Archive | David Kirby RSS feed for this section

Autism Epidemic Talk

20 Jan

A couple of slap dash blog pieces appeared today both on the same subject – the so called autism epidemic. First off is Harold who writes about a series of interviews with David Kirby. David says:

<blockquote>It’s crazy that in this debate, we’re still debating whether autism numbers are actually going up or not, which is insanity to me. It’s people desperately clinging to this belief that autism is genetic, that it’s always been with us at this rate, that we’re just better at counting it, better at diagnosing it.</blockquote>

Harold claims David has ‘hit the nail on the head’ with this quote. I disagree with Harold and I disagree with David. Its far from insanity to examine a perfectly valid hypothesis. More later.

Anne Dachel at the Age of Autism writes :

<blockquote>Why do I personally know so many young people with severe autism, whose symptoms can’t be ignored?  How could we have just ignored these people in the past?  Where are those misdiagnosed adults with classic autism—those with the same symptoms we see in so many children today?

I’m not talking about [Kristina] Chew’s autistic neighbor who was able to have a conversation with her, or [Paul] Offit’s people who are kind of ‘quirky.’  I mean adults who can’t talk, those in diapers, people who scream for hours and pound hours in walls and who constantly rock back and forth.</blockquote>

Dachel goes on to list several news reports which question the idea of there not being some kind of an epidemic. I disagree with her view and I disagree with the way she has reached her view.

Both Dachel and Harold (and David Kirby come to that) are claiming that epidemiology can be ursurped by individual experience – Dachel’s individual experience with ‘so many young people’ and David’s individual experience with the idea that people are desperately clinging on to some sort of belief in a genetic form of autism.

Now, casting aside the fact that the some of the forms of autism that we know about (Rett Syndrome etc) _are_ solely genetic we have to – as we do with _all_ forms of science, cast aside personal anecdote when making sweeping statements about a very large group of people. What we need to do instead is look at the science. So what does the science say?

Nothing. As far as I can see no firm case has been made that there either is or is not an autism epidemic. Why? Because the science hasn’t been done. It is maybe worth noting that it is the firm opinion of autism experts that a large part of any possible rise is due to:

a) Better diagnostic tools

b) More places at which to recieve a diagnosis

c) More awareness amongst clinicians of autism

d) Earlier diagnosis

e) Diagnostic substitution

f) Widening of diagnostic criteria

Experts such as Eric Fombonne, Roy Richard Grinker and Simon Baron-Cohen have all spoken about these ideas at length. However, that doesn’t make them right. There still seems to be no hard and fast science that says there is an autism epidemic or not.

Another example of irresponsible blogging by David Kirby

14 Nov

Autism Speaks recently put out what I consider to be a rather irresponsible press release. The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) added a new objective, and Autism Speaks chose to frame it as “IACC includes vaccine research objective in strategic plan for autism research“. I’ve discussed that already, so I won’t go into more details here.

Instead, I want to take a look at how David Kirby treated this story. He blogged this as Top Federal Panel Endorses Autism Research That Includes Vaccines – Dueling Press Releases Ensue. Mr. Kirby takes on the role of (misinformed) cheerleader for the vaccine-epidemic groups that sponsor the Age of Autism blog, where the piece was posted. As you will see, he probably should have checked with his community before posting.

On Tuesday, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), Washington’s leading arbiter for directing federal funds to autism research, unanimously voted to recommend studies that include investigations into possible links between autism and environmental triggers – including vaccines – in certain subsets of children.

Mr. Kirby is invited to check the actual process of federal funding of autism research and the role of the IACC. He could watch the latest video of an IACC meeting, where Dr. Insel (director of NIMH and chair of the IACC) makes it clear that the IACC is an advisory and planning committee only. They are far from the “final arbiter for directing federal funds”. That is a minor point compared to the fact that the IACC did not recommend studies into the possible links between autism and vaccines.

This fact that the IACC was not committing to vaccine-autism research was not missed by some of his readers, who are quoted in the conclusion of his recent blog post. A conclusion which is rather confused in tone:

So, just to recap: The Federal Government’s top autism panel has voted unanimously to support studies into autism and its possible environmental triggers – including vaccination. In turn, Autism Speaks has cheered “including vaccine research objectives in the IACC plan” while its supposed rival, ASF, has equally cheered that “vaccine research (is) out of the IACC autism plan.”

Some parents I spoke with grudglingly accepted ASF’s view of events, however. “IACC took out ALL proposed vaccine research studies; They specifically elimated A) a vax unvax study, B) an unvaxed or partially vaxed sibs study and C) an adjuvant study – all gone,” one mother wrote. “They only left the word “vaccine” in a along laundry list of POTENTIAL future possible (translation never) study topics.”

Whether the IACC has recommended specific vaccine-autism research, or environment-autism research, vaccines remain on the list of possible contributors to autistic regression as far as the US Government is concerned.

And that is just how Congressional leaders intended it to be.

If parents are telling Mr. Kirby that the IACC is not really committing to fund vaccine research, how can this “just how Congressional leaders intended it to be”, since Mr. Kirby is asserting that the congressional intent is to include vaccine-autism research? It reads a bit confusing to me.

Well, it’s confusing because David Kirby has once again edited his post after the fact. Take a look at this screenshot of the original post:

kirby_backpedal

Yep, it’s different. Sometime after he posted his piece, he added the entire paragraph :

Some parents I spoke with grudglingly accepted ASF’s view of events, however. “IACC took out ALL proposed vaccine research studies; They specifically elimated A) a vax unvax study, B) an unvaxed or partially vaxed sibs study and C) an adjuvant study – all gone,” one mother wrote. “They only left the word “vaccine” in a along laundry list of POTENTIAL future possible (translation never) study topics.”

Yes, David Kirby wrote a post praising the IACC’s actions as funding vaccine research and then backpedaled when autism parents emailed him with the reality of the situation: the IACC did not commit to funding vaccine research.

He also edited out a comment where he refers to a statment by Alison Singer of the Autism Science Foundation as “And there was this, almost Orwellian statement: “

I guess it was Orwellian until his own readers agreed with it?

