Correct citation: Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. Int J Toxicol. 2003 Jul-Aug;22(4):277-85.
The fatally flawed baby-hair study.
The first flaw in the study is the authors' acceptance of the idea of "excretion into the hair". It doesn't happen. Blood mercury does not equal hair mercury.
The second flaw is the data collection methods (the hair used in the study )
The third flaw is that the study found that the autistic children had lower hair mercury levels than the neurotypical controls. Rather than accepting that data, the authors went on to spin "tooth fairy tales" to explain why that might be so (the idea that autistic children had impaired mercury excretion). The fourth flaw in the study involves the hair analyzed: the samples had been in storage under unknown conditions for a median of five and a half years.
Do I really need to go on why Holmes et al. is a broken reed? I don't think so. It was, when published, a footling study. Anyone citing it, reveals their lack of in serious science writing. Holmes et al. 2003 isn't even a weak reed -- it's an over-cooked noodle.
But wait: One more thing you should know: Holmes et al. 2003 authors' affiliations are given as Safeminds. Safeminds is an acronym for Sensible Action For Ending Mercury Induced Neurological Disorders. Do you think the authors had an ideological point to make?
This study has nothing to do with vaccines.