The recent legal decision has been miscast by vaccine opponents. In truth, this case was treated separately from other autism cases being evaluated by the federal court because the child involved has a rare mitochondrial disorder leading to an encephalopathy or neurological condition with autism-like symptoms, and thus is unrelated to the rest of the population. And, despite the findings of the court, there is no scientific evidence that this child's condition was affected by her receipt of recommended childhood vaccinations.
This was a legal decision, not one supported by scientific evidence.
There now have been 16 separate, independent studies undertaken in five countries, involving millions of children, that have found no link between vaccination, vaccines or vaccine preservatives (namely, the mercury-based thimerosal) and autism. We have more data supporting this lack of association than for most other "known facts" in medicine. The sheer number of children included in these studies precludes the theory that there may be even some small but significant number of children for whom vaccination was at fault for, or contributed to, any measurable degree of autism.
There simply can be no other scientific conclusion than that reached by the Institute of Medicine: Vaccination does not cause autism.
There are of course the usual voices making the usual arguments all the while ignoring the evidence presented. It may very well take an actual deadly plague to convince those folk otherwise. Hat tip Autism Vox.