Could be, but I don't think that example supports you. There are three classes of mercury compounds: elemental, inorganic salts, and organic. They are each unique in every clinical way from tissue distribution, biotransformations, elimination, diagnosis, and management. Your example (fish) is organic mercury, but amalgam and vaccinations utilize elemental mercury. I'm not sure the two can be compared for toxicity.
Plus, this could all be bs (I have no idea), but if the fish eaten raw, AV would call it 'bio-mercury'... or something like that. And I think he says this is actually detoxifying, while cooking would make it more deleterious.
Still wondering what you think! 
I don't buy AV's theory. There's nothing special about raw food that would bind mercury(or any other elemental toxin). And there's the minamata bay incident where the japanese(who usually prefer eating raw fish to cooked fish) got hefty mercury-poisoning as a result of many tonnes of mercury being dumped into the bay over the years. They don't seem to have had much protection from eating mostly raw fish all the time.
Incidentally, the above was an isolated incident, affecting only that 1 bay, not any further than that, and was due to highly unusual industrial corruption etc. There are natural traces of mercury all over the Earth, particularly the ocean, along with traces of elements such as uranium(which pro-mercury-advocates never seem to mention), which are way below the levels found in Minamata Bay at the time.
As regards the type of mercury, the anti-mercury crowd cite vaccinations and amalgams as being as equally harmful as mercury in food, so my view is that if 1 of the 3 ideas is easily proven wrong re the notion of traces of mercury supposedly being lethal, then, at the very least, the whole theory looks shaky. And there's my own experience re amalgams. Granted, more data needs to be done, but the current studies' results 99% of the time favour the notion that all types of mercury are fine in trace amounts.
