the lawsuits, complicating the cases for plaintiffs.

Ever since these shameful developments became public, they have drawn bipartisan scorn. Beyond the provision's offensiveness as political pork, it is harmful to lifesaving vaccination efforts.

Worries about childhood vaccines and autism stretch back for years. Studies suggest that rates of autism may have as much as tripled in the past decade. Autism's first symptoms often emerge around age two, shortly after most infants start to receive vaccinations against measles, whooping cough and other illnesses. Because the number of vaccinations that children receive has also skyrocketed, concerned parents sought a linkage, and they found one in thimerosal, a mercury compound used as a preservative in many vaccines. Some symptoms of autism resemble those of mercury poisoning.

As a precaution, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration ordered the elimination of thimerosal from children's vaccines, although medical authorities generally maintain that the mercury exposure was too low to cause autism's neurological defects. Studies have repeatedly failed to find an epidemiological tie between vaccines and autism, but an Institute of Medicine review in 2001 concluded that the thimerosal theory was "biologically plausible," and so investigation continues.

The U.S. needs a better, comprehensive strategy for vaccines. Vaccines are the most effective public health measure ever devised, but drug companies are reluctant to work on them because the profitability is low and the liability risks are high. If we want new vaccines against bioweapons such as smallpox, we will probably need to give the pharmaceutical industry more incentives and protection. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee outlined one such scheme in 2002, but his proposal caught legislative flu and died.

Then, presto: language crafted as a shield against thimerosal torts suddenly materialized at the end of the nearly 500-page Homeland Security Bill. No one-not, not administration officials, not committee members who oversaw the bill-will admit to having inserted the vaccine rider. It just appeared, a Thanksgiving miracle for drugmakers.

The provision does nothing to promote new vaccine development. By lending support to the impression that the industry has something to hide, it fuels distrust of vaccines-exactly when better data absolving the drugs are emerging. Consequently, too many parents are denying their children vaccinations that could save them from potentially fatal diseases.

Here's a suggestion: If no one will accept responsibility for the mysterious legislation, would any of its beneficiaries like to repudiate it? To ask for the repeal of the rider so that vaccine policies can be debated intelligently, as they deserve? Anyone?

This Article has been submitted by the Jeremy's Prophecy Dot Com team for informational and educational purposes. Jeremy's Prophecy Dot Com is a website dedicated to telling the story of Jeremy Jacobs, a character in the novel, Jeremy's Prophecy Dot Com.