Mercury is not excreted from the body to the hair. Mercury in the hair is the same as the mercury in the blood at the time the hair was growing. When mercury is excreted in feces both blood and hair levels decline. This has been known for decades.
"Several studies suggest that infant animals may be more sensitive to toxic insult from methylmercury than adults. In our experiment, newly born infant monkeys were given equivalent daily doses of body weight orally in the form of methylmercury for more than 60 weeks. Data revealed that after weaning at 200 days, both blood and hair mercury showed a sudden drop which was accompanied by an increase in fecal mercury excretion." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378427483902084
Holmes et al (2003) claimed the opposite; that low levels of mercury in the hair was evidence of the body retaining mercury, the children were poor excretors and thus poisoned by low levels of mercury that were excreted by normal controls.
You cited Holmes et al (2003) approvingly in an earlier article when you argued that,
"the neurologically normal babies who had been exposed to mercury in the womb via their mother’s fillings or anti-D injections, and after birth in the form of vaccines, had a higher level of mercury showing in their hair. Autistic babies exposed to the same things did not show this same level of mercury because they hadn’t excreted it from their bodies." https://www.empowher.com/autism/content/autisms-theoretical-causes-genetics-and-metabolism-editorial?page=0,2
Now you are arguing that high levels of mercury in children's hair are also evidence of mercury poisoning. So which is it to be?
And if you are a writer reporting on possible causes of autism rather than an advocate for a particular cause of autism, shouldn't you be reporting on the science that contradicts the claims you are reporting on in your articles?
Comment Reply
Mercury is not excreted from the body to the hair. Mercury in the hair is the same as the mercury in the blood at the time the hair was growing. When mercury is excreted in feces both blood and hair levels decline. This has been known for decades.
"Several studies suggest that infant animals may be more sensitive to toxic insult from methylmercury than adults. In our experiment, newly born infant monkeys were given equivalent daily doses of body weight orally in the form of methylmercury for more than 60 weeks. Data revealed that after weaning at 200 days, both blood and hair mercury showed a sudden drop which was accompanied by an increase in fecal mercury excretion." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378427483902084
Holmes et al (2003) claimed the opposite; that low levels of mercury in the hair was evidence of the body retaining mercury, the children were poor excretors and thus poisoned by low levels of mercury that were excreted by normal controls.
You cited Holmes et al (2003) approvingly in an earlier article when you argued that,
"the neurologically normal babies who had been exposed to mercury in the womb via their mother’s fillings or anti-D injections, and after birth in the form of vaccines, had a higher level of mercury showing in their hair. Autistic babies exposed to the same things did not show this same level of mercury because they hadn’t excreted it from their bodies." https://www.empowher.com/autism/content/autisms-theoretical-causes-genetics-and-metabolism-editorial?page=0,2
Now you are arguing that high levels of mercury in children's hair are also evidence of mercury poisoning. So which is it to be?
And if you are a writer reporting on possible causes of autism rather than an advocate for a particular cause of autism, shouldn't you be reporting on the science that contradicts the claims you are reporting on in your articles?
September 25, 2011 - 3:19pmThis Comment
Reply