Brit_phoneBy David Kirby

I am honored and more than a little excited to be heading over to London next week, where I will speak at the hallowed House of Lords, deliver a free public lecture at Regent Hall, and attend a reading, book signing and Q&A in Kensington.

The trip seems to have gathered some notice in blogger circles and, while I don’t always read what is being said about me online, I did want to see what our friends across the waters were thinking in anticipation of my visit.

Some Brits, in that colorful way that we Yanks find charming, have taken to calling me “infamous” and “nefarious” -- though, to be fair, one blogger made the effort to remonstrate that I was not to be considered “wicked.” (I’m quite grateful to them for clearing THAT up).

It’s amazing what one can learn about oneself, just by doing a little googling.

Some critics say that I believe thimerosal was solely responsible for the dramatic rise in autism cases. Others criticize me for fueling a debate that only distracts attention from finding the “real” cause of autism. And everyone assails me for being “anti-vaccine.”

But then it occurred to me that “Evidence of Harm” is not widely available for sale in the UK (at least I can’t be accused of that most cardinal of sins attributed to writers: “He’s just trying to sell books!”).

I thought I might help them hone their accuracy skills a little bit before resuming their otherwise legitimate lines of questioning.

Indeed, I welcome critics to attend my public events in England, if only to unleash whatever slings and arrows of outrageous indignation upon me that they see fit – though I do hope they will listen to what I have to say first.

But to my esteemed opponents, and in the interest of general credibility and a nice healthy debate: You might want to “brush up your Kirby” before you begin to “lock and load,” (if I might mix metaphors from Broadway to Beaumont).

To that end, allow me to share some excerpts from the introduction of “Evidence of Harm,” as a way of preemptively answering at least three of the most commonplace accusations floating around out there.

To wit:

1) David Kirby said the autism epidemic was caused by thimerosal. But thimerosal use has ended, and the numbers did not go down. So isn’t he wrong?

The very first words of my book, I believe, begin to answer this:

“Does mercury in vaccines cause autism in children? A definitive
answer has proven elusive, and it remains so to this day. No one
can say with certainty that thimerosal helped fuel the explosion in
cases of autism, attention deficit disorder, speech delay and other
disorders over the past decade.”

A page or so later, I list many of the other “culprits” that should be researched (a topic I have always included in virtually all public appearances):

“Several potential culprits beside thimerosal have been mentioned,
though there is no hard evidence to link any of them to autism.
Possible environmental “triggers” include: mercury in fish, pesticides,
PCB’s, flame retardants, jet fuel, live viruses in vaccines or some
as-yet unidentified virus, and even rampant cell phone use. It is
plausible that any combination of the above, with or without
thimerosal exposure added into the mix, might cause harm to
some fetuses and infant children.”

2) Is Kirby worried that, because of people like him, research and attention has been diverted from finding the actual cause of autism?

Again, as I point out in the introduction:

”At the very least, the thimerosal debate has compelled the scientific
community, however reluctantly, to consider an environmental
component to the disorder, rather than looking for a purely genetic

When I began my research in 2002, it was virtually laughable heresy to even ask if environmental toxins might be playing any role at all.

3) Why is Kirby such a rabid “antivaxer?”

Quite apart from being juvenile and artless sloganeering, this pointless canard, construed to distract, is simply false. If I were anti vaccine, why on earth would I insert these words into my introduction?:

“Some parents, fearing harmful effects, have been tempted not
to vaccinate their children. Most people would agree that this
is foolhardy and dangerous. Few of us are old enough to remember
the great epidemics of influenza, pertussis, smallpox, polio,
diphtheria and measles that once swept entire populations –
until the advent of vaccines reduced those maladies to abstract,
unthreatening concepts, at least in America. These diseases, all
of them preventable, can kill children. When vaccination rates fall,
disease rates rise.”

I would answer question number three in good old New York style: With a question (or two).

Why am I anti-vaccine? Why would I be anti-vaccine?

And for that matter, if I truly were anti-vaccine, why on earth would I say that I am PRO-vaccine, including while going out live on “Larry King” to dozens of countries around the world?

No one has ever come up with a rational answer for that.

People who question aviation safety are not labeled “anti-airplane.” And calling someone who advocates for cleaner lakes, rivers and streams, “anti-water,” is just plain stupid.

