A quick recap.
In an interview with the New York last year (2005) David Kirby was quoted as saying that if the amount of cases of autism didn’t decrease before the end of 2005 then that would be a severe blow to the autism/thiomersal hypothesis.
Two months later in an email conversation with blogger Citizen Cain, Kirby said the exact same thing but this time with a date of 2007. I wondered why Kirby had moved the goalposts by two years.
At the time I was predisposed to put it down to trying to wriggle out of a stated position but the more I thought about it, the less likely that seemed so I mailed David Kirby to ask him. He responded:
The Times misquoted me. I actually asked for a correction, but did not receive one. What I told the reporter is that “we should know in the next few years.â€.
The upshot of all this activity was me ending up apologising to David Kirby and basically saying that those of us who wanted to hold Kirby to 2005 should reset our watch to 2007 as Kirby said to Citizen Cain.
However, in the comments section of that post several people expressed disbelief that the New York Times would purposefully mislead people and I must admit it did seem strange to me too but I felt it best to give Kirby the benefit of the doubt.
So what I did was attempt to clear up any ambiguity on this issue and go straight to the source – The New York Times. I emailed the reporting team concerned, explained the situation and asked them if they could shed any light on the matter. A couple of hours ago I received this reply:
Prior to publication, we read the entire passage relating to this matter to Mr. Kirby. He approved it.
I won’t pretend I wasn’t shocked. This isn’t a misunderstanding, a simple case of crossed wires, Kirby has had passage *read to him* and he then approved it. Its very difficult indeed to understand how a journalist – one who more than most is aware of the power of words – could possibly miss such a thing. I don’t believe he did. I also believe he bare-faced lied to me. The NYT did not misquote him as he claimed to me, they quoted him on an approved piece. If he regretted it after that fact then thats something else entirely.
This matters. Things like this matter. If Kirby can be mistaken (and I’m choosing to use that charitable word) about this then what else is he mistaken about? People go ahead and support the thiomersal belief based in large part on what he says both in EoH and in interviews.
Whether or not Kirby’s been exposed in a lie or said something by mistake he regretted and tried to change it will no doubt be debated. But what cannot be debated is the bare faced lie he told me. I don’t appreciate dishonesty – especially when it comes from someone who has made such a big deal about campaigning for the truth.
Left Brain Right Brain 
I know I said this before but:
The NYT quotes Kirby as saying “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, he said.”
If we break this down to statement A: “autism is usually diagnosed sometime between a child’s third and fourth birthdays”
statement B: “thimerosal was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001”
and statement C: “the incidence of autism should fall this year” (2005)
Kirby agreed with you that he made statments A and B. He only disagrees (now) with statement C. But statement C follows logically from A and B, under the autism=mercury hypothesis. If he really didn’t mean C, then he has to disagree with either A or B as well, and he doesn’t.
I’m sensing frustration and a bit of anger, Kev. And it seems pretty justified. Did you forward Kirby this post?
Frustration yes, anger, a bit but to be honest its mainly embarrasment. I don’t think of myself as naive but I do always try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and this has left a nasty taste in my mouth.
I’ve not mailed Kirby with this, no. I have no idea what I could say to him that could accurately represent my disappointment.
I’ve said before that there are people invloved in this whole thing who sem to care more about being seen to be right, or scoring political points than they do about the kids involved at the heart of this. I think thats probably the most disheartening but sadly accurate lesson I can learn from this.
I think Kirby has major credibility problems, for me it goes back at least to his saying he would respond to scientific criticisms on the Brtish Medical Journal’s Rapid Response board, back in– what was it May or June of last year? He never has answered those questions, certainly not to my knowledge and not on the BMJ RR board where he said he would.
Kirby has been a professional PR man.
“He has served as a public relations and media spokesperson for national figures such as Elizabeth Taylor, and as a science contributor to top-level magazines and newspapers, including The New York Times. …”
He says he has not been involved in ACT-UP, but I have to wonder about that.
This is from the “act-up” website:
“Tightening Standards
By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, February 23, 2004
Freelance reporter Jay Blotcher says he enjoyed being an Upstate stringer for the New York Times for more than two years — until he was “completely blindsided” by being dismissed.