Can you find where Mr. Kirby notes his change in that piece? Neither can I. A major change like this should be noted in the piece.

I’ll take a side-trip here into discussing Mr. Kirby’s mistakes and the way he handles them. Unfortunately, Mr. Kirby has a history of changing blog posts after the fact, even to the point of leaving clearly erroneous posts online without a comment.

A few examples:

He wrote a post, “CDC: Vaccine Study Design “Uninformative and Potentially Misleading“”. After Blogger (and epidemiologist) epiwonk showed the mistakes in that post, Mr Kirby rewrote the post, complete with a note about the error. In an odd move, he left first the erroneous post online. As epiwonk showed, even the second post was seriously flawed, but Mr. Kirby chose to leave it online.

Mr. Kirby made a serious misquote in his presentation to congressional staffers. No mention of the error was made in the power point slides he posted online.

He made a factor of 10 error in reading a graph for a blog post. He copied the blog post from the Age of Autism blog to the Huffington Post, and corrected the error in his Huffington Post piece without correcting the Age of Autism piece.

He made the rather simple error of mistaking the Obama transition teams Change.gov website for the change.gov website. Again, he posted to both the Age of Autism blog and to the Huffington Post. Mr. Kirby added a comment to the Huffington Post piece, but just deleted the erroneous post on the Age of Autism blog.

I make mistakes. Sometimes pretty spectacular mistakes. But I think it shows a certain level of disrespect from Mr. Kirby in how he handles his mistakes.

But, I’ve digressed from the main topic here: how Mr. Kirby handled the press releases from Autism Speaks and the Autism Science Foundation about the IACC’s new objective. Even without the confusing conclusion and the changes made after the fact, Mr. Kirby’s post is irresponsible.

It is one thing to take on the role of cheerleader/journalist as Mr. Kirby has done. But he gets to walk away from this community. He’s tried to walk away once, and he is now about to embark on a new career path taking on factory farming. In a few years when parents are complaining that the government hasn’t funded vaccine-autism research like David Kirby told us the government would…in a few years when the bitterness comes to the surface…where will David Kirby be? Will he be here to take responsibility for the mess he has created?

I admit, this is minor compared to the mess he made with convincing parents that autism was caused by thimerosal. How many children have been “treated” with chelation who wouldn’t have if Mr. Kirby hadn’t taken on this cause? How many of them regressed or were otherwise harmed? We will never know.

And he will never accept his role in this and his responsibility.

Age of Autism: misquotes Story Landis…jumps to unsupported conclusion

2 Nov

When the Age of Autism reported on a note written by Story Landis, they added a word that dramatically colored what was said. I am left wondering why would AoA make such an clearly detectable misquote? Read on and you will see what I mean.

Take a look at the piece titled “Dr. Story Landis: Autism not a multi-symptom disease but a money making scheme?“. That whole “money making scheme” part is what got people riled up. But is it really supported by what was said?

Here’s a little screenshot of the Age of Autism blog post, if you don’t want to click through to their site:

Segment of post about Story Landis

Segment of post about Story Landis

I know this seems redundant, but here is what they quote Dr. Landis as saying:

“I wonder if Lyn Redwood is pushing autism as a multi-symptom disorder in order to feed into vaccine injury awards.

Emphasis added by me.

Why add emphasis, you might ask? Because “awards” is not in what Dr. Landis wrote in that first line. Go ahead and check. Here’s the note, as downloaded from the of the Age of Autism blog.

“I wonder if Lyn Redwood is pushing autism as multisystem disorder to feed into vaccine injury?

It is the second line that mentions awards:

Would be a good justification for looking at vaccine injured kids who have gotten awards.

The insertion isn’t a simple mistake–it is made twice in the same blog post. Here is the second place the mistake was made:

How could Landis imply that families are “trying to make” autism into a total body disease in order “to feed into vaccine injury awards.”

Neither section in the “quotes” is accurate. “Trying to make” isn’t in what Dr. Landis wrote, and, as we have just seen, “feed into vaccine injury awards” isn’t either.

Without the word “awards” added the meaning that the Age of Autism blog post tries to convey, heck, the title of the blog post–that Dr. Landis was speculating that this was a “money making scheme”–is unsupported.

Let’s dive into this a bit deeper. David Kirby, blogger at the Age of Autism and at the Huffington post did a very strange thing. In his piece he gets the correct quote from the note, doesn’t mention the mistake made at the age of autism, but still pushes the Age of Autism interpretation:

To many parents, it seemed that Dr. Landis suspected Redwood of “pushing” the study of these multisystem problems merely to boost the number of autism cases filed in vaccine court (the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program), and to increase their chances for victory. Judging by the comments on Age of Autism, those parents were profoundly offended by the implications of that interpretation.

I’m curious as to how Mr. Kirby came to the conclusion that Dr. Landis’ note was “merely to boost the number of autism cases filed in vaccine court” and “to increase their chances for victory”. Dr. Landis didn’t mention the court, the chances of victory…or even “awards” in the context that would support Mr. Kirby’s interpretation.

I’d be curious as to whether Mr. Kirby pointed out the mistakes to the Age of Autism blogger in question.

A casual observer might find it odd how Mr. Kirby corrected the quote and yet persisted in pushing (yes, I’ll use the term pushing) the interpretation based on the misquote. The same casual observer would find it especially odd, since Mr. Kirby was the one to publicly disclose Dr. Landis’ explanation of her comment:

The other part of my note addressed the fact that it is important for autism researchers to study the children who have been most profoundly affected by their response to vaccines. That in no way mitigates my sincere apology to the families who interpreted my note to be uncaring and disrespectful.

“The other part of my note” being “Would be a good justification for looking at vaccine injured kids who have gotten awards.”

If you can look at the quote fresh, consider this interpretation–the first sentence, “I wonder if Lyn Redwood is pushing autism as multisystem disorder to feed into vaccine injury?” is discussing the if autism as a multisystem disorder would feed into the *idea* of autism as a vaccine injury. The assertion that her comment referred to vaccine injury “awards” is at best speculation and, at worst, a pretty clear misquote. I could speculate on the motives of the Age of Autism blogger, but haven’t we just seen how dangerous it is to speculate on motives with little information?

note: I made some small edits for clarity shortly after publishing this.