Vaccines save lives. My message is not: “Don’t vaccinate your children.” My message is this: “We need more research to determine if a small subset of kids is genetically susceptible to lifelong neurological injury from something, or things, in our current vaccine program.

“Vaccines save lives,” is not an answer to the question, “Were some kids with autism made that way by their vaccines?"

But we can talk about that more in London.



The foods don't have to be in the vaccine to cause problems. Aluminum is used as an adjuvant in vaccines because it makes the immune system react, strongly, to the attenuated bugs in the vaccines. There is, however, no evidence that an immune system in react mode will stop, precisely, totally, on the mark, after reacting to the bugs. So, imagine a child receiving several aluminum containing vaccines. Mom is breastfeeding and just ate a peanut butter sandwich for lunch that day. Baby gets a bit of the peanut stuff through the milk, immune system goes on wild alert due to the aluminum, allergy is launched. Nifty!


New study connects vaccines with food allergy. Vaccines can contain a mix of peanut oil, soy oil, almond oil, sesame oil, etc. None of this has to appear on the vaccine insert because it is protected as a trade secret.

Theory: Vaccinations are the primary cause of food allergies. Infant formula, infant vitamins, and antibiotics that contain peanut products directly or indirectly may be secondary causes.
BACKGROUND: This study began as a "wild idea" that vaccinations or medicine could be causing peanut allergy. It soon turned into a horrible realization. A very small amount of food proteins from many sources are considered inert ingredients that fall under trade secret protection and are not on the vaccine inserts. Various studies have shown that injecting an animal with protein is one method of inducing an allergy. Every study done of food allergy that could be located does not disprove this theory. There was a study done on Indonesian and Thai children that has been frequently quoted as saying that there are no peanut allergies in Thailand or Singapore in spite of the high consumption of peanuts. Evidence was presented that Singapore has a major problem with peanut allergy. The study itself says that many children reacted to peanuts in a skin prick test and that it eliminated a number of children from the study. The "hygiene theory" was examined and found to have no merit. Evidence of a long list of food protein that can be used in vaccine production has been found in various patents on-line. The increased childhood vaccination schedule coincides with the increase in food allergies in industrialized nations. The lower incidence of food allergies in less industrialized nations also coincides with a lower vaccination rate. The lower incidence of food allergies in the Hispanic population of the United States also coincides with a lower vaccination rate. The evidence of food allergy in animals has only been found in vaccinated animals. Evidence of ingredients that can be one of the patented adjuvants with various food oils has been presented. Evidence that "pharmacy grade" peanut oil still contains peanut protein has been presented. Package inserts have been examined and found to have ingredients that do not disclose its actual composition. EVERY SINGLE FOOD ALLERGY THAT I HAVE FOUND, I HAVE ALSO FOUND THAT FOOD LISTED AS AN INGREDIENT IN A VACCINE OR MEDICAL PRODUCT.


What happened over there?

Fil navarra


The study of low-weight and premature was done and made public yesterday by the CDC and is to be Published in the LANCET.
Just Google "Low-weight autism" and you will get many hits.

I hope your child is doing better.. If you have tried the diet and the methyl-B12 check for yeast infection.



Where did you find the article about girls, birth weight and prematurity? It's fascinating. Maybe that's why so many kids in multiple births seem to have autism. And maybe that's why my little gal, who was only 5 lbs. 2 oz. at birth, developed autism whereas her 6 lb., 8 oz. fraternal twin sister did not. They were born at 37 weeks. Both seemed fine at first, but the smaller one drifted away into her own world as her head circumference grew bigger and bigger. I can't help but shudder at the flu shot she received as a micro-weight fetus, just barely out of the first trimester.
If you could send us a citation to the article you read, I'd appreciate it.

mike stanton

true Brit said,

"You have invited "critics" to your talk but non of the anti-you bloggers will turn up - they haven't the guts to be there in person because there will be no paymaster present feeding them with responses."

I have a fulltime teaching commitment in the North of England. My job is my only paymaster. So midweek meetings in London are impossible for me. That is why I published my questions on my blog. It is up to David Kirby whether or not he answers them. I tried to make them pertinent rather than arrogant.

Kelli Ann Davis

"You have invited "critics" to your talk but non of the anti-you bloggers will turn up - they haven't the guts to be there in person because there will be no paymaster present feeding them with responses."