The paper is conducting a review of its part-time staffers, and someone recalled that Blotcher had been a spokesman for the activist group ACT UP in the late 1980s. He says he also did some work for the American Foundation for AIDS Research from 1995 to 1999.
In an e-mail, Metro Editor Susan Edgerley told Blotcher: “I am setting the bar high to protect against any appearance of conflict of interest that might result through the hiring of stringers and leg-people. My motivation is expediency as well as ethics — we simply do not spend as much time checking into the backgrounds of independent contractors as we do of fulltime staff people.”
Blotcher wrote back: “What puzzles me is that this policy seems applied inconsistently; I know of longtime NYT reporters who have engaged in political work in the past . . . Why has an involvement of a decade ago become a disqualifier?”
Edgerley says in an interview that she is making such decisions “on a case-by-case basis” and that it “makes sense” to evaluate whether someone who was a public spokesman has a potential conflict. “This is fundamental, elementary kind of stuff,” she says of the review.”
This is from Jay Blotcher’s blog:
“Dec 7, 2004: Altercation on MSNBC website
Dear Eric Alterman,
Since you wrote a most evenhanded piece (for The Nation) about my January dismissal from The New York Times, I wanted to share this epilogue. Granted, it’s more of a whimper than a scream, but it is nonetheless telling. Get ready for journalistic ethics, New York Times style.
First, some backstory. When I was dumped from the Times, I wasn’t the only one shocked. So was a longtime friend of mine. Because, like me, he was a former ACT UP spokesperson. Like me, he had been flacking merely as an extension of his gay and AIDS activism and had repped several organizations. Like me, he had started as a journalist and ached to return to the field. And, like me, he was now writing for The Times.
When I was ejected in January, I immediately alerted this friend. He begged me not to go public with my story, because he felt it would cost him his longtime freelancer gig. I still contacted the media. But in all interviews, I refused to finger him. (My friend, fearful of guilt through association, subsequently distanced himself from me.)
Here’s the coda: At a Thanksgiving dinner last month, I ran into a Times editor, for whom my former friend now writes. This editor was aware of my dismissal and informed me that my former ACT UP comrade was indeed called on the carpet in the wake of my ejection. Apparently, five years of freelancing for the City and Escapes sections means something; the powers-that-be decided my friend should not be shown the door. So much for a uniform NYT editorial policy.
Regards,
Jay Blotcher”
So Jay Blotcher had a long time friend who also wrote as freelancer for the NYT, and that person was also involved with ACT UP… Kirby’s main writing seemed to have been for the Advocate in the 1980’s. He worked in AIDS issues.
Jay Blotcher is a friend of David Kirby’s apparently. He is Kirby’s booking agent, now.
I have wondered if Kirby is the friend who tried to distance himself from Blotcher at one point, and if Kirby, who wrote pieces on travel and other stuff that might be considered “city” for the NYT. I don’t know if that’s the same as writing for “the City and Escapes” section, and I don’t know if he did so for 5 years. But is sure seems likely that Kirby was involved in ACT-UP but is lying about it for some reason. There’s no reason to deny it that I can see, unless he thinks that it means he couldn’t write for the NYT again if he admitted to being part of ACT-UP.
Bugger…. Kev, the above repetition occured because my server was arsing about…. can you remove one of them, please?
Thanks ….
Curious or is it Twinkie,
It is pretty obvious that your issue is with David Kirby and NOT with the thimerosal/autism controversy. Why don’t you take up your issues with him instead of crying here about it.
-Sue M.
Let’s keep in mind that Kev hasn’t even read EoH. He obviously doesn’t really care what Kirby has to say at all but now all of the sudden it is of utmost importance that Kirby may or may not have said 2005 — in any speech at any time… who cares? Or that Kirby may not have filled him in on the exact goings on behind the scene of this NYT issue? Here’s a clue Kev, it’s none of your business what happened behing the scenes there. Why is it Kirby’s responsibility to give you, Kevin, the blow by blow of what happened? This is very good humor…
-Sue M.
No, this is Good Humor
Ho ho ho ho. Which one’s the quibbler in question?
