There is almost none of the old stocks remaining, considering we went to unit-dose containers in the mid-90s. So while there still may be some around the fact is that all vaccines produced since 2000 have no thimerosal in them.
Now, please deal with the main point, considering thimerosal has been declining in use since the mid-90s, why hasn't the autism rate gone down as well?
thimerosal use had not been declining since the mid 90's. More correctly since the Turn of the Century.
And you know this how? Granted, when we took the manufacturer list in, with us, to our local clinic, we found none. Do you have a list of what remains?
Now, please deal with the main point, considering thimerosal has been declining in use since the mid-90s, why hasn't the autism rate gone down as well?
Another poster alluded to the existence of a correlation. I indicated I would be interested in seeing that study.
I'll ask you the same question: Assuming thimerosol use has declined, and the autism rate hasn't, what is causing autism?
That's the question we're trying to get answered. There is currently no incentive on the part of the drug manufacturers specifically, or the medical community, in general, to answer this question.
What, exactly, is Joe Citizen left with, in the apparent absence of concern by the "experts"? If no one will even acknowledge the existence of the problem, let alone the source, what would you have us speculate on? ...or would you rather just hope you're not a "winning" member of the exponentially growing odds of having a family member afflicted?
Would you rather nobody know of the mounting anecdotal evidence that points to a correlation between immunization and autism? What, exactly, is your connection to the immunization field?
That's not what the FDA's own info says:
http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm
Conceding your point (which I'm not convinced is a good idea), see my postings on another significant cause of autism: Pitocin-induced delivery, which has been on the increase since at least the 60s. See The British Lance, 6/91, on a four-hospital study and the most aggressive program, giving the labor-inducing agent up to 2 weeks ahead of delivery, showing a 19% autism rate. That's slightly higher than 2:100 births. Could that be an epidemic by definition? I'd think so. Even the educational system is prodding the medicals about an epidemic.
I've never thought the vaccinations were as significant as the induction deliveries -- until they started getting even more aggressive with them (I think sometime in the 80s).
I also wouldn't put ALL my faith in the FDA's approved studies.