[PCRit]

Like I said in my first post, I'm still skeptical. I tend not to form conclusions until ALL the scientific data points towards the same direction. And currently, it does not. And I'm really not trying to argue with you TomB, I'm just trying to let you see the "other side"

Have a good day.

[TomB]

Like I said in my first post, I'm still skeptical. I tend not to form conclusions until ALL the scientific data points towards the same direction. And currently, it does not. And I'm really not trying to argue with you TomB, I'm just trying to let you see the "other side"

There is no "other side" to this issue any more. This analysis looked at ALL the data and came to the conclusion that thimerosal does not cause autism. That would follow logically considering the failure of rates to fall in Denmark and other countries where thimerosal has been phased out.

It just so happens that your study showing a link was looked at in the IOM review:

However, the studies by Geier and Geier cited above have serious methodological flaws and their analytic methods were untransparent making their results uninterpretable, and therefore non-contributory with respect to the causality (see text for full discussion).

There is no "other side", unless you're a trial lawyer.