David Kirby: No friend to my autistic kid

27 Oct

David Kirby is certainly no friend to my autistic child.

I don’t know why I let David Kirby annoy me. It is a pretty safe bet that whenever he blogs he will write something that rubs me the wrong way. Whether it is his clear lack of science acumen or his faux fence sitting “I’m just trying to spark a national debate” ruse, he never fails to write something offensive.

Recently he responded to the very strong possibility that the number of autistic adults is much higher than previously thought with what amounts to essentially, “Autistic adults? Nope, I’ve never seen ‘em. They must not exist”.

The right answer in my view would be, “We need to confirm this right now and find out who may be getting no support or the wrong support.” That’s what a friend to my kid would say. By denying the existence of autistic adults Mr. Kirby has shown himself to be about as far from a friend as I could imagine.

In his recent interview with Sharyl Attkisson Mr. Kirby noted that he didn’t see any autistics on the subway or in his neighborhood, therefore there can’t be 1 in 100 autistic adults. Therefore, according to his logic, there is an autism epidemic. Of course he says this is to support the idea that we need to take the vaccine issue seriously.

It was nonsense when he first said it and I pointed it out. I thought that having embarrassed himself on national TV, Mr. Kirby would quietly drop the idea that somehow “I know ‘em when I see ‘em” is either valid or respectful. I’ve watched Mr. Kirby for too long to even hope that he would apologize or do a real retraction without real pressure but I will say I was surprised to see him write a blog post basically defending his autistic-radar.

In a recent blog post Mr. Kirby has expanded his scope of not-finding autistics. It isn’t just his recent subway ride that was devoid of adult autistics, it is his entire life:

I have lived in many different cities, worked at nine different jobs, and met thousands of men and women throughout my years. I cannot recall people who showed the characteristics of high-functioning autism, though I must have met some along the way, at least in passing. But there were not 1-in-60 boys with ASD in my schools and there are not 1-in-60 men with ASD in my area. I think I would have noticed them by now.

Repeated for emphasis:

I cannot recall people who showed the characteristics of high-functioning autism

In an entire lifetime, no one who might be high-functioning autistic?

David Kirby has been around the autism community for a while now. Somehow I think he must have seen some adult with high functioning autism. Are we to believe that no autistic adults attend the DAN conferences, the Autism One conferences, or the myriad other alternative medicine conferences that hold David Kirby as a hero? Are we to believe that no autistic adult parents of autistic children attend these conferences?

One specific question that popped into my mind: Has Mr. Kirby never been to a conference with Teresa Binstock? Ms. Binstock is one of the authors of Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning (a faux-journal paper in Medical Hypotheses). Ms. Binstock is also reported to be an autistic adult (Asperger syndrome). Mr. Kirby has never met her? Possible, but unlikely.

According to his interview Mr. Kirby’s criteria for Asperger syndrome are:

“restrictive, repetitive and stereotypical patterns”

“interests and behaviors that are abnormal”

“Repetive motor mannerisms such as hand or finger flapping”

“Significant impairment in social, occupational and other important fuctions”

I guess as Mr. Kirby was passing people on the subway platform he had some test of social functions? He can tell what your interests are (and somehow label them abnormal) just by looking at you?

For Mr. Kirby’s edification, here are the DSM-IV criteria:

(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

(IV) There is no clinically significant general delay in language (E.G. single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)

(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood.

(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.”

Here’s another hint: if diagnosing ASD’s was as simple as a checklist there wouldn’t be tests like the ADOS.

Mr. Kirby continues the old ruse that autistics are so obvious that one couldn’t possibly miss them, even in passing. Contrary to Mr. Kirby’s assertion, it is possible that he could have missed some autsitics in his subway travels. When the autism rate for children in Cambridgeshire was recently reported, the researchers noted that a large fraction (1/5 to 1/3) of autistic students were undiagnosed. Yes, even educational professionals who spend every day with a kid can miss the fact that the child has an ASD.

In his blog post Mr. Kirby bolsters his argument with a quote from Anne Dachel, probably best known to readers here as an blogger at the Age of Autism. Ms. Dachel states:

“an insult to thousands of teachers and counselors and doctors – who apparently ‘stupidly’ ignored these kids in the past. If they were always here, but we just called them something else, then what did we do with them?”

I am always saddened when an educator like Ms. Dachel confuses intelligence with knowledge. Intelligence (smart/stupid) is not the same thing as knowledge (or ignorance). When previous generations didn’t diagnose a child with an ASD there were many reasons. One big reason–the diagnostic criteria were different then. That is and example of ignorance. I feel silly pointing this out to an educator, but in 1980 they didn’t know (in fact couldn’t know) that the diagnostic criteria would be different in 2000. How many times have we heard, “autism wasn’t covered in medical school back then”? This is used to “show” that autism was rare then. Well, if they didn’t get the training, they were very likely ignorant of the differences between autism and other disabilities. They were certainly unlikely to know the diagnositic criteria for Asperger syndrome, since it didn’t exist at the time.

To answer Ms. Dachel’s question, “what did we do with them”: many autistics services were served under the label of mental retardation. This isn’t even speculation. In a recent study King and Bearman showed that a large number of autistics in California were diagnosed as having mental retardation before 1987. As the criteria changed and awareness grew, these individuals (both children and adults) were also given autism diagnoses. They checked the actual records of actual people and documented it.

To further answer Ms. Dachel’s question, “what did we do with them”: many of “them” were unserved–just like today. Remember that study in Cambridgeshire we just mentioned?

Back to David Kirby’s blog post: he shows us that he is truly “concerned”:

In my opinion, to shrug and treat this story as if things have probably always been this way is, frankly, wishful thinking and unsettling.

It is Mr. Kirby’s response that is unsettling. Heck, it is beyond unsettling. Way beyond.

I think his response the NHS report (that there are 1 in 100 autistic adults) by claiming that since he can’t see “them”, “they” don’t exist is beyond wishful thinking and unsettling. Mr. Kirby acts as though the study doesn’t exist. Worse, he acts as though it shouldn’t exist.