Sue, have you read it? I seem to remember some hero worship in a thread recently just prior to you shooting off and bidding us idiots adieu. If you are the EoH fan I’m remembering, does the knowledge that this guy isn’t straight up with people (people who will likely discover his bent-ness) impact your opinion of his work?
And more importantly, will Oprah stick up for him?
_”Let’s keep in mind that Kev hasn’t even read EoH. He obviously doesn’t really care what Kirby has to say at all but now all of the sudden it is of utmost importance that Kirby may or may not have said 2005—in any speech at any time… who cares?”_
As I’ve tried to explain to you countless times Sue – the events that Kirbys recounted are important, not where he collated them. And yes – if you believe that EoH is a valid piece of work its very important that Kirby is at least honest about the events _he_ describes as important.
_”Here’s a clue Kev, it’s none of your business what happened behing the scenes there. Why is it Kirby’s responsibility to give you, Kevin, the blow by blow of what happened? This is very good humor…”_
Here’s a clue for you Sue – if you care at all about honesty in your dealings with people who claim to be seekers after truth then this matters. As the parent of an autistic child it matters greatly to me how honest people who claim to be doing this for autistic kids are. If it doesn’t to you then thats you perogative.
Kevin:
Good work.
My issue is Kirby’s lack of credibility and how many people just believe what he says because he is David Kirby. He said in an interview in April of last year:
No one I know is antivaccine.
Curious,
I believe that credibility is always an issue, and if that is truly your concern, then Kev’s post is fair comment, albeit overstated in my opinion. Your first comment, however, wanders way too far into the realm of rumor mongering, but again I must take you at your word that your intent is to show a pattern of misstatement (in which case you do not hit your target).
My real problem, however, is that I have seen far too many comments by some people at this site that focus on Mr. Kirby’s involvement with both AIDS-related activism and gay-oriented issues. I even saw one comment in which the writer mocked Mr. Kirby for having written a travel piece that reviewed a resort catering to the gay community. I can only surmise that either that writer is homophobic or that she was willing to prey on others’ homophobia to make an argument. That struck me as quite hypocritical for someone who also analogizes bigotry against autistics to the mindless hatred shown toward gays. Unfortunately, that is not the only such comment I’ve seen from that writer.
My point is that I would hate to see that tactic spread. A good rule of thumb is that if you have to stretch that hard to attack credibility, the only credibility that suffers is your own.
I don’t know that I’m trying to show a pattern of anything – just continuing an ongoing discussion. I was initially wanting to show the EoH community that Mr Kirby had stated that 2005 was the important year in terms of thimerosal/autism. I then wanted to be fair to Mr Kirby and get his take on the disparity between what he said in two different places. When I recieved an answer from him, I was trusting/niave/complacent enough to expect he was telling me the truth. However, it became clear there was more here than met the eye and so I went to the NYT direct.
However, I do feel that this is not the first time that David Kirby’s honesty has been questionable. The domain name evidenceofharm.com used to have SafeMinds listed as the domain controller and his accompnying website was ‘designed’ and built by Wendy Fournier of NAA. Neitehr SafeMinds or Fournier can be said to be impartial in this debate and its clear evidence to me that Kirby could well be pushing an agenda rather than being an investigative reporter. This further concealment now looks to me at least as if the maintenance of that agenda is more important to Kirby than the actual truth.
I _do_ feel disappointed and I _do_ feel embarrased I simply took him at his word. I won’t make that mistake with anyone again.
As to his sexuality – I’m not sure I even knew his sexual orientation until now. I knew he’d been prominent in AIDS fund raising but that doesn’t automatically confer any particular sexual orientation. I certainly agree that someones sexual orientation should never be used negatively and if I saw such a comment I’d delete it immediately. If people _have_ made such comments here then I either missed them or missed their intent.
Kev wrote:
“I certainly agree that someones sexual orientation should never be used negatively and if I saw such a comment I’d delete it immediately. If people have made such comments here then I either missed them or missed their intent”.
– Well, Kev, of course that has happened on more than just one occasion. I’m supposed to believe that you “missed them” or “missed their intent”. Sounds convenient. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But just remember (quote from you):
“if you care at all about honesty in your dealings with people who claim to be seekers after truth then this matters”.
