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.