Friday, August 28, 2009
How David Kirby Conned Us All
If you see here how Kirby pulled off this con job, the next step is dealing with the embarassment. It's not easy to admit it when you are taken in by a con artist. You feel really stupid and it's difficult to admit to anyone that you were stupid enough to fall for the lies.
That's the wrong way to look at this though. When you are victimized by a con man and they have your money, they usually disappear and you never see them again. You can file a report with the police but that involves letting the cops know that you were dumb enough to let yourself be victimized. A lot of people will just keep quiet and learn from the experience. Con artists know this and that's how they are able to keep operating without winding up in jail.
In the case of Kirby and his associates, it's not as simple as losing a few dollars to some penny ante thief. What we're dealing with here is either the propaganda arm of Pharma....or...the government. It doesn't matter which one it is and it's not worth wasting any more time trying to find out. The stakes are too high to screw around with revenge.
It's more important to begin taking the necessary action to sway public opinion. After we do that, Kirby can be exposed for the hoax that he perpetrated on us and he won't be able to show his face anywhere. Nobody will ever believe a word he says for the rest of his life.
There are thousands of well meaning parents who have been conned by Kirby. He couldn't do this alone. He had to have help to pull this off so we have to look at who his accomplices might be. There are other people in leadership roles amongst us who helped Kirby lead people down the wrong path.
Knowing the horror that was done to our kids, does anyone doubt that Pharma would have organized skilled leaders to come charging onto the scene riding on white horses to make us believe that they were going to lead us in our quest to gain justice for our kids and stop this horror from happening to more children? Please think about this, and keep in mind that they key year is 2005. Also keep in mind that Pharma has trillions of dollars at stake here and is capable of absolutely anything to protect that money?
A key question to ask here is to find out how Lynn Redwood and the other people mentioned in Evidence of Harm came to be associated with David Kirby. Did they find him? Did he come to them? Did some intermediary arrange that relationship? I knew I was was being conned by David Kirby a long time ago. It's time for every other parent to accept this fact, cut their losses, and move forward. We can win this battle but we can't do it by allowing ourselves to be led by David Kirby. If parents will begin to discuss this fact, the other psychological warfare experts who infiltrated our ranks starting in 2005 will be exposed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I have never read Kirby's book. I had no idea that he said he did not endorse biomed.
Why then does he write for AoA?
AoA is, at least partially, also corrupt. Some of the people who write there are fine. Most of the people who comment there are fine.
Kim Stagliano is either extremely stupid or corrupt and I explained why in other things I wrote here starting in the spring of 2008.
I wrote a post called "Who's Lying to JB Handley" earlier this year that spells out some of my concern with AoA.
Kirby played on people's emotions since he gained some publicity for us with his book and we believed that he was helping us with his public appearances. If you watch the rant the I did in my previous post, that's the kind of attitude any decent spokesman for us should have (minus my brutal language).
That emotion has to show when you're in our position. You have to leave no doubt in the minds of anyone who hears you speak that you are justifiably angry. Kirby never came close to that. He always presented himself by leaving himself open to the possibility that what he said was not true. He led people to believe that this is the way an intelligent person is supposed to speak.
Martin Luther King did not speak like that, like a pansy. Neither did the Black Panthers. When they spoke, they left you with no doubt that they believed in what they said 100% and that they were going to win. Kirby instills zero confidence and he does it intentionally to make us all look like we don't know what we're talking about.
If you can ignore my language, watch my rant and watch any of Kirby's speeches. Which one of us leaves you no doubt that we will never back down and accept defeat?
Roger,
Everyone born since 1931 who had vaccines had thimerosal? That's when they started using it.
I ask everyone who tells me they're autistic if they ever had a hair test for deranged mineral transport. None have ever had the test who decided for themselves that mercury is not the cause. I think that's the logical starting point, along with a test for fragile X and Retts.
Vaccines were around since 1798 but they never caused autism until 1931. I'm only interested in stopping the devil we know for certain and figuring out the rest as we go. I'm addressing the political side of this, not claiming I can diagnose the cause of every problem that comes close the to the mercury poisoning known as autism that went out of control since the late 80's and early 90's.
All I can tell you for certain about Stagliano is that she allowed ND's to bash the hell out of me at AoA while deleting the comments I made to defend myself from their smear tactics. That told me something was very wrong with Age of Autism. That happened in the late fall of 2007 on a post about Amanda Baggs. Evidently, she didn't like me telling the truth about Baggs. Let me know if she gives you a reasonable explanation why she did that.
Foresam said...
"I ask everyone who tells me they're autistic if they ever had a hair test for deranged mineral transport. None have ever had the test who decided for themselves that mercury is not the cause. I think that's the logical starting point, along with a test for fragile X and Retts."