– Sue M.
Then show me where they are Sue. Far be it from me to suggest you’re trying to divert attention from the real issue so I’m sure you’ll happily go and find these examples of homophobia so I can delete them.
I’ve been confused about the whole AIDS discussion so I went back and read the earlier posts on it. I interpret these rants as being frustration that a journalist jumps on what he feels as the hot scientific topic and writes emotionally about it. He doesn’t understand it (at least in the case of mercury-autism) but he writes passionately and authoritatively (that is, until he’s questioned directly). Kirby is a tool for others. He doesn’t understand the science behind his topic. His interest is in fan-dom and the personalities that draw those crowds.
So here we have someone who is cited as a knowledgeable source who is neither knowledgeable nor honest.
Sue – before traipsing off to cherry pick some quotes, why don’t you answer (one word will do) the question posed earlier?
“does the knowledge that this guy isn’t straight up with people (people who will likely discover his bent-ness) impact your opinion of his work?”
I’ve got my magic 8-ball out and I’ve bet clone that I know your answer.
Well, I’ve used the Admin search tool to search all posts and comments. I looked for ‘gay’ ‘queer’ ‘HIV’ and ‘AIDS’ and couldn’t see anything that seemed homophobic to me.
I reiterate that if anyone _does_ find something homophobic on my blog then I will delete it without hesitation but I can’t do it if I don’t know about it.
Kev wrote:
“I reiterate that if anyone does find something homophobic on my blog then I will delete it without hesitation but I can’t do it if I don’t know about it”.
– Actually, Kev, I believe that you initially said this:
“I certainly agree that someones sexual orientation should never be used negatively and if I saw such a comment I’d delete it immediately. If people have made such comments here then I either missed them or missed their intent”.
– Slightly different tone. Either way, if you looked through and didn’t see anything offensive, that’s fine. I fully understand that people’s perception of appropriate vs. not appropriate is very subjective. No issue. Again, the negative comments in this regard, speak more of the person writing them than of the intended target.
-Sue M.
Bart wrote:
“Sue – before traipsing off to cherry pick some quotes, why don’t you answer (one word will do) the question posed earlier?
“does the knowledge that this guy isn’t straight up with people (people who will likely discover his bent-ness) impact your opinion of his work?â€
– Bart, do you want me to answer? If so, one word won’t suffice.
– Sue M.
Sue,
It would be a good thing if you could produce some quotes where people on this board have disparaged persons with gay orientation.
You can do this, or not as you like, but some persons will wonder how accurate your statement is.
_”Slightly different tone. Either way, if you looked through and didn’t see anything offensive, that’s fine. I fully understand that people’s perception of appropriate vs. not appropriate is very subjective. No issue. Again, the negative comments in this regard, speak more of the person writing them than of the intended target.”_
I’m not aware of any homophobia in this thread either. Maybe we could return to the subject at hand?
It has puzzled me why Kirby, who has written very well about gay rights, who seems to be active in Gay rights circles, who has written lots of articles for The Advocate, doesn’t mentione these, EVER, in the various CVs I’ve seen of his…
It’s not on the EoHarm webstite. It just sort of seems like, if a person is very active in a movement that has good motives and seems to be helping people not to be killed, for instance, and giving them a better chance at employment for another instance… why wouldn’t a person include that extensive involvement in one’s history of writing, activism, etc. He mentions working for the Mayor of New York, if I remember correctly, but that’s about it. He also downplays his work as a PR man. He emphasizes artcles he’s done on health (mostly AIDS, I think) and science… I don’t know what he’s written on science, I haven’t seen anything he’s written on science, but maybe he’s done plenty. He mostly wrote travel and vacation home pieces for the NYT, as far as I could tell, but Bernie Rimland called him a “science editor” or “the science editor” for the New York Times. Whoa. dude.
Not that Kirby ever claimed to be the science editor for a paper he freelanced for, but that gives you an idea of the emphasis people place on Kirby’s science writing.
