David Kirby on Vaccines, Not Autism
According to David Kirby, “better diagnosis” of autism is so insubstantial an argument for why the prevalence of autism has increased that he allots a mere sentence to it in his analysis of the “serious problems” in the CDC data on vaccines and autism (reported in Dan Olmsted’s ‘Problems’ in CDC data). As Kirby writes in today’s Bad News for Mercury Defenders after he has offered his refutation of not only the CDC’s study but also four other international studies on vaccines and autism:
With so many holes shot through their “five large studies” defense, the government lawyers will be left to argue that autism is purely genetic, that there is no environmental component, and that the rates of illness have not “really” gone up. We are simply better at recognizing and diagnosing the disorder, that’s all.
Well, if that is the case, the mercury-defense lawyers should have no problem proving it. All they need do is produce irrefutable evidence that 1-in-166 American adults of ALL ages (and 1-in-104 men) fall somewhere within the autism spectrum disorder, at the same rate as kids. But they can’t, and they won’t.
Kirby does not explain why he thinks these lawyers “can’t” and “won’t” find these autistic adults. (On this, see also What’s in a name: The “Hidden Horde,” TV, and a Diagnosis Called Autism.)
Like Olmsted’s ‘Problems’ in CDC data, Kirby summons a thorough array of data, statistics and studies in defending a mercury-autism link, but does not provide a solid sense of what autism is, aside from referring to it at the end of his article as a “neuro-developmental disorder, one that has become epidemic, (and expensive) in America.” Kirby’s book Evidence of Harm makes similarly little reference to what autism actually presents as in children (as I wrote over a year ago in Autism is Treatable and Charlie is Teachable: OnEvidence of Harm by David Kirby).
While Kirby has plenty to say about vaccines and the CDC, I am much less certain about what he has to say about autism, about diagnosing it, and about what it is.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Books, Diagnosis, Environment, Health, Medicine, Vaccines
9 opinions for David Kirby on Vaccines, Not Autism
Someone
Dec 13, 2006 at 1:12 am
I think that it is certainly possible that a heavy metal such as mercury could have the potential to cause brain damage that would result in autism; it would be sort of naive to believe otherwise. I think that a better question would have regards to the speculation of the frequency of mercury-induced autism (i.e. is it a common causation, or relatively rare).
Kristina Chew, PhD
Dec 13, 2006 at 1:15 am
You don’t have to answer this and pardon me for prying if I am…….. do you think that might be how your autism (now residual, if I recall?) was caused?
Someone
Dec 13, 2006 at 2:02 pm
It’s possible. I don’t have any other people in the family with my condition and I supposedly ate paint chips when I was a few months old. I also was seemly normal when I was born, aside from a mild bone deformity. You weren’t prying at all; don’t worry about it.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Dec 13, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Thanks very much—
Another Voice
Dec 13, 2006 at 10:01 pm
I don’t want to comment on mercury or it’s reputed relationship to autism. However, I feel Mr. Kirby may be unclear regarding the judicial process, defense attorneys are not expected to produce any “irrefutable evidence”, or any evidence at all for that matter. The plaintiff is responsible to produce evidence in support of his cause. The defense then has the opportunity to challenge that evidence.
Autism Vox » Why are seeing more autism?: “Environmental injury” vs. “better diagnosis”
Dec 22, 2006 at 1:27 am
[…] Herbert’s last phrase echoes “evidence of harm,” which is of course the title of journalist David Kirby’s book that argues for a link between mercury in vaccines and autism and by the end of her article, Herbert argues for a link between autism and an external, environmental agent—even a toxin, too. Like Kirby in his Huffington Post article, Herbert quickly dismisses the notion that this “rise” might be due to our better understanding of autism. Some say that the increases are merely due to better awareness and diagnosis of autism, or expanded diagnostic criteria. However, we would need solid proof of this claim in order to dismiss the possibility that something new, different and harmful is going on with our children—and such proof does not exist. Autism increases point to a role for the environment, since genes don’t change that fast. […]
Autism Vox » David Kirby on “there is no autism epidemic” and Autism Vox on his rhetoric
Jan 3, 2007 at 2:24 am
[…] Autism, and what an autistic person—even a child who does a number of the “severe behaviors” that Kirby lists in There is no autism epidemic—can do, is a lot more varied than Kirby suggests in his either “high functioning” or “low functioning” portrayal of autism. But, having read Evidence of Harm and some other writing by Kirby on autism, I am not surprised that he writes about autism as being this or that, or that he is now saying (with whatever amounts of irony) that “there is no epidemic.” […]
Mercury In Court
Jun 8, 2007 at 2:08 am
[…] a number of posts linking the mercury-based preservative thimerasol and also mercury from the environment to autism and to the rising prevalence rate of autism, to an […]
Teaching Strategy #17: The Art of Speaking and the Language Master
Apr 8, 2008 at 4:51 am
[…] among the ancient Greeks and Romans. There’s more than a little rhetoric that gets used (cast around) in discussions/debates about autism and causes, vaccines, cures, […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: