Now the court could do worse than to invite Kathleen Seidel to tell them about the “culture” of fear mongering from the point of view of a parent who fears what is being done to autistic people of all ages because of that fear mongering.

I don’t think this would be the way to get real information about the vaccine/autism theory. But, they have experts testifying in court to do that. That isn’t the purpose of this conference.

Having someone like Mr. Kirby present at a meeting of Special Masters and Lawyers would inform people of culture (for want of a better word) behind the movement.

But, what of the proposed goal of the session, “Vaccines: Balancing Benefits with Parental Concerns (the autism issue?).”

OK, Mr. Allen and Dr. Marcuse would have been able to discuss the benefits. Mr. Kirby could have given his stump speech about being pro-vaccine. Would Mr. Kirby have taken responsibility for contributing to the climate of fear about vaccines? Would he have noted that much of the basis for his book and later writing is now being shown to be baseless? Would he have addressed that people like him could reduce parental concerns dramatically by admitting their own mistakes, rather than just quietly making small concessions (http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=851) about how thimerosal most likely wasn’t behind the increase in the autism count in California?

Would Bernadine Healy noted that her statements are increasing fears of vaccination, while not using any facts?

I think the session would have been interesting. I don’t think it would have met the goals of the session.

The way to balance benefits with parental concerns is to get real, good information out. At this point, that will likely take more studies on safety.

But, all the studies in the world won’t help if people erode confidence in the system. Hello, David Kirby, Bernadine Healy: you are a big part of the problem. If you can’t recognize that enough to reign in your own statements. Do a quick google search and see how often your baseless statement that studies haven’t been done because the researchers are ‘scared’ to find the possible susceptibility groups. Then listen to someone like Jeffrey Brent point out that there is no evidence—even amongst his autistic patents—that such a susceptibility group exists. Mr. Kirby, you devoted an entire recent blog post to your unending campaign against the reputation of the CDC. A new study appears to be on the way demonstrating that thimerosal in vaccines doesn’t increase the risk of autism. Instead of this allaying parental fears, you are working to undermine it before it appears.

There is great confusion out there now about the meaning of the Hannah Poling case. Guess what, a lot of that has to do with the fact that the one person given special access to the information botched the science and continues to do so. Yes, that is David Kirby. Then you have people making vague claims of researchers being scared (as noted above). Why should these people be given the privilege of presenting to the Court on behalf of the public?

Who is supporting this guy now, anyway?