Friday, January 09, 2009

Who's Lying to J B Handley?

I read an interesting piece today at Age of Autism in which J B Handley presented his distaste for liars. I'm not allowed to comment there so I'll add some information about more deceptive liars here.

Some liars are so bold, they think they can lie about science to scientists. As we see in Dr King's message that David Kirby did not reply to, Kirby's 5th amendment right to stay silent is not conclusive proof that he is a liar. Of course, treacherous liars do not usually jump up and say, "Yup, I'm a (expletive deleted) liar". To continue to spout nonsense after he has been told the truth though, can only be interpreted as a lie by reasonable people.

Here's an email exchange I had with Kirby after he had been on the Oprah show in April of 2007 (in reverse order):

David, I'm going to guess your response would be politically correct. If you had watched a kid go from being a complete zombie to becoming human like I have with chelation, you would forget about ever using the word "maybe" when it comes to mercury in vaccines. The drug companies and doctors are emphatic in their denials. I think you can take a stronger stand. Otherwise, good job.
John Best

>From: David Kirby
>Date: 2007/04/06 Fri AM 11:24:20 CDT
>Subject: Re: Oprah: Now its David Kirby's turn

>Nice Comment
>You can imagine what my response is

Kirby's private email to me was in response to this message I had written on EOHarm:

Re: Oprah: Now its David Kirby's turn

David Kirby will only say that there might be a connection. I'd much
rather see JB Handley on the show. Comments to Oprah should include
lots of references to Generation Rescue so people learn how to help
their kids.

Here was Kirby's public reply on EOHarm:

Re: Oprah: Now its David Kirby's turn

Thanks Erik

I guess John would like to see me laughed off the stage


Do you see how Kirby was laughing at you and GR there, Mr Handley? He tried to tell us that mentioning curing autism would get him laughed off the stage. As with Dr King's constructive criticism, Kirby refused to reply to my personal email back to him, an email that detailed how one of the worst cases of autism anyone has ever seen (my son) was recovering.

Can you see how MR Kirby had sucked in all of those parents on EOHarm who saw this (expletive deleted) (derogatory term deleted) as some sort of savior? Nobody on EOHarm wanted to risk pissing this (derogatory term deleted) off while he sodomized your kid and mine by refusing to state the truth, that we were curing this God damned nighttmare.

Here's something else one would think a "reporter" like Mr Kirby would be interested in. This piece that I wrote in October showed how Harvard and Mass. General had done a sham study on Alzheimer's that could be easily correlated to autism. In fact, this study could work towards aborting normal babies by falsely "tagging" them with a genetic marker for autism because Harvard had lied in the study about how the genetic marker (the APO proteins) works. This bit of scientific scamming should have Kirby up in arms but, as with other truths he has been given, Kirby is silent.

Here's something else I wrote that should have provoked some discussion about another Pharmaceutical scam. Nope, silence everywhere.

Then, there was this piece where Kirby and Olmsted supported Kathleen Seidel's right to try to prevent us all from curing autism. I had sent the following letter to Olmsted and, you guesseed it, no reply.

Hi Dan,
I don't know if you are aware that I seem to be the only blogger defending Cliff
Shoemaker. First, I'd like to know if you and Mr Kirby did send a response to Orac, as
he stated on his Respectful Insolence blog?

I want you to understand my perspective here. Kathleen Seidel has gone way beyond the
bounds of legitimate journalism in her bashing of Mark Geier. She accused Dr Geier of
engaging in criminal acts to defraud insurance companies so that people could pay for
Lupron treatments. The way I see it is that Dr Geier found a way to circumvent bogus
insurance rules so that autistic children could benefit from his treatments. Is Seidel
entitled to her opinion here, perhaps.

What Seidel is not entitled to do however, is to present her bogus opinions about Dr
Geier chemically castrating children while never once admitting the FACT that these
children have benefitted from the Lupron treatments. I can't afford these treatments and I can't travel to Maryland with my autistic son to have him see Dr Geier.

By not mentioning the fact that Dr Geier is helping these children, Seidel is
intentionally lying about Dr Geier, damaging his reputation and making it less likely that my son will ever be able to see any doctor who could allow him to benefit from said treatments. Since he is almost 12 years old, the window of opportunity for him to receive these treatments is almost gone.

What about the other children who could benefit from using Lupron? Does Seidel's
untrue attack on Dr Geier contribute to preventing these other children from receiving Lupron? If one parent believes what Seidel says and misses an opportunity that could have helped their child, that means that Seidel has harmed that child by her untrue attacks on Dr Geier. That equates to child abuse.

Seidel is a decent writer and some people will believe her pure bullshit. I don't
think she has the right to lie about treatments that can benefit autistic children. Do you really support Seidel lying about treatments that help us cure our kids? Do you really think that writing lies that affect the well-being of children are protected under the first amendment?

Have you talked to any parents who have used Lupron and been treated by Dr Geier? I have. By every report I have gained, Seidel is nothing but a (expletive deleted) liar. You supporting her means you agree that it is OK for this (expletive deleted) to prevent my son from being cured of autism.