I usually try to avoid speculating on motivations. But, I can’t help myself with these latest comments by Mr. Kirby. Why did he feel the need to downplay the existence of adult autistics in high numbers? The report that there is a high number of unidentified autistic adults is a direct threat the the idea that vaccines caused an epidemic of autism. How does that play to someone who has made a career out of “Evidence of Harm. Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy”.

Consider, if you will, what happened when people like Mr. Kirby pushed the idea of an epidemic of vaccine-induced autism. When the ideas came forward that the MMR vaccine or the vaccine preservative thimerosal could be causing autism, the scientific community took it seriously and responded with multiple studies looking for better evidence. But now that there is evidence of a large contingent of adult autistics, Mr. Kirby joins the denialists and defends the old-guard thinking. Ironic, that.

It has always been a reasonable assumption that there is a large contingent of unidentified autistic adults. The active denial of this possibility has long bothered me. The denial in response to the UK survey of autistic adults is just beyond the pale.

Mr. Kirby is just no friend to my kid. My kid needs advocates who will fight to make a better world for autistics. How can we do that if we deny their existence? How can we prepare for the kids of today to become adults if we don’t start supporting autistic adults now?

Sharyl Attkisson interviews David Kirby…and oh is it bad

8 Oct

Have a look for yourself:

http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf
Watch CBS News Videos Online

David Kirby, interviewed by Sharyl Attkisson. Talk about faux-news. For those luckily unfamiliar with Ms. Attkisson, here are some of the pieces done on this blog about her. Ms. Attkisson has a history of interviewing other members of the press and not being critical at all of their unsupported claims. She did this with Bernadine Healy, who made some unfounded claims about the IOM. When a study came out disproving a study by Maddy Hornig on mice and thimerosal that is, Ms. Attkisson blogged the Thoughtful House (Andrew Wakefield) press release on the subject. There’s more, but that gives you a taste of her history.

Today she interviewed David Kirby, author of “Evidence of Harm” and Huffington Post blogger.

To start, David Kirby apparantly has rewritten his book (yes, that is sarcasm). It is titled, “Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy”.

But according to the interview, his book isn’t primarily about mercury in vaccines. Instead it is all about “increasing environmental exposures, toxins in children throughout the 1990′s and into the early 2000′s from both mercury background mercury environmental mercury which is on the increase and also mercury and other heavy metals and toxic metals that are included in vaccines that we give our children.”

Notice how thimersosal (mercury in vaccines) is downplayed compared to environmental mercury. That’s called revisionist history. Take a look at the back cover from the book (click to enlarge):

Back Cover from David Kirby's Evidence of Harm

Back Cover from David Kirby's Evidence of Harm

A commenter on this blog called the recent National Children’s Health Survey to be the worst sort of prevalence study. It can get much worse. For example–according to David Kirby, when he went through the subway he didn’t see anyone obviously autistic. Yes, David Kirby, epidemiologist and diagnostician has found a dramatically low prevalence amongst the New York subway riders.

David Kirby reminds us all that Asperger’s syndrome is a disability. Mr. Kirby, go back and tell that to Lenny Schafer, the “commenter of the week” on your blog, the Age of Autism.

If someone made a comment on this blog like Mr. Shafer did he would be booed off the stage. Here’s an excerpt:

And let us hope that the upcoming DSM-V gets clearer about defining autism only as a disability — and kicks the high functioning ND autism squatters onto the personality disorder spectrum where they belong.

Your blog gave him a free T-shirt. Don’t lecture us about disability.

Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institutes of Mental Health and chair of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee declined to be interviewed by Ms. Attkisson.

A sincere “good job” goes out to Dr. Insel. After the way Ms. Attkisson showed a clear bias in doing her story on Dr. Offit, I can completely understand Dr. Insel declining the interview.

The second half of the interview discusses Mr. Kirby’s new book, the use of antibiotics on large farms.

No, seriously, they moved from Autism to animal farms.

Way to plug David Kirby’s new book, Sharyl!

Autism rate of 1 percent, and the embargo that wasn’t

7 Oct

Someone at the CDC screwed up. There, I said it.

That’s the bottom line of the story, in case you don’t want to plow through this rather messy story.

Two stories out today are discussing how the 1% autism prevalence story has been handled by the government, the AAP and the media. An emphasis is being placed on how the information embargo was handled and, possibly, mishandled.

One at the Covering Health blog is titled, Autism news raises question: When is an embargo not an embargo?. The second story, at National Public Radio, is titled When News Breaks On Autism, Who Gets It Out First?

Let’s go through the history of this story to unravel a bit of what happened.

This past summer, two studies were in press discussing the autism prevalence in the United States. The first study, based on data from the National Children’s Health Survey, was to be published in the Journal Pediatrics. (This is the one just published) The second study is a CDC report, in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) series. Previous MMWR’s have given us prevalence numbers of 1 in 166 (based on data taken in 2000) and 1 in 150 (based on data taken in 2002).

Someone at the CDC leaked information about these studies to Lee Grossman. Whether Mr. Grossman approached the CDC employee or the other way around is unknown. There also isn’t any information on whether Mr. Grossman was supposed to keep this information confidential.

What is known is that Mr. Grossman publicly discussed this information at an Autism Society of America meeting in July.

Mr. Grossman also discussed this information with Mr. Kirby. How exactly that exchange came about we don’t know. Mr. Kirby has given a version of the story on his blog, but he has also shown himself willing to lie in order to protect a source.

Mr. Kirby blogged information about the two studies on August 11th. He did not name pediatrics as the journal, but he did note that the study would involve the NCHS data.

The pediatrics study was scheduled to come out this week (Monday, October 5). As is usual, the American Academy of Pediatrics released information to the press the week prior. These releases are made so that the press can prepare well researched stories to be published coincident with the paper. The press are not allowed to disscuss the story until the “embargo” was lifted at 12:01 eastern time, Monday Oct. 5.

The embargo system is actually a quite good one. This insures that the press has the time to put together well researched, thoughtful stories on a given topic. The writer who spends a lot of time on a story isn’t penalized by some guy slapping together a quick story to make a scoop. It’s a win-win: the press get to write better stories, and groups like the AAP get good press coverage.

