There is a basic problem here in why we cannot agree. And that is that there is that we have to define whom to believe and how to read data. My way of looking at a scientific report is to look at the original published material and to assess the ability of those who wrote the report and then also to see whether this has been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Even then there have been glaring errors in the past and reputable journalists have been caught out by hoaxes and unscrupulous scientists (they do exist). So vigilance is advised on both sides. Of course there have been some very high profile scandals concerning medication and there is considerable sharp practice by big pharma, but their aim is to make money and one way of ensuring that this making of money is continued is to produce good products, not products that will kill the customer.
Now the study you send a link is supposed to be from data obtained under the FOA and therefore there is no raw data that can be verified. This is published in the internet by a group and therefore there is no scientific verification. I cannot accept such publications and cannot waste time looking at them because it is simply this, a waste of time. Anybody can make claims and we can spend a lot of time and money trying to disprove them.
In the case of mercury, its use has been discontinued in the developed countries but may still be used in some developing countries. The toxicity of mercury occurs because it is not easily excreted and therefore can accumulate in the body. The major toxicity is that can cause a dermatitis, inflammation of the skin and some neurological toxicity. But there have been studies to look at the specific link with autism and this was not proven. Therefore how the paper you link to got this figure of OD ratio of 11 is a mystery. But notice one way to cheat in statistics is by subgroup analysis, so they have a group called highest level of exposure. No figures are given for the number of cases although I have to admit I did not look at this too closely.
In your original post you were talking about presence of Roundup in vaccines, and the authors allege, using an ELIZA assay method that they detected Roundup in vaccines at levels of one part per billion. This is really weird because this assumes an enormous accuracy in a test that is generally not used to detect trace amounts such as these.