Mercury and Alzheimer's

I was curious whether anyone had studied a possible connection between vaccines and Alzheimer's disease. Using Google, I found this quote, widely distributed on the web:

According to Hugh Fudenberg, MD, the world's leading immunogeneticists and 13th most quoted biologist of our times (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals): If an individual has had 5 consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 (the years studied) his/her chances of getting Alzheimer's Disease is 10 times higher than if he/she had one, 2 or no shots. Dr. Fudenberg said it was so and that it was due to mercury and aluminum that is in every flu shot. The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction.

For every page which includes this quote, there are 3 ridiculing it. But none of the discussion has any flavor of credibility. There are lots of ad hominem attacks on Hugh Fudenberg, but I can't find any reasonable dispute of his long and distinguished scientific career. He is a key player in the early evidence for a link between mercury and autism. That link seems to have been disproven, but that is common in science.

Given the controversy, his role in it, and his many awards, I find it curious that Dr. Fudenberg does not have a Wikipedia page.

As far as I can tell, the above quote is based on an interview with Dr. Fudenberg, and not on a peer reviewed article, so it has little weight. But I could not find any studies rejecting a connection with Alzheimer's. So those who think this possibility is worthy of ridicule are basing their conclusions on prejudice.

Here's an interesting video that explains why people worry about mercury's effect on brain function.



Here's another quote from a guy trying to debunk the mercury connection:

A 1997 study from the Universities of Calgary and Kentucky exposed rats to high concentrations of mercury vapor for four hours per day up to 28 days [8]. Some of the rats showed brain lesions similar to those found in humans with Alzheimer's disease. Anti-amalgamists assert that this study provides evidence that dental amalgam fillings can cause Alzheimer's disease [7]. However, humans with an average of 25 surfaces of amalgam fillings would only inhale 2 µg Hg/m3 during four hours of stimulated conditions [9] versus the 250 or 300 µg Hg/m3 vapor used in this study. The rats were therefore exposed to over 100 times greater concentrations of mercury vapor than humans with 25 amalgam surfaces would typically inhale, even under stimulated conditions. The rat study therefore has little relevance to whether mercury from amalgams causes Alzheimer's disease.
...
[7] Scientists connect Alzheimer's Disease to mercury: Bio-Probe News Website. Available at: http://www.bioprobe.com/ReadNews.asp?article=31. Accessed March 31, 2001.
[8] Pendergrass JC, Haley BE, Vimy MJ, Winfield SA, Lorscheider FL. Merucry vapor inhalation inhibits binding of GTP to tubulin in rat brain: similarity to a molecular lesion in Alzheimer diseased brain. NeuroToxicology 1997;18:315-24.
[9] Langworth S, Kölbeck K-G, Åkesson A. Mercury exposure from dental fillings. II. Release and absorption. Swed Jdent J 1988;12:71-2.

But this would tend to support the connection. If the concentration was 100 times higher for only one month for 1/6 of each day than humans get with 25 amalgam surfaces, then you could expect a similar result with the lower concentration for 8 years with 4 amalgam surfaces (did that make any sense?). Linearity is a big assumption, but unless shown otherwise, it is the best assumption available.

The Political President and WMD

Scott McClellan's book on Bush's political presidency is shocking, but should not be a surprise. What is a surprise is that the Bushies thought they could keep their shenanigans secret.

In response, and in defence of the handling of pre-war intelligence, Condoleezza Rice asks "You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003, but I would really ask that if you ... believe [Saddam] was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of oil-for-food."

The argument at the time (at least the persuasive one) was that he had a documented history of pursuing (and using!) WMD and such countries must submit to inspections. This is simply common sense. It was more than the current justification for sanctioning Iran. Is she saying we should not be doing that?

I recall watching Powell present his argument for war to the security council. Most of the evidence was satellite images of buildings. This one is a chemical weapons factory... that one is a bio lab... etc. At the time I wondered how they knew these things. They just looked like buildings to me. But there was a long history of analysts figuring out fuzzy pictures like that. Cuban missile crisis, etc. So maybe they knew something that was not obvious to most people. I assumed they must have secret information that they could not reveal. Why did I assume that?

1. Everyone in the White House had access to whatever additional secret information they had.
2. No rational person would trust the presented evidence alone as indicating anything.
3. If there was a war, all buildings would be identified, and everyone would know the truth.
4. Every country that trusted us, would never trust us again.
5. 200 years of hard earned political capital would be spent on a single security council vote.
6. The Bush legacy would consist of ruining the good faith and credit of the United States of America.
7. No one in their right mind would want that legacy. What gain could possibly be worth that?

My point is that McClellan's description of a political administration run amok is not just credible, but is the inescapable conclusion once we found out the prewar intelligence was more or less manufactured. His book is no surprise at all. By assuming insiders would stay loyal, Bush failed to realize that at least one of the operatives surrounding him was an honest public servant with conservative principles and a belief in good government.

At least Nixon was rational. Someone at Newsweek came up with the right term for our current administration: 'idiocracy', rule by the stupid.

Shooting Down Satellites

Here's a post about Chinese doubts about the US shooting down one of its own satellites. Some quotes: "Some Chinese are not buying the U.S. explanation of why it shot down a crippled spy satellite." and "...events that U.S. readers might take at face value."

OMG, does anyone actually believe the bogus stories both governments composed? The Chinese shot theirs down as a matter of national security. It had to know if it could reduce US capabilities in the event of war. (The reality is it reduces only a little as most of the important satellites are in farther orbits, and the US has inertial systems too, not just GPS.) The US has wanted to do such a test for a long time, but faced a delicate detente with the Russians over space weaponization since 1985. The Chinese test forced their hand, or allowed a fortunate excuse, depending on your point of view. In any case it is quite impressive the US was able to prepare and execute a successful test in a matter of weeks.

What is more interesting is the after-the-fact responses. The US expressed sensible and measured alarm at the military implications, and the debris left in orbit. After the US test, the Chinese response was practically a mirror of the original US response. Unfortunately, the facts were different, and the Chinese response made little sense. For example, the US test was in low orbit and the debris would fall into the atmosphere in a matter of days and weeks, not years like the Chinese debris. Also, the US had a plausible justification, its wayward satellite would soon enter the atmosphere at an uncontrollable location, possibly threatening populated areas (ooo, I'm scared).

The actions were similar, but the handling of public relations was vastly different, showing the US advantage of many years of cold war experience.