It’s just all very strange, unless you consider the fact that there are lots of fundamentalist types among the mercury parents (not the majority, I think, but a significant amount). I think that there was fear (in the planning stages of all of this) over the choice of having Mr. Kirby,* Gay Rights expert* (I have no idea if the man is gay, I don’t care if he is or isn’t) who was going to be their big hero. So, I think what happened was they agreed to a sort of , “don’t ask don’t tell” policy.
I just keep thinking about his old friends, which one would think that he would have old friends, in the Gay Rights movement wondering if David has gone into a closet of somesort for the sake of his new job.
There’s nothing in this that indicates bigotry or homophobia on the part of anyone who notices this sort of rewriting of history, though, I’d like to say “thanks” to Mr. Rankin for trying to spin it that way… nice touch. Thank you, Sue, too.
I’m not the only one weirded out by this sort of closeting attempt in the year 2005. The others who have noticed it are not haters of homosexuals, either.
Way to play the homophobe card, Mr. Rankin and Sue.
Kev wrote:
“Maybe we could return to the subject at hand”?
– You mean about whether David Kirby has ever said 2005 vs. 2007? Or whether he didn’t tell you the mighty Kevin Leitch the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I’m sure the next time you e-mail him, he’ll be much more careful… by telling you to go take a hike 🙂 …
– Sue M.
Bottom-line: Kirby did not tell a concerned parent the truth. Period.
Say what wrote:
“Bottom-line: Kirby did not tell a concerned parent the truth. Period”.
– So, let’s just say that David Kirby had in fact approved the NYT to say that 2005 was the year to watch. Possibly (I’m not speaking for him) he made an honest mistake. As he read the article (after publication) he said, oh crap, I meant 2007. Let’s say he REALLY did mean 2007 and didn’t catch it as he approved the article or whatever. So then, he demands a retraction from the NYT as he stated to Kev that he did. So then, it turns out that somewhere in the past he actually did say 2005. Possibly after speaking to Rollens or commenting on what he thought might happen or whatever… So now, the NYT catches wind that somewhere in the past Kirby has actually used the year 2005… So they refuse to publish a retraction. Ok, so now Kev e-mails David Kirby about this issue and Kirby doesn’t get into the long winded saga of what went on behind the scenes… instead, he just says that he demanded a retraction (which by all accounts he did) and didn’t get one… Where’s the big crime? Honestly, I don’t see it. If that’s all that you have on David Kirby than so be it… that’s nothing… If it’s more than that, and I am missing a piece of the “big lie” please fill me in.
Also, Kev wrote above:
“People go ahead and support the thiomersal belief based in large part on what he says both in EoH and in interviews”.
– I must comment on this. People do not support the thimerosal belief based upon what David Kirby wrote or says. Yes, he may be a catalyst for the story but it’s not his word against the CDC, FDA, etc… It’s the story of the families. It’s the story of a possible cover-up, it’s the story of some unanswered questions, its the story of how the medical establishment didn’t add up the amount of mercury that they injected into babies, etc….
-Sue M.
_”You mean about whether David Kirby has ever said 2005 vs. 2007? Or whether he didn’t tell you the mighty Kevin Leitch the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I’m sure the next time you e-mail him, he’ll be much more careful… by telling you to go take a hike 🙂 …”_
You know Sue, I have to grin when ever you think you’re being clever. Wasn’t it you who’s been urging me for months now to read EoH from cover to cover? Why? Because you claim its an honest piece of work. I think its clear to most people now that the person responsible for it isn’t always honest. People lie (either overtly or by omission) for lots of reasons – to cover something up, to gain something, or to deny something, sometimes its to save face. There are hundreds of other reasons.
And yet here we have a situation where the health, well-being, status, educational options as well as a variety of other things are being represented by a man who is demonstrably dishonest.
But Sue’s absolutely right. David Kirby doesn’t owe me anything – not even his honesty. Its his right to be as decietful as he chooses to be. I might be disappointed at such a response but what does that really matter?
What really matters is that in the name of my child, in the name of Sue M’s child, in the name of every autistic child, David Kirby said he only wanted the truth. Maybe Sue, or anyone else could explain to me how one achieves the truth by being decietful onesself?
