Questions for David Kirby
If I could be in London next week for David Kirby’s PR visit these are some of the questions I would like to ask him. You may care to add your own.
Your book, Evidence of Harm, explores the premise that a 150 per cent increase in the mercury burden in US vaccines (from 75 to 187 microgams of ethyl mercury) that began in 1987 caused the dramatic rise in recorded cases of autistic spectrum disorder in the USA. Given that exposure to ethyl mercury in vaccines in the UK remained at 75 micrograms until it was finally removed in 2004, and we experienced a similar growth in autism, what possible relevance could your book or your theories have for the UK?
Thiomersal was completely removed from US vaccines and stocks exhausted by 2002. Yet autism rates have continued to rise. Do you agree that whatever plausibility there was to the thiomersal hypothesis when you were writing your book, it is contradicted by the data and should now be rejected? Are you now prepared to state publicly that there is no evidence of harm? That vaccines do not cause autism?
In your public debate with the journalist Arthur Allen you conceded that autism rates had not declined in line with your predictions after the removal of thiomersal from vaccines but went on to invoke other environmental sources of mercury such as toxic plumes crossing the Pacific from Chinse coal powered power stations, forest fires in California and even the smoke from crematoria. The UK is not being overwhelmed by pollution either from China or the USA and our autism rates are at least as high as yours. How do you explain this?
The organizations that are sponsoring your visit have been scathing in the past about the conflict of interest of scientific researchers who have repudiated any connection between mercury and autism. Does the fact that you are sponsored by anti-vaccine groups like Safe Minds and Generation Rescue and your current journalistic output is published on the Generation Rescue blog, The Age of Autism, create any conflicts of interest for you that might affect you impartiality as a journalist or are you happy with your role as a publicist for these organizations?
In recent months you have returned to the vaccine bandwagon, this time claiming that a significant number of autism cases are down to a reaction to vaccines that triggers a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder. You base your arguments on confidential documents leaked to you by people connected to Hannah Poling whose case is in the process of being settled at the US Court of Federal Claims. It is very difficult for us to judge the situation based solely on your speculations and the public statements of the Polings. When journalist Ken Reibel asked the Polings at the Autism One conference last month if they were prepared to release Hannah’s medical records and allow her treating physicians to comment publicly his press credentials were revoked and hotel securiy were summoned to expel him from the building. Surely this one sided speculation should cease until the case is settled and the science can be freely discussed by those qualified to do so?