But what do you do when someone has already leaked part of the story? To make it even more complicated, there were really two stories here: the Pediatrics paper published on Monday and the MMWR that isn’t published yet.

Understanding the high level of interest in the story, the U.S. Government decided to hold a conference call with the press. They planned their own data–the MMWR. In this way, journalists covering the Pediatrics story could include the MMWR without having to rely on the bits and pieces leaked by Mr. Kirby.

This call was scheduled for last Friday (Oct. 2) at 3pm.

The information from this call was embargoed. From the NPR story:

“Both the CDC overview and the HRSA study [in Pediatrics] were embargoed, because the subject nature was obviously so similar,” a spokesman for the National Institute of Mental Health told Covering Health. “It just wouldn’t be appropriate to not have the CDC following the same set of guidelines as the HRSA study as it relates to the embargo.”

This call was at 3pm.

The U.S. Government decided early Friday morning to hold a second conference call for autism advocacy organizations. This call was scheduled for 2pm, and did not include embargoed information. They didn’t discuss the details of the papers, just the new prevalence numbers (about 1%).

The Age of Autism blog posted the announcement and call in number.

According to Andrew Van Dam at Covering Health:

CDC spokeswoman Artealia Gilliard told AHCJ on Tuesday afternoon that everything in the 3 p.m. press call was under embargo, while nothing that would have been covered by that embargo was mentioned in the earlier call with the autism community. In particular, Gilliard said, no specific prevalence rate numbers were given out on the call.

“We basically said ‘On Monday, two studies will come out. They will update the prevalence estimate we previously had.’ … It didn’t actually have any of the information that was embargoed.”

Gilliard, who was on both calls, specified further: “I know they didn’t put out numbers in the advocacy call. I know we didn’t say 1 in 100. What we’ve been saying is ‘approximately 1 percent of children.’”

So, we have two conference calls, discussing much the same information (about 1% prevalence). One was embargoed and the other was not.

David Kirby blogged the story right away on Friday. Mr. Kirby starts his post with:

Washington loves to dump its bad news on a Friday afternoon, and on October 2 it confirmed that 1 percent of American children (and by extension, perhaps 1-in-58 boys) has an autism spectrum disorder.

It is possible that Mr. Kirby didn’t know that the Pediatrics study was to be published on Monday. It is possible that he didn’t know about the second, embargoed conference call.

Possible, but very unlikely.

If he knew (and I believe he did), his introduction is highly irresponsible. It fans the flames of the idea that the government tries to bury autism information. No surprises there, as Mr. Kirby has made a career out of fanning those flames.

Mr. Kirby further fans the flames by indicating that the 2pm call was short:

There was no alarm, and little time for questions from the community that was invited to “visit.” After about 15 minutes, questioning was cut off, and the call abruptly ended. I tried three times to ask a question (via a telephone switching system) and so did many other people on the call, which lasted a total of 39 minutes.

As we now know, the government had to prepare for the 3pm call. Perhaps Mr. Kirby didn’t know about that call. Again, that seems highly unlikely.

Mr. Kirby complains of not being able to pose his question. You can go read it if you want, I am not copying it here. The question, in classic Kirby style, is really a lecture putting out the current talking points of the vaccines-cause-autism groups.

Dan Olmsted at the Age of Autism blog mentioned the conference call as well, but his post was brief and not filled with the leading comments Mr. Kirby chose.

Lisa Jo Rudy at autism.about.com read the Kirby and Olmsted pieces (she mentioned this in her piece) and decided to blog the story herself. Unfortunately, she was a bit confused by what was embargoed and what was not–she discussed the Pediatrics paper (which was embargoed). This was reported to the AAP, who contacted Ms. Rudy and Mr. Rudy pulled the piece. The AAP decided that the embargo breach wasn’t so big as to pull the embargo entirely. In other words, they went ahead and kept the rest of the press to the Monday morning embargo date.

On Sunday, 7 hours before the embargo was lifted, Mr. Kirby ran a copy of his Age of Autism blog piece on the Huffington post.

The Age of Autism blog is still trying to fan the flames, pushing the idea that the mainstream media doesn’t want to cover this story. Mark Blaxill posted a piece today, Autism News: Pathetic Non Coverage, discussing how his home-town newspaper (The Boston Globe) didn’t cover the story when the embargo lifted on Monday. He states that “In the meantime, on Tuesday the Globe posted a link to an abbreviated form of the Associated Press story. A day late and a dollar short.”

I don’t profess to know what methods Mr. Blaxill used when he couldn’t unearth the story on the globe.com webiste. I know that I used “autism” as the search term and quickly found this story, which came out Monday, October 5. There is also the abbreviated AP story that the Globe put out on Tuesday, which Mr. Blaxill references.

What can we say about the whole debacle? It is a big mess. It is a big mess that started when someone at the CDC told Lee Grossman of the Autsim Society of America some confidential information. That person at the CDC screwed up.

Isn’t that just a bit sad? Trusting a prominent representative of a major autism organization has been shown, in this case, to be a mistake.

I won’t say that Mr. Grossman made a mistake by talking to David Kirby. An error in judgment, yes. Mistake, no. Mr. Kirby’s track record of presenting any data in a very biased mode to promote vaccines-causing-autism is quite well established.

I didn’t see any mainstream press coverage that included any of Mr. Kirby’s talking points. He was able to get a prominent spot in the google news searches on autism with his Huffington Post piece.

The main fallout seems to be (a) the CDC will probably clamp down on giving out information and (b) the press has an impression that autism advocates are irresponsible with information.

Another weak study “proves” vaccines cause autism

17 Sep

I am constantly amazed at the low level of proof people use to demonstrate that vaccines cause autism.

Case in point, David Kirby and his recent post on the Age of Autism blog (and, a I write this, The Huffington Post).

He takes an abstract from a poster session and declares victory in the war to prove vaccines cause autism.

