Responses to "A Review of the Book 'Minamata Disease and the Responsibility of Medical Authorities'"

Abstract

Drs. Futatsuka, Eto, and Uchino expressed their opinions in the Journal of the Japanese Society for Hygiene in the form of a review of my book, "Minamata Disease and the Responsibility of Medicine." (The reviewers translated it as "Responsibility of Medical Authorities," but for my purposes in writing this book, I believe it should be translated as "Responsibility of Medicine.") The nine major comments of the three reviewers described in this book review were reviewed from the basic perspective of toxicology, epidemiology, and neuroscience. This book review is fraught with either medical, logical, or ethical problems in all the nine points as follows: (1) the inadequate way in which exposure and health hazards are considered from the toxicological perspective, (2) problems in interpreting epidemiological information, (3) the failure to consider recent achievements in methylmercury toxicosis studies, (4) presenting the reviewers' own theories without regard to the content of my book while calling it a "book review," (5) presenting and criticizing what Takaoka does not claim as if he does, and (6) making claims that are inconsistent with the three reviewers' own views. The problems with this book review will become even clearer when you read "Minamata Disease and the Responsibility of Medicine" itself.