_”instead, he just says that he demanded a retraction (which by all accounts he did) and didn’t get one… Where’s the big crime? Honestly, I don’t see it. If that’s all that you have on David Kirby than so be it… that’s nothing… If it’s more than that, and I am missing a piece of the “big lie†please fill me in.”_
Neither of the two reporters I’ve spoken with said that David Kirby had asked for a retraction.
There’s no crime here Sue. No crime at all. But lets not pretend that Kirby hasn’t been dishonest. At no point did he tell me that he’d signed off on the story that had been read to him. Instead he elected to let me believe that he’d been wrongfully quoted. He explicitly said that he’d been misquoted when he quite clearly wasn’t. I took him at his word as I thought he was an honourable man.
There’s nothing I could say to you Sue that would change your opinion. I’m not trying. I’m simply relating how I, also the parent of an autistic child, feel about it. I don’t think anybody likes being purposefully misled.
_”People do not support the thimerosal belief based upon what David Kirby wrote or says. Yes, he may be a catalyst for the story but it’s not his word against the CDC, FDA, etc… It’s the story of the families.”_
Which is exactly what I’ve been trying to get through to you for weeks now. EoH is, as you rightly say, besides the point – the story exists whether EoH exists or not. Glad to see you finally get that.
However, lets further not pretend that EoH has played no role at all. Even I, who don’t like the conclusions the book draws, can see its been a phenomenom in publishing terms. Its been read by hundreds of thousands. If there’s a film it’ll be seen by millions. To claim that people will not form an opinion on the subject matter is just plain silly.
Kev wrote:
“Neither of the two reporters I’ve spoken with said that David Kirby had asked for a retraction”.
– Oh, I guess that it was Deep Twinkie (aka curious) who said this:
“The reporter needed to answer this question to his editor, of whom Kirby had demanded a retraction”.
– Can we agree that David Kirby asked for a retraction? Or is Deep Twinkie lying? Or are the reporters not telling you the whole truth, Kev? What the hell is going on here… everywhere we turn, people are lying… wahhhh!
Kev wrote:
“Which is exactly what I’ve been trying to get through to you for weeks now. EoH is, as you rightly say, besides the point – the story exists whether EoH exists or not. Glad to see you finally get that”.
– Oh, I’ve got that for a while, Kev. I would just think that if you want to keep blogging about EoH, David Kirby, etc. you would WANT to have read his book… I know that I would.
– Sue M.
Hey Sue, do you have anything to say that isn’t just snarky? Or do you just like to see your name in print?
Kev is talking about *credibility*, get it?
There was a time when Sue tried to make an intelligent argument, with scientific references and everything. At some point she realized that science really wasn’t her thing and she left, never to return. But she just couldn’t stay away so she returned, left, returned and left again, and so on, and so on…..
Now she uses Kev’s blog as place to vent her considerable anger because the CDC and FDA don’t have a blog.
I wonder if Sue is trying to insure herself a place in the upcoming movie “Evidence of Smarm”?
_”Can we agree that David Kirby asked for a retraction? Or is Deep Twinkie lying? Or are the reporters not telling you the whole truth, Kev? What the hell is going on here… everywhere we turn, people are lying… wahhh”_
Nope, only one person lied. And only one person seems fine with that.
_”Oh, I’ve got that for a while, Kev. I would just think that if you want to keep blogging about EoH, David Kirby, etc. you would WANT to have read his book… I know that I would”_
…thus proving that you _don’t_ get it at all – way to prove yourself wrong in less than 3 sentences Sue!
I’m not sure why anyone would be shocked that David Kirby “bent the truth” here.
I for one *have* read Kirby’s book, and it’s a one-sided, credulous account of the thimerosal controversy from people with a vested personal and financial interest in making the claim autism is caused – in part or whole – by vaccines.
Mouse,
Not sure if anyone (you) are still reading this because we seem to have moved on to other threads. If you are reading this, first of all, it is nice to see that someone here has read the book. I appreciate your comments on the book and certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion. In my opinion, Kirby seems to minimally paint a pretty frightening account of lack of accountability of officials, etc. There seems to be a lot of covering up going on in this whole matter. Certainly, major questions have been raised about the “safety” of thimerosal in vaccines. Do you not agree?
– Sue M.
Sue M. Said: There seems to be a lot of covering up going on in this whole matter. Certainly, major questions have been raised about the “safety†of thimerosal in vaccines. Do you not agree?
Sue,
Wouldn’t that depend on one’s perspective? If you suspect thimerosal causes autism then I can see where you might reach those conclusions. But thimerosal doesn’t cause autism so what’s been “covered up?”
When “major questions are raised” does that qualify as Evidence of Harm? Kirby really should have added the question mark to the title, do you not agree?
Clone wrote:
“But thimerosal doesn’t cause autism so what’s been “covered up?â€
– I’m pretty sure that the jury is still out on if thimerosal plays any part in triggering autism in children, Clone. Ok, “covered up” is too strong a phrase for you how about when “major questions are raised”… shouldn’t they be addressed and not ignored or tossed aside?
Clone wrote:
“When “major questions are raised†does that qualify as Evidence of Harm? Kirby really should have added the question mark to the title, do you not agree?”
– Whatever floats your boat, Clone. I’d be ok with a question mark in the title…
– Sue M.
OK, as long as you say the jury is still out I guess we shouldn’t hear you talk about autism=mercury poisoning as if it’s been proven in any way. Glad to see we’re making progress.
If these “major questions” were simply ignored or tossed aside there would be no need for things like IOM meetings, or Simpsonwood, or a recommendation that thimerosal be removed from pediatric vaccines. Sounds to me like you have an issue with the rapidity or level of response but go on using terms like cover-up and conspiracy if you choose. Whatever sinks your boat.
Clone wrote:
“OK, as long as you say the jury is still out I guess we shouldn’t hear you talk about autism=mercury poisoning as if it’s been proven in any way”.
– Feel free to point out where I have said this. I absolutely believe that thimerosal can play a big role but certainly genetics plays a role as well. I am also not ruling out that other toxic/viral assaults (besides thimerosal) can trigger autism in children.
Clone wrote:
“If these “major questions†were simply ignored or tossed aside there would be no need for things like IOM meetings, or Simpsonwood, or a recommendation that thimerosal be removed from pediatric vaccines”.
– Well, hopefully you will someday be able to come to terms with the fact that THE ONLY reason that these meetings are actually taking place at all are because of the parents and researchers (from “our side”) are demanding it. The IOM is willing to say things such as this in 2004:
“Further research to find the cause of autism should be directed toward other lines of inquiry that are supported by current knowledge and evidence and offer more promise for providing an answer”.
– Obviously, an attempt to make the whole thing just go away.
– Sue M.
Sue,
You said: ” Feel free to point out where I have said this”
Immediately followed by: I absolutely believe that thimerosal can play a big role but [….]other toxic/viral assaults (besides thimerosal) can trigger autism in children.
Hence saving me the trouble of having to search very far for an example of where you talk about autism=mercury poisoning as if it’s been proven in some way.
Clone,
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that there is a huge difference between saying autism = mercury poisoning and saying that thimerosal can play a big role (along with genetic) etc, etc, etc…. Good example of how blantantly words get twisted around here. Hopefully, someone else will back me up here… I won’t hold my breathe…
– Sue M.
Sue,
I am no rocket surgeon and I am not trying to twist your words. Yes there is a difference between autism=mercury poisoning and thimerosal can play a big role, etc.
Diluting your position doesn’t make it any more true. Whether you think it is a sole cause, a contributing factor, or simply a marker of decreased ability to excrete metals, none of these things are even close to proven facts. Do you agree? I assume that you will since you’ve stated: “I’m pretty sure that the jury is still out on if thimerosal plays any part in triggering autism in children”
Those are your somewhat unambiguous words, aren’t they? I don’t want to be accused of twisting words.
Clone wrote:
“Yes there is a difference between autism=mercury poisoning and thimerosal can play a big role, etc”.