Here’s the abstract:

HEPATITIS B VACCINATION OF MALE NEONATES
AND AUTISM
CM Gallagher, MS Goodman, Graduate Program in Public
Health, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY
PURPOSE: Universal newborn immunization with hepatitis
B vaccine was recommended in 1991; however, safety
findings are mixed. The Vaccine Safety Datalink Workgroup
reported no association between hepatitis B vaccination
at birth and febrile episodes or neurological adverse
events. Other studies found positive associations between
hepatitis B vaccination and ear infection, pharyngitis, and
chronic arthritis; as well as receipt of early intervention/
special education services (EIS); in probability samples of
U.S. children. Children with autistic spectrum disorder
(ASD) comprise a growing caseload for EIS. We evaluated
the association between hepatitis B vaccination of male
neonates and parental report of ASD.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study used U.S. probability
samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey
1997–2002 datasets. Logistic regression modeling was used to
estimate the effect of neonatal hepatitis B vaccination on
ASDrisk amongboys age 3–17 years with shot records, adjusted
for race, maternal education, and two-parent household.
RESULTS:Boyswho received the hepatitis B vaccine during
the first month of life had 2.94 greater odds for ASD (nZ31
of 7,486; OR Z 2.94; p Z 0.03; 95% CI Z 1.10, 7.90)
compared to later- or unvaccinated boys.Non-Hispanicwhite
boys were 61%less likely to haveASD(ORZ0.39; pZ0.04;
95% CIZ0.16, 0.94) relative to non-white boys.
CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates
vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk
of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.

What did they do? They looked at data from the National Health Interview Studies, and looked at autism and hepatitis B vaccination. They used surveys from 1997 to 2002, with children aged from 3 to 17.

Mr. Kirby was kind enough to post an image of the poster to the EOHarm group.

The autism group had 33 kids total. Of these, 9 of 31 (29%) were given the HepB vaccine. Compare this to 1,258 of 7,455 (17%) of the non-autism group who were given the HepB.

9 out of 31.

Are the red flags up yet? They should be.

Take for example kids aged 17 in the 1997 survey. When were they born? That’s right, 1980.

When was the Hepatitis B vaccine introduced? 1991. According to Mr. Kirby himself, the HepB vaccine didn’t get fully implemented until about 1996.

A lot of the kids were born before the “epidemic” of autism. No one disputes that the number of people identified with autism has gone up significantly in the last 30 years.

So, pretty much anything that changed in that time would “correlate” with autism.

This is how we get studies that “show” that Cable TV causes autism. And, now, the Hepatitis B vaccine causes autism.

Huffington Post uses erroneous data to promote autism epidemic

26 Aug

correction:

As noted in the comments below, Mr. Kirby appears to be basing argument suggesting that the Hepatitis B vaccine could have caused autism on ADDM data, not on the NSCH dataset, as I assumed.

A recent blog post on the Huffington Post contains serious errors and should be edited or pulled.  At the very least a public acknowledgment of the error must be made.

Using data from the recently published 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate autism prevalence, a Huffington Post blogger (David Kirby) attempted to draw a connection between the Hepatitis B vaccine and an “explosion” of autism . Here is what he wrote:

If there is an environmental component to autism, hopefully scientists will want to know which exposures might have increased between, say, 1992 and 1996.

One possible answer is the Hepatitis B vaccine, (which also contained 25 micrograms of mercury containing thimerosal).

Introduced in 1991, it was the first vaccine ever given on a population basis to newborn babies (within the first three hours after delivery) in human history.

But according to the CDC’s National Immunization Survey (which also includes parental telephone interviews), only 8% of infant children received the Hep B vaccine in 1992, when that birth cohort showed an ASD rate of 60-per-10,000.

By 1994, the number of children receiving Hep B vaccine had reached just 27% — and the cohort showed an ASD rate of 66-per-10,000.

But the Hep B coverage rate had risen to 82% by 1996, when that cohort’s ASD rate exploded to around 100-per-10,000.

Correlation, obviously, does not equal causation. And no one is suggesting that Hepatitis B vaccine is the singular “cause” of autism. But the uptake rate of that particular immunization is at least one environmental factor that did demonstrably change during the period in question.

Emphasis is mine. I emphasized the data which  are the data that are incorrect.

The analysis is simple. Here are the actual results compared to what Mr. Kirby misreported:

1992 “birth cohort*”:
102 per 10,000 (not 60 per 10,000 as on HuffPo)

1994 “birth cohort*”:
113 per 10,000 (not 66 per 10,000 as on HuffPo)

1996 “birth cohort*”:
111 per 10,000 (close to the “around” 100 per 10,000 quoted).

Or, to put it very simply: Mr. Kirby’s statement that there was an “explosion” in the autism rates is incorrect. The evidence that the introduction of the Hepatitis B vaccine is somehow related to the increase in autism rates is false.

That entire statement isn’t even a misinterpretation–it is just simply, demonstrably, false.

Unfortunately, this isn’t Mr. Kirby’s first clear and serious error. He has a history of mistakes. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a history of correcting his mistakes. Consider these examples:

In June 2008, epiwonk publish a blog post “David Kirby: HuffPost Report on CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink Uninformative and Completely Misleading“, demonstrating clear errors in Mr. Kirby’s post “CDC: Vaccine Study Design “Uninformative and Potentially Misleading“”.

The errors were serious enough that Mr. Kirby rewrote his blog post as CDC: Vaccine Study Used Flawed Methods. This included the following introduction:

NOTE: My original post on this topic mischaracterized the 2003 CDC vaccine investigation as an “Ecological Study,” which it was not. I am reposting this piece to reflect that information accurately, but also to point out that many of the weaknesses identified in the CDC’s data and methods apply to the published 2003 “retrospective cohort” study, as much as they do to any future “ecological” ones. I regret and apologize for the error.

Mr. Kirby “regrets” and “apologizes” for the error. Yet his original, erroneous blog post is still on the Huffington Post website. He never took it down. He didn’t even add an apology or correction note to the piece. Anyone following a link to it would have no idea that even the author acknowledges the serious flaws in that piece.

It is also worth noting that the “corrected” version of Mr. Kirby’s blog post was also in error. Again, as noted by epiwonk, this time in his piece “David Kirby HuffPost, Take 2: My Original Story was Flawed, So Here’s A Second (”Corrected”) Story That’s Still Flawed, But I Hope I Can Snow You Under Again This Time…

Mr. Kirby compounded this error when he recreated it in his first “congressional briefing”, September 2008. Mr. Kirby misquoted a report by the National Institute of Enviornmental Health Sciences, and he was caught by a knowledgeable staffer.

