That article should not be considered reliable. Even though that sentence was structured as a statement, all the sources are cited as "multiple reliable sources

That article should not be considered reliable. Even though that sentence was structured as a statement, all the sources are cited as "multiple reliable sources." There is no record of those "taped phone conversations" and the whole thrust of the article is that there is a rumor that the CDC will recant its study showing no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Where does that rumor come from? Those multiple unnamed reliable sources. Also, this article was written in May, so if they were truly on the cusp of releasing new information it's weird that we're at the end of September and none of these predictions have come to pass. Though the article is a great example of how this type of misinformation can propagate and sound scary and true if you're already predisposed to believe its stance, so is still interesting to read from that perspective.