I second this.

These people look at what Kirby does in public and say, “Well he has to play the game. He can’t come out and say he’s actually antivax because those in power won’t listen to him.” Now they don’t say that as if they are quoting him exactly, but they say it as if “this is what we in the antivax community all know is necessary.” It was the same thing with the openly antivax people attending the Green Our Vaccines rally, on Yahoo! groups they said stuff like, “Well, we can’t have an openly antivax rally, but this one about “greening vaccines” still fits the bill. It will scare people off vaccines.”

Lisa Jo, I am “morally certain” (that’s a quote from you) that you would benefit a lot of people if you would stop being so naïve.

Kirby has said many, many times that he is not in any way anti-vaccine, and that he would surely vaccinate children if he had any (he doesn’t). I have no reason to doubt him.

If Kirby is not anti-vaccine, then he sure knows how to play anti-vaccine. First it was thimerosal. When that didn’t pan out, the Poling case was like a shot in the arm (no pun intended) for him. Why would he immediately become interested in anything that might remotely implicate vaccines in any adverse reactions, if he’s not anti-vaccine? Why would he be involved in leaking documents and so forth, in what is obviously part of a well-organized and well-funded anti-vaccine campaign?

I don’t buy the “I’m not anti-vaccine” claims, because some of them do admit to being anti-vaccine in private.

I do doubt Kirby’s assertions that he’s not antivaccine. An intelligent person will doubt Kirby’s sincerity because he has shown over and over that there is reason to doubt it.

A few years ago he called up the CDC and represented himself as a reporter working for the New York Times, but he was not working for the NYT. The CDC press officer called the NYT and confirmed that. Lisa Jo Rudy has read Offit’s book, “Autism’s False Prophets,” where that is all laid out, and apparently has decided that Kirby’s words still have credibility. Why?

Just because someone looks respectable in a suit, and can smile, doesn’t mean that when they open their mouths that they are telling the truth.

You may recall that on the day of the green our vaccines ally, David was in London, scheduled to talk to MP’s. Yesterday on the day Team McCarrey go on Oprah, he was scheduled to talk to Reps.

High ranking politicians are always busy. The fact there was a bad turnout yesterday – just as there was in London – is, in my opinion, less to do with the politicians schedules and more to do with the message.

David has also said to me he would vaccinate his kids if he ever has any. I don’t doubt it either but I also don’t doubt it would not be to the CDC vaccine schedule. I think it would be to the GR ‘alternative’ schedule.

What puzzles me most about David’s role in this whole thing is the fact that he is a journalist. Journalists are supposed to be impartial. How can anyone who writes for the Age of Autism pretend impartiality?

thanks for the comment.

Whether Mr. Kirby is anti-vaccine or not is not the point. I don’t think ECBT referred to him as “anti-vaccine”. The point is the harm he does to the autism community with his PR work.

For me and the “Kirby, is he antivaccine? question”, I don’t know why he does what he does. I do know that it is damaging to the autism communities. When he misrepresents facts—like the statements on the usefulness of the VSD—he hurts the autism communities by reducing our credibility.

When he keeps pushing the mercury debate long after the science has passed him by, he hurts the autism communities by making us out to be unsupportive of the very research we called for.

We need money for autism research. If we push for more projects in areas that are not bearing fruit, we will (a) be using money and researcher time that could be applied to more promising areas and (b) we will eventually find that the funding agencies stop listening to us. That doesn’t help us.

As to how many people showed up, I really wish more had. AoA did a good job lobbying legislators and it’s close enough to election time that legislators will want to make some sort of appearance for their constituents.

But, when a staffer gets up and points out misleading information in Mr. Kirby’s presentation, I don’t really care what that does to Mr. Kirby’s reputation, I care what it does to our ability to effectively work with congress in the future. If representatives from the “autism community” are found to be misleading, that hurts.

The staffer was not some kid, either. He was a guy with the medical expertise to understand exactly what Kirby was doing.

One could, if there was an audible transcript, unravel Kirby’s careful prose – you’d end up with a pile of dirty confetti on the floor and it’s already been done by numerous people in bits here and pieces there but it would be worth it because of all the ideas in one place. |It would show quite clearly just how far off the trail he’s willing to go. I wonder why he does it or bothers to keep it going?

Surely the speaking engagements have dried up and the movie deal is dead in the water. So what income is available to him now?