Comments on: David Kirby on Vaccines, Not Autism

By: Teaching Strategy #17: The Art of Speaking and the Language Master

Teaching Strategy #17: The Art of Speaking and the Language Master — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:51:45 +0000

[...] 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, [...]

By: Mercury In Court

Mercury In Court — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 06:08:24 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Autism Vox » David Kirby on “there is no autism epidemic” and Autism Vox on his rhetoric

Wed, 03 Jan 2007 06:24:16 +0000

[...] 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.” [...]

By: Autism Vox » Why are seeing more autism?: “Environmental injury” vs. “better diagnosis”

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:27:37 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Another Voice

Another Voice — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:01:55 +0000

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.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:57:26 +0000

Thanks very much—

By: Someone

Someone — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:02:37 +0000

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.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:15:10 +0000

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?

By: Someone

Someone — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:12:44 +0000

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).