Thank you,
John Best
Londonderry, NH

Before I wrote that post criticizing Kirby and Olmsted, I tried one last time to talk some sense into the people you blog with at AOA. Here is that last exchange in an email with Kim Stagliano:"

To :

Subject : Re: Comment to Dan

Date : Wed, Apr 30, 2008 09:12 AM

Hi Kim,
I don't care that you deleted my comment. I just wanted Dan to see it.
I wrote to Dan twice about his support for Seidel and he hasn't had the courtesy to bother answering me.
I've been studying the propaganda from Neurodiversity since it began and I have
refuted a heck of a lot of their nonsense. Dan supporting her right to blog is tacit support of allowing her to lie to parents and give them bad information that COULD prevent them from helping their kids. She is a very good liar and this is a real concern since lots of parents do not have college degrees and the ability to see through all of her lies.
I've been in this fight a lot longer than Dan. Evidently, he thinks he knows more about it than I do. He doesn't.
I'm not questioning his heart, his intelligence or his knowledge. I am questioning his appreciation for the expertise that Seidel has in spreading her propaganda. Make no mistake, her propaganda is spreading, as evidenced by two articles about her this week in New Hampshire papers. One of them was on the front page.
The Concord Monitor published a small part of my letter refuting what she had to say today. This morning, I had a call from a state rep. who wanted to know more. I'll be meeting with her soon.
This propaganda campaign is not just a few nitwit bloggers as Lenny Schafer would have you believe. It's massive, and Seidel, Orac and the rest of the scumbags are laughing that they goaded Dan and Kirby into defending this lying scoundrel who wants to hurt your kids and mine.
Does Dan understand how much damage Amanda Baggs does to our position with her national TV appearances? Does he fully understand that every word Seidel says is carefully designed propaganda? I've compared her to Joseph Goebbels. I don't think I've overstated my position. When she can manage to have herself published in the mainstream media, she has to be opposed. Doess Dan think it's acceptable for her to lie to the public in these newspapers too?


Good morning, John. Wanted to let you know that I deleted your comment to Dan on A of A –
we made a conscious effort to keep Seidel OFF Age of Autism during that time. Dan
decided that it’s best to leave her name off the blog altogether rather than get people
thinking about her. So I deleted the comment. I had approved it at first. You may
have seen that. I don’t want you to think we’re censoring your comments. We’d just
rather leave Ms. Seidel off the blog.

Also, Dan supported her rights to blog – that’s not the same as supporting her views.
Dan is pretty much unimpeachable in terms of where his heart is.


LOL, gotta love that line by Kim, huh? Supporting a liar's right to blog is not the same as supporting her views. Sure if you're so far out in left field that you don't know there is a propaganda war going on to prevent people from curing children whose brains have been severely mangled by vaccines, maybe that idiotic line of reasoning makes sense. I haven't been dumbed down to that level. And, as usual, no reply to my concerns was forthcoming.

All of these little lies of omission add up, Mr Handley. The fact that Kirby refuses to state that we KNOW beyond the slightest doubt that thimerosal scrambled our kids' brains just does not fit. The fact that Kirby acts like some screwball by suggesting that mercury blew across the Pacific to cause autism while ignoring the fact that fetuses were having their brains scrambled in the womb by flu shots does not add up to what one should expect from a guy who pretends to be a spokesman for all of us.

I don't begrudge you your vax versus non-vax study but that's already done too, isn't it? That Chicago practice? While Kirby keeps supporting studies, he has neglected something a lot more important. The time those studies waste is time that kids with thimerosal scrambled brains should ALL be using towards regaining their normalcy.

Whether it is intentional or Kirby is just a (derogatory term deleted) who's afraid of his shadow, his perpetual call for studies and his refusal to state what we know as facts is doing exactly what Pharma would love him to do...waste our TIME.

Disingenuous rhetoric that does not state the whole truth should have a familiar ring to it. It's also what Kelli Ann Davis allows when she sits at the IACC and allows a lying, (expletive deleted), (expletive deleted) like Ari Ne'eman to present himself as Autistic when the little (expletive deleted) has Asperger's. Did she ever ask Ari Ne'eman publicly if he smeared feces, or bit himself, or bit others, or could comb his hair, read, write, avoid running into traffic or get laid?
It should bother the hell out of everyone at AOA that this corrupt college student is presenting his anti-cure bullshit as though he suffered from the same type of mangled brains that our kids suffer from. He wants Obama to think that kids like my son don't want to be cured of the behavior of smearing feces all over himself. He pulls this off by suggesting that being anti-cure doesn't mean being though my trying to stop this disgusting behavior for 10 (expletive deleted) years is going to somehow be magically fixed by this (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) shoving Kathleen Seidel's rhetoric down Obama's throat.

To not oppose this (expletive deleted) is to support him. The lies of omission within AOA are a lot more dangerous than the obviously dishonest crap from Paul Offit. Of course, I could be wrong and these people who pretend to speak on my son's behalf are just the dumbest (expletive deleted) on the planet.

You need to ask yourself about those half-truths, you know, the propaganda style lies...the ones like MAYBE thimerosal has something to do with autism. MAYBE, people like Kirby, who choose to speak for my son should learn how tell the whole truth or shut the (expletive deleted) up. MAYBE, presenting the slightest possibility that Paul Offit is telling the truth is not in our childrens' best interest.

(Expletive deleted) David Kirby.

No comments: