Kirby's Latest at Huffington Post

[Guest guest]

http://tinyurl.com/99dvk

08.09.2005 Kirby

My Take on Tim

Don't tell Ariana, but I like Tim Russert.

Yes, I am extremely biased, on account of Russert inviting me onto

his prestigious show and holding up a copy of my book, " Evidence of

Harm, " to a bleary eyed, Sunday morning America. And yes, I agree

that Russert could go further and hit harder at times in his follow-

up questions and cross-examinations of leading political figures.

But in my humble opinion, I think he did a terrific job last Sunday

on " Meet the Press. " He is to be commended for bringing this serious

and urgent debate to the prominence that I, for one, believe is

merited.

Last Sunday, " Meet the Press " made history in the annals of autism,

journalism, and the American people by bringing together two

parties, face-to-face, for the first time to rationally discuss the

evidence for and against a link between mercury in vaccines and the

explosion of reported autism cases in the United States: And all on

national broadcast television (and internationally on MSNBC), no

less.

The hundreds of comments I have received on the show are very

telling in terms of assessing Tim Russert's impartiality in covering

this story. Some people felt that Russert gave Dr. Harvey Fineberg,

President of the Institution of Medicine, extra speaking time out of

reverence for his lofty position in science and public health, or

perhaps in deference to pharmaceutical advertisers on NBC. But an

equal number of people thought that Russert had let Dr. Fineberg

give his rather long-winded and circuitous answers without

interruption, in order to make it seem like he was flapping and

spinning (to borrow a term from the autism world). In other words,

the old " give `em enough rope " theory.

I don't ascribe personally to either theory, at least as far as my

own experience was concerned. That 20 minutes flies by faster than

it takes to reach the end of this sentence. Really. Russert had a

lot of questions to ask, and I understand the instinct to move

forward against the clock. I was in the same position, wanting to

question Dr. Feinberg on many of his statements, but also wanting to

move forward to make my own. Incidentally, my four points, boiled to

their essence and, I think, unassailable, were: 1) Mercury is toxic

and kids got too much of it; 2) We need to look at biology and

toxicology (in addition to population studies); 3) This process has

lacked transparency; 4) Listen to the parents. "

One more word on Russert's behalf, before the angry comments start

pouring in. This is a hugely complicated and controversial topic,

and most people in the mainstream media have been loathe to touch

it. To their immense credit, people like Don Imus, Kennedy,

Jr., Joe Scarborough, Montel , Ron Reagan and Crowley

have also brought this story to national television. It is not an

easy topic to cover, but they all recognized it as important.

I notice that the tone of the comments posted on this blog in

opposition to this theory (and please folks, look up the meaning

of " theory " before you sharpen your knives) have become angrier and

more accusatory as time goes on. Shooting the messenger is a great

American pastime, and I have no problem with it. But try to listen

to the message, too. It actually comes in the form of a question:

" Why is it so controversial to suggest that a known neurotoxin

injected directly into the systems of pregnant women, newborns and

infant children above federal safety levels MIGHT have caused a

neurological disorder in a subset of children with a genetic

predisposition against metabolizing mercury efficiently? "

And if mercury is not a contributing factor to some cases of autism,

(which could be the case, but I am starting to doubt it), then what

is? And where are the laboratory and clinical studies proving that

thimerosal is safe, anyway?

Kirby

PS: Add Doug Flutie and Stills to the list of famous

Americans who now blame thimerosal for their children's autism.

Sadly, there are many more waiting in the wings, so stay

tuned. " What do celebrities know about science? " my critics will

surely ask. Not much. But here's a question for you. Why do you

think they would risk ridicule and come out so publicly against

mercury in vaccines, if they weren't so convinced it was a source of

their precious children's misery?

PPS: Dan Olmstead of UPI is an intelligent and talented reporter who

is unafraid and refreshingly willing to go out in the field to

investigate a hunch, rather than the more sedentary methods of some

of his inside-the-beltway colleagues. He is a reporter, not a

scientist, and he never claimed to be anything else. Our job is to

ask questions, and point to possible trends. Maybe the Amish DO have

lower rates of autism. Whether the reason is genetic, environmental,

or " lifestyle " (electricity, now there's a good use of taxpayer

money as an avenue of investigation) isn't it reason enough to study

this community? Why the vitriol at such a reasonable suggestion?

Thanks for paying attention.