There is irrationality on all sides of this debate. Thimerosal is simply a preservative. It is not the only 'ingredient' in a vaccine--just because thimerosal doesn't appear to be the culprit in some forms of acquired autism, it doesn't mean vaccines themselves don't play some other role in the etiology of the disorder. Current research seems to suggest that autism may be some form of neurological autoimmune disorder. Peer-reviewed studies published in mainstream medical journals have long since made the connection between some autoimmune disorders such as arthritis, and vaccinations. For this reason, at least one of these studies concluded that vaccines of any kind might be contraindicated in persons with a family history of autoimmunity. Why vaccines would activate some autoimmune disorders seems to be as yet unknown, though it is possible that fragments of foreign human DNA in the vaccines may be interacting negatively with the immune systems of the human host (vaccines are often cultured in human fetal tissue). I'm not surprised that parents who are not medical professionals would cling to thimerosal as their answer, since they have observed their children regress after receiving the vaccines. "Correlation is not causality"-- even if parents are clear on the concept, it doesn't offer any comfort. But it's perplexing as to why so many scientists are making the clearly unscientific leap from 'thimerosal doesn't cause some types of autism' to 'vaccines don't cause some types of autism', particularly when there is strong anecdotal evidence from parents and suggestive demographic/statistical evidence regarding a possible link. It's hard not to conclude that such uncharacteristic anti-logic on the part of medical professionals is due to strong pressure from the government agencies who would suffer from such a link being found, or from big pharma. I hope this situation changes for the better. I send my best to all concerned.

Except that the Denmark study of over half a million children, around a hundred and fifty thousand of whom did not receive vaccinations (whether they contained thimerosal or not) showed no variation between immunized and non-immunized rates of autism. If there was a link of any sort, I would expect such a large-scale study to reveal it. The fact that Denmark has a socialized medical system also undermines the idea that "Big Pharma" or the for-profit medical industry would be able to skew their results.

Brief research on the internet turns up this link (not sure if I'm doing it right, but here goes anyway):

<link>

My bad - only a little over 100,000 of the children in the Denmark study were unvaccinated. Still a respectable sample size.

Gigi, please cite the studies that affirm your bull%&*$. I for one am totally tired of reading people without any standing allege a vast cover-up. If there was even a hint that vaccines might be implicated in a common disorder, the scientific community would be first to sound the alarm. So Gigi, put up or shut up,

Er, 'Puddintain', if you read any allegations of a vast cover-up, you didn't read them in my post. And congratulations; you can consider this an alarm from the 'scientific community'--I have worked on the cutting edge of autism therapy for over twelve years. Not sure if someone whose academic challenge includes the phrase 'put up or shut up' is worthy of a serious reply; however, in case someone truly seeking information is reading this thread, the following may help. The connection between vaccinations and some manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis is such a well-documented one that it is included among the few legitimate vaccine-injury claims for which people can receive compensation from the US government. Go to <link> Not only the MMR, MR and R vaccines have been implicated, as I said before, in autoimmune disease, but also various others including the Hep B and even typhoid. Some of the studies, as I stated before, amount to anecdotal evidence because the sample sizes are so small--but again as I said before, the medical community considers them suggestive. The following citations from major medical journals are only a small fraction of what is out there (in random order): Nussinovitch et al, Archives of Disease in Childhood 1995 Apr; 72(4): 348-9 "Arthritis after Mumps and Measles Vaccination" Yli-Kerttula et al, Journal of Rheumatoid Arthritis 1997 Oct; 24(10): 2047-50 "Different course of reactive arthritis in two HLA-B27 positive brothers with fatal outcome in one" Finielz et al, [Journal of ]Nephrologyy, Dialysis, Transplantation 1998 Sep; 13 (9): 2420-1 "Systemic lupus erythematosus and thrombocytopenic purpura in two members of the same family following hepatitis B vaccine" Adachi et al Journal of Travel Medicine 2000 Jan; 7 (1) 35-6 "Reactive arthritis associated with typhoid vaccination in travelers: report of two cases with negative HLA-B27" **** Lastly, it's simply disingenuous and uninformed to pretend that our current system of funding medical research doesn't strongly encourage bias creeping into certain privately-backed studies. This is not paranoid fear-mongering; it is not even news. Puddintain, if you would like an example of how the medical community views this long-standing and very real conflict, read Eric Topol, M.D.'s article in the New England Journal of Medicine (mainstream enough for you?) 2004 Oct; 351 (17) 1707-17099 "Failing the Public Health--Rofecox b, Merck and the FDA" for an example of how there is no need to posit wacky conspiracies to realize that bias creeps into the system, and the public health is not always served by the institutions set up to serve it.