Again, Mr. Kirbty has failed to correct his error.  He posted his power point presentation to his website, but without any acknowledgment of the error on page 6.  In the transcript for this talk, he only states, “NOTE: This statement omits important details of the CDC response” and sends you to other sites “For a more detailed explanation”. The “transcript” makes no reference to the exchange between Mr. Kirby and the congressional staffer, nor does it acknowledge that the omission was critical to the point being made. The transcript is noted as being a “Rush transcription by Nancy Hokkanen”. Being in a rush is not an excuse to leave important flaws unexplained.

Math errors are also not new to Mr. Kirby. In May 2008, Mr. Kirby wrote a piece analyzing data from Scotland. In doing so, Mr. Kirby misread a graph resulting in a factor of 10 error in a key piece of information (he misread a bar graph . After his error was blogged, Mr. Kirby corrected his Huffington Post piece. What he didn’t do, and he should have, was to note in the blog piece that he made the error and corrected it.

Mr. Kirby placed his Scotland data post in two sites: Huffington Post and the Age of Autism blog. In yet another odd move by Mr. Kirby, he left the original version of his post, complete with the factor of 10 error, on the Age of Autism blog (it still has 34,000 instead of 3,400). As noted above, Mr. Kirby obviously knows about the error, since he corrected it on the Huffington Post.

Since he clearly knew that his post on the Age of Autism blog had a big error, why didn’t he make a correction (with acknowledgment of the error) there?

Mr. Kirby had a bit of a problem with understanding the difference between Change.Org Change.Gov (the Obama transition team’s website) and Change.Org (a website that hosts blogs on important topics, including autism) (also noted here and here) He made a clear correction on the Huffington Post. However, his post on the Age of Autism blog just disappeared without a comment.

But let’s get back to the present. Mr. Kirby has blogged erroneous data and used this to show a false correlation between the Hepatitis B vaccine introduction and the rise in autism rates.

In case anyone is thinking, “are you sure you checked your own numbers, Sullivan?” The answer is yes. I double checked. I asked a frequent commenter on this blog, Dawn, to check my numbers. Another commenter independently collected and graphed the NCSH data as well. No evidence for an “explosion” of autism rates. Take a look at the graph. Mr. Kirby claimed that the 2007 survey data showed autism rates of about 60/10,000 for kids aged 13 and 15. There are no rates below 80 per 10,000 for the kids in those age ranges in that dataset.

So here we have a man with a history of errors, and with a history of failing to adequately correct his errors. He now has a new, big, obvious error. This error is likely the most serious of those listed here, in my opinion. Mr. Kirby has convinced people that the Hepatitis B vaccine could be causing autism. That was a serious accusation, and it was wrong. The question before us now is this: what will Mr. Kirby do now that he knows he made a mistake?

I’m very curious about that, so I’ve emailed Mr. Kirby and one of the editors at the Huffington Post with this information. I’ll let you all know what I hear back.

*note: the NSCH data are not given as “birth cohorts”. Instead, they are given by age. The survey was performed in 2007 and 2008. So, the 15 year old age group is roughly the “1992 birth cohort”. Likewise, 13 year olds are the 1994 “cohort” and 11 year olds are the 1996 “cohort”.

EDIT: Note that I too have a problem with keeping Change.Org and Change.Gov separate. This correction was made after the post was published.

It’s time for David Kirby to disavow the autism epidemic

3 Aug

The idea that mercury caused an epidemic of autism is both wrong and very damaging to the autism communities. Many contributed to this damaging notion., but David Kirby without a doubt carries a good quantity of the blame for his book “Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy” and efforts since.

Mr. Kirby often tries to hide behind the notion that he is just “trying to spark a national debate”. Sorry, but that is nonsense. He actively promotes the idea that vaccines cause autism. It is unclear to this reader whether Mr. Kirby is currently being paid for his efforts. In the past he cherry picked information and packaged it in seemingly self-consistent packages to convince people that an epidemic did occur.

He has now moved to a tag-team approach for presentations to the US congress. He presents information to support the idea that vaccines could cause autism. He then let’s Mr. Mark Blaxill take over to promote the epidemic with the old, tired arguments.

It’s like Mr. Kirby still wants to be able to say, “I never really said there was an epidemic. I was just sparking a discussion.” It’s Mark Blaxill that is actually calling it an epidemic.

Nonsense.

This has been bothering me for some time. It came up again strong when Mr. Kirby commented on a blog piece. David Kirby doesn’t generally participate in the online discussions-even to the point of not answering comments on his own blog pieces. He broke that tradition recently in a blog piece on the Mother Jones website: Breaking: Vaccines still don’t cause autism

My response to Mr. Kirby incorporated much of what I was considering for a future blog post. So, rather than paraphrase what I wrote, here it is in full:

Mr. Kirby,

I see your usual arguments above. I see, also, the usual gaps in your discussion. Over the years, you have gone from promoting the “vaccines caused an epidemic of autism” to dancing around the subject of the false “epidemic”, neither stating that there was an epidemic, nor admitting your mistake. Could you comment somewhere, on the record: was there an “epidemic” of autism caused by mercury? You seem to leave that to your colleague, Mr. Blaxill, giving yourself some form of plausible deniability. It is irresponsible.

You rely heavily now on the NVAC recommendations. Why do you leave out so many comments by NVAC?

The NVAC is assured by the many epidemiological studies of the effects of mercury exposure done in a variety of populations, which have demonstrated that thimerosal in vaccines is not associated with autism spectrum disorders in the general population.

Are you prepared to agree with NVAC that the data are in and that there has been no epidemic of mercury caused autism? It would be the honest thing to do.

You rely heavily on the idea that mitochondrial disorders are related to autism. You pushed heavily on your blog the idea that mitochondrial disorders are caused by mercury, without substantiation. In fact, this idea is strongly rejected by the very experts you rely upon.

Further, you leave it implied that children with mitochondrial disorders and autism indicate a link to autism as a vaccine injury. This is clearly not the case.

