Reply to comment

Anonymous,
There are at least three problems in your reasoning, but I can see that the gullible could be taken in.
1. It's almost impossible to PROVE "no causal association." Scientists can just do study after study reporting no evidence of association (preferably with a narrow confidence interval around the null effect measure).
2. I've reviewed every epidemiological study that's reported no association between thimerosal and autism. Almost all of them have more than sufficient statistical power. A phrase like, "to identify this kind of problem in a small subset of the population" is so imprecise as to be meaningless.
3. The "Kinsbourne Document" was submitted as extremely selective, one-sided evidence in a court case. It's not a peer-reviewed published paper. The vast majority of the reference list are studies that have no direct bearing on the relationship between ethylmercury and autism. Indeed, I invite people to read the list of paper titles and figure out how they have any bearing at all, except that some papers have autism in the title and others have mercury in the title.