In response to the review of my book “Minamata Disease and the Responsibility of Medicine” by Makoto Futatsuka, Komyo Eto, and Makoto Uchino, I submitted a “Reply” pointing out that the review contained many medical errors, logical inconsistencies, and ethical problems. In the “Forum” that the three authors subsequently contributed, they presented six more points of negative findings on exposure and health problems related to Minamata disease in a fragmented manner, without responding to the various issues that I had pointed out in the “Reply.” In the case of environmental pollution causing diseases such as Minamata disease, the tasks of researchers in the field of medicine and public health are to (1) investigate the temporal and spatial spread of health problems, (2) investigate the pathophysiological factors for the health problems caused by environmental pollution, and (3) establish diagnostic criteria based on toxicological and epidemiological information. However, the three authors’ opinions and logic clearly indicate that they lacked a standard academic or practical approach to methylmercury poisoning to pursue these three points, and that their understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease was inadequate and the premise for pursuing a diagnosis was flawed. Through discussions in this forum, the inaction of experts in the fields of public health, neurology, and pathology with regard to Minamata disease, as insisted in my book, was considered to be further confirmed.
