The article's main premise is to point to more and more mercury, correlating to more and more autism. When the facts are that mercury in vaccines generally is on the decrease, and the increase in cases can be attributed to better medical understanding and diagnosis.
Moreover, there has been NO substantive studies to implicate that these autism cases are related to a genetic link that causes problems for the kidneys excreting the mercury. I haven't even seen a physiological study investigating that mechanism.
It's the same thing as hurricanes. We didn't really have a huge increase in the number of hurricanes this century, we just have better coverage and reporting of them.
The snide persuasions in the article that the epidemiological evidence depends on the researcher is without merit. If there are conflicting results, it probably means that some researchers are better at designing experiments. Reviews of this faux-controversy routinely have bio-statisticians on the panels to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the studies, and they all conclude that this link is non-existant.