Thanks Emily.

Cliff

He called what she said a “lie” and then says that there’s plenty to indicate otherwise, which as it turns out, is at least a statement without any scientific basis. Then, a list of “cues” to support his assertion, not a single solitary one of which contains an iota of evidence from peer-reviewed science. In fact, four of the ten citations are from *politicians.* You know you’re in trouble when 40% of your arguments come from politicians.

He brings up the IACC and says that *some members* want a vaccine emphasis. He drags in the red herring of Hannah Poling and mitochondrial disorders.

This reminds me of the woman who tried to convince me how strongly she empathized with me as a parent by telling me she was an educator and *aunt*. When you know your argument is weak, you’ll scrabble for just about anything to support it. Where are the scientific studies to support Kirby’s assertions? Hilariously, he brings up the CDC’s desire to address as their top vaccine-related questions, ‘Are neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, clinical outcomes of vaccine injury?’ And, ‘Is immunization associated with increased risk for neurological deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction?’ yet has Dr. Bernadine Healy, “former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross and current Health Editor of US News & World Report” telling CBS News that, “‘Officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,’” that “‘they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.’” How can both of these assertions be true? Are vaccines among the “officials” top questions, or do officials “not want to pursue” the hypothesis? I’m guessing the CDC would like to pursue this with the goal of getting it off the freaking table once and for all to avoid endangering children’s lives with fearmongering.