I’m going through a mini-fascination with video online at the moment. I was delighted to unearth that old video of Brad Handley and I was equally delighted to come across a few video’s of David Kirby on Google Video, courtesy of FAIR Autism Media.
David Kirby Contradicts the Militia
Now, its an article of faith amongst the mercury militia that you since 1992 you haven’t been able to leave your house without tripping over a huge amount of autistic people. I remember Erik once saying that ‘everybody knows someone with autism’. So I was struck by the opening of the video interviewing Kirby.
So if I understand the ‘logic’, since 1992 autism has been increasing massively and according to Erik et al you can hardly move for autistic people and yet as of 2002 David Kirby has never met one. Odd. I mean, as he says:
Bit of an odd discrepancy, no?
But hardly worthy of a blog post all to itself. No, the really interesting stuff popped up a bit later.
David Kirby Contradicts David Kirby
In December of last year, I commented on an odd discrepancy in David Kirby’s take on the thiomersal hypothesis.
Briefly, blogger Citizen Cain had an email exchange with David Kirby earlier in 2005:
Understandably, Kirby doesnâ€™t seem interested in mucking around in the data with me too extensively, or in answering my detailed questions. But in an e-mail, he did address the key point, and concede that _â€œif the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the autism-thimerosal hypothesis.â€_ He also conceded that total cases among 3-5 year olds, not changes in the rate of increase is the right measure.
It struck me as odd as I remembered something Kirby had told NYT reporters in an interview with the New York Times also in 2005:
Because autism is usually diagnosed sometime between a child’s third and fourth birthdays and thimerosal was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, the incidence of autism should fall this year.
I was puzzled by the discrepancy of Kirby arbitrarily adding on 2 years <a href="so I mailed him. He replied:
The Times misquoted me. I actually asked for a correction, but did not receive one.
OK, so my next stop was the two NYT reporters. What did they say about the whole thing?
Reporter Gardner Harris said:
Prior to publication, we read the entire passage relating to this matter to Mr. Kirby. He approved it.
And Anahad O’Connor said:
we stand by that quote. David Kirby was interviewed at length, and we verified that quote and additional information with him before the article was published.
I was disappointed at the time and asked David Kirby to clarify. However he refused to comment further and did not reply to any of my emails, nor respond to any blog comments I left either here or on his page at the Huffington Post blog. This is strange behaviour coming from a man who said:
Seems like Kirby only wants a debate when he hasn’t been caught out.
Anyway, this is all old news. And its still not established. Kirby denied he was referring to 2005 the two reporters say he definitely was. Who to believe?
How about David Kirby?
Well, well, well. Correct me if I’m wrong but the year Kirby mentions at the start of that snippet is *2005* is it not? Of course, the details about falling/rising cases have been gone over and over now that its obvious cases are in fact *still* rising. the important thing for me was hearing David Kirby mention 2005. Something he denies he ever said.
What else does Kirby say about California and 2005?
Yes, they do Mr Kirby. Closely enough to see that cases are still rising. Closely enough to see you’ve been caught in a lie. Stop moving the goalposts and then lying about it Mr Kirby.
We’re here Mr Kirby. We always have been.
Ready when you are.