What would it take? (Or, Why the debate will never end)

Before you read the rest of this post, please take a moment (or, if you read as slow as I do, several moments) to read these two posts, by different authors, discussing the study Continuing Increases in Autism Reported to California’s Developmental Services System: Mercury in Retrograde and the accompanying essay Thimerosal Disappears but Autism Remains published in this month's Archives of General Psychiatry:

• Thimerosal Exposure Declines, Autism Rates Increase (Autism Vox)
• Making Sense of the California Autism Numbers (Age of Autism)

So, what do you think? Does the study prove anything? Disprove anything? If you believed before reading these posts that autism is caused primarily by thimerosal (or mercury in general), did reading these posts change your mind, or cause you to doubt that position? Conversely, if you believed before reading these posts that thimerosal / mercury is not a cause of autism, did reading these posts cause you to change your mind, or to question your beliefs?

On the Autism Blog at About.com, Lisa Jo Rudy hits the nail right on the head with this pessimistic (but unfortunately accurate) observation:

Knowing the autism community as I do, I find it hard to believe that these findings will change much of anything. Those who believe firmly that vaccines are NOT to blame for the rise in autism diagnoses will stand on these findings as proof positive of their claims. Meanwhile, those who believe firmly in the toxic nature of vaccines will continue to advocate for an end to required vaccinations - and for compensation for vaccine damage to their children.

In his article on Age of Autism, Mark Blaxill effectively quotes Karl Popper as a guide in his examination and acceptance of criticism to his theory:

He who gives up his theory too easily in the face of apparent refutations will never discover the possibilities inherent in his theory. There is room in science for debate: for attack and therefore also for defense...But do not give up your theories too easily--not, at any rate before you have critically examined your criticism.

But this then begs the question, at what point do you give up your theories. In discussing his conversion from atheism to theism (I believe Christianity, though he never comes out and says it) in his book There is a God, Antony Flew writes:

Now it often seems to people who are not atheists as if there is no conceivable piece of evidence that wold be admitted by apparently scientific-minded dogmatic atheists to be a sufficient reason for conceding "There might be a God after all." I therefore put to my former fellow-atheists the simple central question: "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a reason to at least consider the existence of a superior Mind?"

Obviously, this question can go both ways, and can be applied to just about any partisan disagreement, including the one at hand. With that in mind, I'll rephrase the questions I asked above:

• If you believe that thimerosal is not a primary cause of autism, what would it take to convince you that it actually is?
• If you believe that thimerosal is the primary cause of autism, what would it take to convince you that is not?

Note: please don't respond with something along the lines of "nothing could make me change my mind because it is obvious that my belief is correct." If that it how you feel, then you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to this conversation and I'd prefer it if you didn't clog up the comments.