After reading this article, I was left with one immediate question: “Where is the research?” With out presenting at least a link to an abstract, Vanoli’s opinion, as well as this article, seem completely worthless. After ten minutes of searching Google and Google Scholar for links to a paper by Vanoli, I can safely say there is no such paper.
But surprisingly, the effects of mercury can cause neurological damage. Considering the varying exposure levels and methods of mercury exposure out there, it is not safe to completely invalidate Dr. Vanoli’s hypothesis. Mercury in vaccines could, in fact, be contributing to some of the neurological disorders in children, but the relationship between homosexuality and neurological damage has not been remotely proven. The point being that without some seriously good evidence from Dr. Vanoli, the fact remains that no one knows the cause of homosexuality.
Which brings me to my biggest problem with this article: WHY DOES THIS ARTICLE EXIST? I understand that the journalist who wrote this is looking for a nice fat bonus at the end of the pay period and is looking to get their name out there in the world of reporting, but this is simply garbage. This article is reporting a quote from one scientist, with no scientific evidence of his theory, with no published papers about this. For what reason beyond entertainment is this article made? I think that the presence of these types of articles in the world highlights my point posted earlier in the blog about having scientific news reported by trained scientific journalists. Seeing things like this in the media is quite upsetting. This is not news, only another person with another opinion. Glad we documented that.