Tru Brit:

Or maybe they don't get *paid* for extra-curricular activities which would require them to get off their *duffs* and make a little journey to the Parliament???





Twyla, I think you're trying to make an interesting point, but there are some details you miss. The increased sensitization you refer to is to the same or a very similar antigen (protein/toxin). Classic anaphylaxis is antibody mediated. The specificity and affinity of antibodies increase with each exposure. However, repeated exposure to one antigen will not typically cause sensitization to a different antigen. For example, repeated exposure to pollen won't make you allergic to peanuts and vice versa. Just wanted to clarify that.

True Brit

"You seem to have missed the questions on my blog." - said Mike Stanton

David, I do not know whether you have been to the UK before, but please be assured that we are not all as arrogant as Stanton and his ilk.

You have invited "critics" to your talk but non of the anti-you bloggers will turn up - they haven't the guts to be there in person because there will be no paymaster present feeding them with responses.

Anyhow, hope it goes well

Fil Navarra

Good luck in England David. I hope the LORDS listen to you.
Just a note to mention that there was an article today about girls that were born under weight (5.5 lbs) have 3.5 times as much autism as those born in the 7 lbs and up category.
Does this mean that the underweight girls were genetically more disposed to become autistic? or....that their immune system had developed to the same as a male's immune system and thus carries the same statistical probability now as the boys.
The statistics are also that if the girls are born premature by 5 weeks, they are almost 6 times more likely to develop autism than a to term girl. Again, does a child's genetics change if they are premature?... or.... Their immune system is not as developed when they start being assauted by the vaccines? Interesting questions!
I wonder what the spin on this study will be in order to blame it on genetics by the CDC and the NIH.
If you can blame on the genes, you are blaming on the genetics of the parents and no one other than the parents can be blamed.

I hope it isn't too rainy in London.

Take care,

Fil Navarra

2008 Darwin Award winner

"You seem to have missed the questions on my blog."

Here's a story for you that might explain that -

"Zookeeper Friedrich Riesfeldt ( Paderborn , Germany ) fed his constipated elephant 22 doses of animal laxative and more than a bushel of berries, figs and prunes before the plugged-up pachyderm finally got relief.

Investigators say ill-fated Friedrich, 46, was attempting to give the ailing elephant an olive oil enema when the relieved beast unloaded. The sheer force of the elephant's unexpected defecation knocked Mr. Riesfeldt to the ground where he struck his head on a rock as the elephant continued to evacuate 200 pounds of dung on top of him.

It seems to be just one of those freak accidents that proves.. 'Shit happens'."


Thank you so so much for your advocacy on behalf of people with autism. You are truly a hero to our community. It is very exciting that you have been invited to speak in England at the House of Lords and Regents Hall. Thank you so so much for representing our interests there. It seems like some of what is going on in England is even worse than here, especially the persecution of Dr. Wakefield which seems to cause other doctors to cower in the shadows rather than even treat autistic children's GI problems.

I hope that your appearance can help break throught the misinformation and cliches surrounding these issues. To the similes you mentioned, I would add one more -- If a mother came forward saying that her child became very ill after eating some fresh spinach, would the headline read, "Anti-Vegetable Mother Causes Drop in Number of People Eating Their Vegetables!"? No, it would read something like, "E-coli Breakout Investigated."

When I first read your book, I remember being puzzled that apparently two very different things -- thimerosal and multiple live viruses -- could cause autism. Someone posted this link to an article on anaphylaxis in dogs by a 1913 Nobel prize winner Charles Richet. He injected tiny bits of toxins or proteins into dogs, and found that the immune systems of some dogs became increasingly sensitized with each injection. He concluded:
"We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood [other] than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction, the organism suffers and becomes resistant. This resistance lies in increased sensitivity, a sort of revolt against the second parenteral injection which would be fatal. At the first injection, the organism was taken by surprise and did not resist. At the second injection, the organism mans its defences and answers by the anaphylactic shock."

He found that the reactions of dogs were quite variable, and discussed this variability as follows:

"Each one of us, by our chemical make-up, above all by our blood and probably also by the protoplasm of each cell, is himself and no one else. In other words, he has a humoral personality. We all know very well what the personality of the psyche is. The multiplicity and the variety of our memories make each one of us different from all other human beings. We all have a body of stored impressions which preclude our being confused with any other specimen of our kind. Nothing could be clearer than this idea of the personality in terms of psyche which stands to reason and is valid in all human conscience.