– Thank you for acknowledging this. When you try to paint my views with the autism=mercury poisoning ONLY brush(which is exactly what you did above), you deserve to be questioned. I believe that the jury is still out on the thimerosal/autism debate. Certainly the evidence is growing everyday. Certainly there is no doubt that mercury (thimerosal) is a neurotoxin. Certainly we get more and more warnings about mercury in fish and new warnings about the lead issue. As the jury sits and ponders “the evidence” the only ones that suffer are the babies (never mind adults) who are possibly being injured by thimerosal in vaccinations… Sad state of affairs.
– Sue M.
I agreed there is a difference but maybe it’s something like the difference between burnt and raw sienna. It’s still difficult to paint a realistic image with a few shades of the same color on your pallet. Maybe throw in some new pigments like cad yellow or cerulean every now and then.
Back to the topic of mercury causing or contributing to autism, the jury is still out meaning you aren’t able to say that “Certainly the evidence is growing everyday” unless you can present some sort of certain evidence to support it. As a matter of fact the evidence is dwindling with every day and every new case that can’t be linked to thimerosal.
Thimerosal can be a neurotoxin, though apparently not at the concentrations used in vaccines. I think it’s prudent to remove it from vaccines as possible and I’m not happy about mercury concentrations in fish either. I don’t like pesticides in my drinking water and I think there is a potential to contaminate Lake Vostok with bacteria and diesel the way the Russians are going about drilling.
Does thimerosal cause or contribute to autism or not?
Clone wrote:
“Thimerosal can be a neurotoxin, though apparently not at the concentrations used in vaccines”.
– Really? According to who? Ms. Clark, Jonathan, Prometheus? Again, I don’t think that you can really say one way or the other on that, Clone.
Clone wrote:
“I think it’s prudent to remove it from vaccines as possible”.
– I can assume that you meant as soon as possible. Obviously, I agree (except that my as soon as possible would have been three years ago or tomorrow by the latest). I am concerned that the vast majority of people don’t have a clue about any of this… Not fair. I can assume that you didn’t run out and get a thimerosal containing flu vaccination this past fall/winter. Don’t other people have the right to know about this information?
Clone wrote:
“Does thimerosal cause or contribute to autism or not”?
– I’m not too sure what you expect me to say here. Have I not clearly stated my opinion for you on this matter?
– Sue M.
Best not to assume anything for or about me Sue. Thanks anyway. If I did receive a flu shot, with or without thimerosal, would the autism numbers change?
Sue M said: Again, I don’t think that you can really say one way or the other on that, Clone.
No, I can’t say one way or another which is why I don’t go around saying things like thimerosal isn’t a neurotoxin. Can you provide any evidence to show it is a neurotoxin at post-vaccine CNS concentrations? Can you provide any evidence to show it causes autism?
Sue M:“I’m not too sure what you expect me to say here. Have I not clearly stated my opinion for you on this matter?
No, it’s not clear at all. Here’s your chance to (re)state your opinion as clearly as possible.
Or, opinions aside, answer the question if you think it can be answered.
Does thimerosal cause or contribute to autism or not?
Clone wrote:
“Here’s your chance to (re)state your opinion as clearly as possible”.
– I’ll pass, thanks. You should be able to use your reading comprehension skills to see my opinion. I’ve stated it over and over again. I would bet that you did not get a flu shot… you seem fairly intelligent. I can’t imagine that you would risk your health like that. I wish other people were informed of the possible risks. Wouldn’t that be nice, Clone?
Sue M.
When in doubt, change the subject. OK Sue, thanks for playing along at home. One of your favorite replies has been: “You’ve got nothing!!” which is fine for me since I have nothing to prove. However, I am always willing and able to back up anything I say otherwise I wouldn’t say it. You, on the other hand, are left with:
a) Motherly intuition
b) Offer an anecdote
c) Change the subject
d) Insult somebody
e) All of the above
Clone wrote:
“However, I am always willing and able to back up anything I say otherwise I wouldn’t say it”.
– That’s fascinating Clone. How about when you accused me of saying that autism = mercury poisoning. Or then there was the time that you attempted to spout about how I was trying to get everyone to chelate their kids… You can’t back up squat, Clone…
You forgot one on your list…
f) Leave when Clone once again proves his ignorance…
– Sue M.