Captain Obvious Speaks
April 25, 2007 by Do'C 
Printer-Friendly Version
An anonymous friend of a friend who is member of the Evidence Of Harm Yahoo group, forwarded me a recent message to that group from David Kirby, which reads in part:
This is interesting. Calif Dept of Health Services will be presenting DDS data at IMFAR
They will report that the number of 3-5 year old cases was still rising as of Sept 2006 – thus no evidence for a major role for thimerosal in ASD was found.
But, the abstract makes a very interesting point. It says that: “Limitations of the DDS database and lack of individual exposure data prevent conclusions, based on these data, about thimerosal as a cause or modifier of autism in a specific subgroup or child.
(Emphases are mine)
I read this to mean that one cannot apply the California data to prove that a specific group or child (ie one with a genetic predisposition) was NOT harmed by thimerosal. Also, there is no way to know for sure exactly how much mercury individual children were exposed to during the period in question.
Please, someone explain to me why I am wrong, and that includes any lurkers out there who believe that the California numbers mean it is time to close the thimerosal books once and for all.
I am being serious. I really thought these numbers were probably the death knell of this hypothesis, and they may still be. But it seems that the State of California would have us interpret these numbers with a bit more caution.
The abstract is below. ALL comments welcome, and that includes skeptics. Thanks. DK
Dear DK,
Pathetic.
It’s interesting that you noted that the Calif Dept of Health Services will report that the number of 3-5 year old cases was still rising as of Sept 2006. You really should have mentioned to your EoH readers that it was still rising as of Dec 2006 and March of 2007 too.
You are not wrong, you are a smooth speaker, but also a non-scientific weasel.
Have you forgotten about the so-called ‘epidemic’? The one claimed to be shown by the California numbers? See www.evidenceofharm.com for a starting point.
To suggest that California Numbers are not useful to prove a negative, “that a specific group or child (ie one with a genetic predisposition) was NOT harmed by thimerosal”, really only merits one response. NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
You could have read the CDDS data disclaimers years ago and figured this out.
The claim was that there was an ‘epidemic’ of autism brought about by the increased use of TCV’s in the 1990’s. This claim was often supported by pointing to the increase in the California numbers. The claim was that the numbers were increasing because of TCV’s. The claim was that if the California numbers are relevant, removal of TCV’s should cause a drop in caseload. TCV’s were removed. There was no drop in caseload. The original ‘epidemic’ hypothesis has no proof. The California numbers are probably useless in determining whether or not Thimerosal can cause autism.
To come out now, and offer a new hypothesis, an ass-backwards version of one that would be supported by skeptics, by asking for proof of a negative is about the lamest of bullshit shifting of burden of proof as it gets.
Let’s try to help you out here by rewriting your new hypothesis:
“It’s possible, but not likely that a specific group or child’s autism was caused by Thimerosal”
There, that’s better. It is certainly possible (however unlikely), now all you need to do is go out and find that person or group and the proof that your hypothesis is true.
Good luck!
Note: for any EoH members who happen to read this that would like even further clarification, here’s how David Kirby’s e-mail could be translated in one sentence:
“There probably really isn’t and wasn’t a Thimerosal-induced autism epidemic”.
Above suggested translation edited from original version. See comments 1852 and 1854 below.
- Hat Tip to “Anonymous” for the e-mail.
More on the subject:
Autism Diva - “Maybe the parasites ate his homework”
Kevin Leitch - “Oh David, David, David….”
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed, see "Comments/Contact" under "About".
Comment by Bartholomew Cubbins — 25 April, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
What he meant to write and where he meant it be written:
Dear Diary, I’m getting my intellectual ass handed to me by reality and I was wondering who can disprove my point: that ensemble statistics suggesting that magical creatures don’t exist doesn’t rule out the possibility that the tooth fairy exists. Why the tooth fairy? Because she’s my favorite. It’s an “N of one”, I’m talking the individual here. So we can all take our favorite magical creature and apply the same logic to it — each and every one of us. But wouldn’t that mean that the large group of our “N of 1’s” would be subject to ensemble statistics? Oh, nevermind… back to the book tour.
Comment by Ms. Clark — 25 April, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
What’s that sound???? Oh, it’s the sound of backpeddling.
Or maybe that’s the sound that gross hypocrisy makes.
Kirby lies.
Comment by Broken Link — 25 April, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
I guess that is a picture of David Kirby waving his hands.
hand waving
n.
Usually insubstantial words or actions intended to convince or impress: resorted to hand waving instead of arguing rationally.
Comment by Steve D — 25 April, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
Back in December, Not Mercury had a post entitled “It’s Over”. Perhaps he should re-issue that post with the revised title, “NOW It’s REALLY Over.”
Well, now that this issue is settled (still, again, in perpetuity) let’s get back to broadcasting the message that autism is not a tragedy. See you there!
Comment by notmercury — 26 April, 2007 @ 5:41 am
It’s not over ’til Kirby and Blaxill put on wigs and dance the CAN CAN at the next DAN! DAN! conference.
Who has that picture of Wakefield in drag?
Comment by Melissa — 26 April, 2007 @ 9:51 am
Touche - love this post Do’C
Comment by Do'C — 26 April, 2007 @ 10:22 am
BC, it seems that Kirby might actually fathom your N of 1/we are all special cases conundrum. His latest entry in his diary looks like a weak attempt to coddle his followers while he looks for an exit, but I could be wrong.
Ms. Clark, it could be that looming giant sucking sound of speaking engagements and book sales being pulled elsewhere.
BL, yep. If I remember correctly that’s that part in his ‘debate’ with Arthur Allen where he’s spouting nonsense about kids that “don’t have glutathione”.
Steve, I agree. Is raising kids is full of challenges? Yes. Is having autistic kids a tradgedy? NO!!
NM, It would be even better with about 15 or 20 people I can think of, up there with them - a full chorus lineup.
Melissa, good to see you. Glad you enjoyed it.
Comment by 666sigma — 27 April, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
[[ Note: for any EoH members who happen to read this that would like even further clarification, here’s how David Kirby’s e-mail could be translated in one sentence:
“There probably really isn’t and wasn’t an autism epidemic”. ]]
I think it would be more fair to say his e-mail could be translated to say:
“The autism epidemic does not appear to be caused by thimerosal. Help me!”
The rising CDDS case counts would not allow anyone to come to the conclusion, other than someone with a built-in bias, that the prevalence rate for autism is not rising. Clearly, Kirby never implied that there still wasn’t an “epidemic.”
Of course, being a good scientist, you know that the rising case counts could simply be the result of better diagnosis and greater public awareness and the severe undercounting that has plagued the 3-5 age group from its inception. If Kirby were willing to throw some pocket change my way (maybe 30% of the book tour’s gross), I would be willing to explain this to him in words that even he could understand.
It seems quite obvious that he is looking for an easy way to retract his previous statement so he doesn’t look like a fool.
Comment by Prometheus — 27 April, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Actually, Kirby is trying to make it appear that the Cal. DDS numbers are not critical to his hypothesis that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism These are the same numbers that - when he was writing his book - so clearly showed an “autism epidemic” which was - again, without a doubt - caused by thimerosal.
Mr. Kirby is trying to have his cake and eat it, too.
Either the Cal. DDS data can’t be relied on to represent a real rise in the number of children with autism (they can’t - that’s what the people who work there have been saying for years), in which case the “autism epidemic” is naught but a rumor without any supporting data.
Or the Cal. DDS data do reflect the number of children with autism and so conclusively prove that thimerosal (and mercury) do not cause autism.
Personally, I see the Cal. DDS data as merely reflective of the changing administrative and social environment in California vis a vis autism. They reflect nothing more than changing programs, awareness and disgnostic criteria for autism.
However, Mr. Kirby would like us to forget that he used those numbers to build the “autism epidemic” which he then used as a main support for the thimerosal-causes-autism theme of his book.
Take away the Cal. DDS (and USDE) data and there is nothing to support the thimerosal-causes-autism hypothesis.
I don’t have to prove that the thimerosal-causes-autism hypothesis is wrong - I just need to show that it has no data to support it. And David Kirby has done that for me.
Thanks, David!
Prometheus
Comment by Do'C — 27 April, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
You could be right Sigma. I suppose it’s possible that Kirby believes that there is an ‘autism epidemic’ despite the lack of evidence of one.
You’re right about the case counts too. They don’t provide any conclusive evidence one way or the other. Perhaps I should have suggested the following translation: “There is no evidence of a Thimerosal-induced epidemic”.
There could even be overcounting due to informal enforcement of definitions. It’s clear that the caseload in this cohort is twice what the epidemiology suggests it should be. Are PDD-NOS kids being diagnosed with autism in California after all?
What about his book and the Yahoo group? Aren’t they centered around the Thimerosal hypothesis (I haven’t read the book)? Don’t you think he has more to worry about than a “previous statement”.
Comment by laurentius — 27 April, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
These people are beyond reason, Kirby and his pals are completely bonkers, the biggest set of deniers since the flat earthers.
Have you seen this yet http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/56227.html
It is as if they were saying that cholera did not exist before 1848 and because John Snow proved the source to have been a single well, all cholera in the world came from that source.
Kanners sample was very skewed, an opportunity sample of an elite who both knew about Kanners work and could afford the fees.
It is absurd to say that all the autists in the world in the 30’s and 40’s came to Kanners clinic and they were the only ones.
What about Asperger’s work, or doesn’t he count because his patients were not Americans, and only americans are allowed to have shit smearing Schafers autism? or is it so obvious to these conspiracy therists that Aspergers patients were all victims of some secret mercury experiment by the nazis?
Who knows what unreason these mercurians will come up with next. Methinks they are the ones who truly have mad hatters disease. Physician chelate thyself …