"Now, in the light of notions of immunity and of anaphylaxis, we can conceive of another personality in juxtaposition to the moral personality and that is the humoral personality, which makes us different from other men by the chemical make-up of our humours.

"This is an entirely new idea. It was thought up to now, perhaps from lack of after-thought, that with individuals of the same age, race and sex the humors would no doubt be chemically identical. Well, it is not like that at all. Every living being, though presenting the strongest resemblances to others of his species, has his own characteristics so that he is himself and not somebody else. This means that henceforth study of the physiology of the species is no longer enough. Another physiology must be taken up, which is very difficult and barely broached, namely that of the individual."

Almost one hundred years ago, and he is saying what most still have not grasped today. The vaccine program must take into account:
- The reactions of immune systems to multiple injections, which can cause increasing over-sensitization, and
- The differences in individual immune systems which mean that some people may go through the standard schedule without undue adverse effects, while for others the developing immune system may be derailed.

One more comment - I remember Dan Olmstead writing an article about all the events we are told are "coincidence" (such as toddler becomes autistic right after vaccines, or autistic person gets better with biomedical treatments). Another big coincidence is that pet owners and veterinarians are reporting the same adverse reactions/medical conditions in their pets post-vaccination as we are seeing in autistic children, such as seizures, allergies, IBD, and auto-immune disorders -- as well as behavioral issues.

Very best wishes for a great trip to England!

mike stanton

You seem to have missed the questions on my blog.

Vaccines *save* lives

"Vaccines save lives. My message is not: “Don’t vaccinate your children.” My message is this: “We need more research to determine if a small subset of kids is genetically susceptible to lifelong neurological injury from something, or things, in our current vaccine program."

Let's take a look at this sentence - "Vaccines save lives" - that is bandied about as a life giving mantra. What is the meaning of *save* here? If you give a vaccine such as the MMR that causes gut problems and causes a child to get autism, does that mean that you have *saved* this life? Does *save* a life mean that you have forever neurologically impaired this child's brain and gut and made him a dysfunctional member of society? Is society rejoicing in this impairment of this child because its concept of *save* is that this child did not contract, say, the measles and die from it? If this is the meaning of *save* that public health understands, then yes, I would agree with the fact that vaccines do save lives.

But that does not mean that I have to understand it.

dan olmsted

David, Thanks for this piece and we wish you luck among the Brits. How you have managed to stay in the reportorial mode through all this is astonishing to me, but it is serving the community well as evidenced by your invitation to speak to Parliament. I basically threw in the fair-and-balanced towel: Yes, vaccines cause autism, mercury causes autism, mercury in vaccines causes autism ... any more permutations I'm forgetting!? i am neither pro NOR anti-vaccine. my thing is autism -- i'm simply not knowledgeable about infectious disease prevention; there is a limit to what one human being can be expected to know and opine on intelligently, but people seem to want us to pledge allegiance to the flag of the Public Health Service or be hauled away. i just know that as presently constituted vaccines are behind the autism epidemic. (bernie rimland told me that, and if it's good enough for bernie, it's good enough for me. and that's what my own reporting shows.)

speaking of being hauled away, the piece in the telegraph yesterday that anne dachel sent around was maybe the most terrifying piece of mainstream journalism i've ever seen. it made the dan!-type docs over there look like they were running laetrile clinics out of tijuana. i can imagine an all-out effort to shut this approach down in britain (as they're trying to do with andy) and your appearance there is really, really important at a crucial moment. thanks so much.


Vaccines save lives. My message is not: “Don’t vaccinate your children.” My message is this: “We need more research to determine if a small subset of kids is genetically susceptible to lifelong neurological injury from something, or things, in our current vaccine program.

“Vaccines save lives,” is not an answer to the question, “Were some kids with autism made that way by their vaccines?"

(Said in my best british accent)"Spot on my dear fellow David...Spot on"


"People who question aviation safety are not labeled “anti-airplane.” And calling someone who advocates for cleaner lakes, rivers and streams, “anti-water,” is just plain stupid."

Damn, that's really good.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)