It is now well-established that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the view that MMR does not cause autism.

The front page of the Mail on Sunday at the weekend has the headline "FAMILY WIN 18YR FIGHT OVER MMR DAMAGE TO SON" and a strap-line reading "£90,000 pay out is first since concerns over vaccine surfaced".

This is the case of a boy called Robert, who is now 18 and has severe brain damage such that he is unable to talk, stand unaided or feed himself, following a severe convulsion and onset of epilepsy at the age of 13 months. It is impossible not to feel sympathy and admiration for Robert and his family for his condition, their circumstances and their long battle for compensation. In fact I share the view of Robert's mother that £90,000 is not very much given the financial costs involved with a case like this.

The text of the story makes clear in three places that Robert does not have autism, but it implies through repeated reference to the MMR/autism "controversy" that compensation pay-outs may now be forthcoming for those families who claim that MMR caused autism in their child.

The article refers to the judgment of a three-person appeal panel under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme who, by a majority decision, decided that Robert suffered convulsions, epilepsy and severe brain damage as a result of a serious reaction to the vaccination 10 days after receiving it.

The ruling makes clear that it does not apply to autism, and even Robert's mother – who runs a campaign group which is, to put it charitably, sceptical about vaccines – points out that claims of autism are not considered under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. Robert's mother asserts there are 120 MMR cases waiting to be heard, which presumably refers to claims in respect of non-autism-related ill-health.

The story states that the "judgement will give hope to hundreds of other parents whose children have been severely affected by routine vaccinations." And Robert's mother is also reported as saying that the ruling would give hope to hundreds of other parents fighting to prove that their children's disabilities were caused by MMR injection.

There is an accompanying analysis article written by Sally Beck, who I had rather expected to be a doctor but is instead a journalist with a history of writing MMR-causes-autism stories. The analysis piece is headlined "New hope for parents who claim MMR jab blighted their children". It says:

"Up to 2,000 parents remain convinced their children have suffered significant harm from MMR but have been unable to prove it. This new decision will give them hope even though compensation panels do not officially recognise autism claims."

Surely therefore any hope would be false hope?

The panel say in their ruling:

"We would stress that this decision is fact-specific and it should not be seen as a precedent for any other case. In particular, it has no relevance to the issue ... as to whether there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism."

The story has been picked up in the Daily Telegraph who said "A man who suffered severe brain damage after being given the MMR vaccine as a baby has been awarded £90,000 in a landmark ruling expected to pave the way for thousands of similar compensation claims."

Even the Daily Mail story only talked of hundreds. Where did "thousands" come from?

Step forward Tory MP Nadine Dorries – described as "a member of the powerful Commons Health Committee". She is quoted in the article as saying that:

"If an independent panel has reached the conclusion that there has been a link between the MMR vaccine and the brain damage suffered by this boy in this case, then it is fair to assume that there could be as many as thousands of children and parents in the same position. "

Asserting that there are thousands of cases of brain damage being ascribed to MMR might well have the effect of deterring parents from having the vaccination. It is of course well established that a measles outbreak could well cause severe brain damage as that is a recognised complication of measles infection.

It does not seem responsible for any MP to be creating an MMR scare all over again without good evidence to back it up.