Why do you leave out the fact that most children with mitochondrial disorders and autism do not show regression. Without regression, it is clear that vaccine injury is not causing autism in these individuals?

Why do you leave out the fact that in the one study of children with mitochondrial disorders and autism, it is clear that vaccines are not causal in the vast majority of cases, and could be questionable in the one case cited so far?

You cite that there could be a sizable population of autistics who have a mitochondrial dysfunction. Yet you leave out the public statements by one of the very doctors who supported the Hannah Poling case in vaccine court that any such injuries are rare. This from the few doctors who support the idea of mitochondrial disorder as a vaccine injury. Other specialists have stated that it is far to early to draw a conclusion that mitochondrial disorders caused by vaccination is even “rare”.

Why have you not removed your blog piece that was so erroneous that you were forced to rewrite it within a day, with an admission that you seriously erred? Isn’t that a form of dishonesty?

Are you prepared to join Rick Rollens, one of the strongest proponents of the vaccines-cause-autism notion, in stating that the idea that MMR causes autism has been tested and MMR is no longer suspect?

I will ask again, if you are going to cite NVAC, are you willing to join them and state that mercury did not cause an “epidemic” of autism?

Would you at least be willing to include quotes from NVAC that are, shall we say inconvenient, to the notion of a vaccine induced “epidemic” of autism? Quotes such as:

Vaccination almost certainly does not account for the recent rise in ASD diagnoses; however, public concern regarding vaccines and autism coupled with the prevalence and severity of ASD warrant additional study in well defined subpopulations.

This quote makes it clear that
a) NVAC does not support the idea of an autism “epidemic” caused by vaccines
b) NVAC is not calling for studies of vaccines and autism due to evidence presented so far, but, instead, by public concern.

Mr. Kirby, your half truths and misleading arguments cause great harm to the autism communities, as well as to public health. You personally are responsible for much of the public’s misconception that mercury caused an “epidemic” of autism. Don’t you agree that you personally should publicly refute your previous stance?

Being wishy-washy on the epidemic question and letting your colleague Mark Blaxill push the idea in your tag-team briefings is just dishonest. Either you still believe in the mercury-caused-epidemic (and you are wrong) or you should be clear that it was a mistake.

It was a mistake. Earn some respect. Admit it.

More non-autism blogs critical of the vaccine-autism story

23 Jul

There is a substantial public relations push to get the vaccines-cause-autism idea in front of the public’s eye. High end, expensive PR firms have been hired, and, let’s face it, they got a big free boost from Jenny McCarthy and Oprah.

The cost to public health is obvious. Declining vaccination rates have already had a big impact in the UK, and the US has also seen a resurgence of measles and other diseases.

But, there is another cost. As noted recently on this blog, Jenny McCarthy has already become the butt of comic strip jokes for her position on vaccines. Many people are likely to not realize that Jenny McCarthy speaks for a minority (loud though they may be) of the autism community. My kid relies on on the public’s perception of “the autism community”. When people like Ms. McCarthy damage that perception, there is a very real cost to my kid, my family.

It isn’t new for bloggers outside of autism to be critical of Jenny McCarthy and others in the vaccines-cause-autism groups. Most notably, Orac has taken Ms. McCarthy to task a number of times in what is one of the most well read medical blogs, “Respectful Insolence“. Likewise, Science Based Medicine has had a number of bloggers take on the pseudoscience and dangerous opinions of the vaccines-cause-autism crowd. But, one could argue that they are medical blogs and, thus, more connected to vaccines, public health and autism than your general blogger.

But, the past week has seen a couple more prominent blogs

Discover Magazine’s Bad Astronomy has come out against the dangerous pseudoscience with Jenny McCarthy: spreading more dangerous misinformation. If the title isn’t clear enough, here’s the first paragraph:

If you haven’t had your quota of shockingly wrong medical advice for the year yet, try watching this video by Dr. Jenny McCarthy, as she manages to squeeze about a metric ton of misinformation into a two-ounce package.

Note: “try watching this video” is a link in the Bad Astronomy blog piece. A link to the video hosted by Generation Rescue. For some reason (bad publicity? Too much bandwidth?) GR has pulled the video from their site.

While I cringe at yet more damage to the public perception of the “autism community”, I applaud Bad Astronomy for taking on Ms. McCarthy. It isn’t Bad Astronomy’s fault if “the community” looks bad. It is squarely at the feet of Jenny McCarthy.

Interestingly, Mr. Kent Heckenlively of the “Age of Autism” blog decided to comment at Bad Astronomy. Even more interesting, Mr. Heckenlively was forced to retreat to his own blog to continue the discussion where his claims wouldn’t be exposed to actual criticism.

But, once again, one could say it is expected that a science blog like Bad Astronomy would take on Jenny McCarthy. The do-vaccines-cause-autism question is a science question after all.

Enter Mother Jones. MJ blogger Sonja Sharp posted, Breaking: Vaccines Still Don’t Cause Autism.

Mother Jones is not a science or medicine based publication. In fact, as Ms. Sharp states:

We love a good conspiracy as much as the next investigative magazine—especially one that involves Big Pharma, the FDA, and the CDC. But as we’ve extensively reported here, the vaccines = autism meme might just be the most damaging medical myth of the decade. Not only is it based on false “science” that’s tearing apart the families of sick children, it’s unintentionally sickening thousands of others.

While the vaccine/autism story isn’t completely new to Mother Jones (for example, see Arthur Allen’s piece, Vaccine Skeptics vs. Your Kids)), Jenny McCarthy et al. should take a big hint when they can’t even get sympathy from MJ.

This blog piece obviously hit a nerve. Take a look at the comments. Second comment: David Kirby. David Kirby is, for better or worse, one of the most read bloggers talking about autism. I can already feel the heat from those who will (with good cause) tell me that David Kirby doesn’t really talk about autism. Point well taken. That said, Mr. Kirby doesn’t even participate in the comments of his own blog. Why suddenly break the tradition with Mother Jones?

I expect Mr. Kirby to actually partake in the discussion beyond his one comment. I may be forced to take a page from Mr. Heckenlively’s book and take the conversation here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 954 other followers