I can attest to the fact that John Best has in fact asked me about this before, about the hair test.
No, I never have, but its not for an unwillingness, its for not even knowing where to get that type of, let alone getting somebody to actually refer or prescribe or getting it covered so that somebody etc is another thing entirely. (I don't even know where to start and right now as I posted in another comment on another thread lately, I sorta have a 'full plate' at the moment).
I could have sworn I was tested for Fragile X some time ago along with another whole battery of tests, but it seems maybe I wasn't (no record of it could be found) and the geneticists at the University of Michigan (who were seeing me for unrelated things having to do with Ehlers Danlos and my eyes) were very interested in testing me for Fragile X and would have liked to have had me back for this (even though I don't think I even look like a person with Fragile X, but apparently this is a common test done these days on kids), but it would take another referral and $3,000 out of pocket I don't have.
I personally have a bunch of theories as to what all might cause Autism, some, yes, have to do with mercury or even bigger maybe just 'elemental poisoning' but they didn't teach chemistry in the special school I attended and it wasn't a class I needed when I was going to the University
(one of my theories includes the introduction of motorized vehicles, cars, and old-fashoined 'regular' leaded gas that has gotten into the ground, and that timelime on that wouldn't be too far off from John's, would fit with the Amish, and oil/gas companies are as poweful as anything but one part that doesn't fit is that we should have a bunch more Autistics from the Deerborn/Detroit etc Michigan area -- but anyway that's just one of my many pretty much made up theories), a larger concept of 'elemental poisoning' that includes others like lead, etc might go pretty far to explain the 'different autisms'
I also think blaming people for a 'genetic weakness' makes about as much sense as setting the safety bar on a rollercoaster so its only safe for people 6'0" and above and then blaming most of the population that's shorter than that for falling out of the rollercoaster (if THIS many people are 'genetically weak' then its not a 'genetic weakness' any more than calling everybody under 6 feet tall 'too short' is any answer -- I might not be able to express this concept real well but I know what I mean anyway)
so anyway,
I'll be the first to admit I don't have a full understanding or much clue and some of my ideas may well be pretty silly
I also don't believe that just because somebody was born with Autism means it was 'ordained by God" or has some mystical special meaning like so many do, and I can't say I understand that
I was damaged in the womb, somebody else was damaged as a toddler -- same difference.
John,
When was this? Is it cached somewhere in AoA's archives? I'd be interested in seeing it.
I'll watch the rest of your webcam after I get my kids to bed. I started watching it but got pulled away by a kid two minutes into it. I'll wait until there are no interruptions then I can tell you what I think.
Navy Wife,
If you're talking about Stagliano, it was a post from Nov or Dec 2007 about Amanda Baggs. I think one offensive comment was deleted a few weeks after the fact so I doubt anyone ever saw that. However, I was never allowed to publish my response there and nobody would have seen it anyhow with 50 other posts on top of it by the time that happened. So, the damage that was done to me was just allowed to stand in the minds of everyone who read the character assassination. Allowing it to happen had to have been intentional.
I think I get John's complaint here
(in the video)
Its that this guy "Kirby" is mamby-pambying about whether mercury can cause autism, afraid to commit and just say that at least in some cases some of the time (and enough to certainly take note) that yes, it does
Its like why bother to write a whole book outlining the obvious correlation between smoking and lung cancer and the solution that you shouldn't smoke,
or an entire book outlining how alcohol just might be involved in a whole lot of fatal carwrecks and the solution that maybe you shouldn't get loaded and then get behind the wheel
but after all that, only to add
"maybe"
and a 'disclaimer' that 'there haven't been enough studies to prove a smoking/lung cancer drinking/deadly wreck connection'
Consider John Best as a sorta of the MADD (Mothers against drunk drivers) of Autism (in my current analogy)
Just like there may well be more than one way to become Autistic (or in this analogy, more than one way to die from carwrecks):
You can't really criticize MADD and expect them to also take on smoking/lung cancer
or (even within the umbrella of carwrecks) the whole of:
balding tires, bad brakes, failing airbags, or every other cause of fatel car wrecks, of mechanical failure, driving too fast in inclement weather, people falling asleep, having seizures or heart attacks while behind the wheel, etc, etc etc, (you get the idea)
I like to use non-autism analogies sometimes because maybe some of us are a little too close to Autism to see it clearly otherwise
Another one I could use is to call John the Airforce, while some others are the navy, etc...
people are naturally going to have their main focus/issues subsets of the whole larger issue that they're going to naturally take up and tactics they'll then heavily emphasis in this that will be based on their own perspective, but it all works together, or at least it certainly can.
somebody else may focus very well for example on the crazy notion that there is suddenly a huge group of people that are 'suddenly predisposed to be extra vulnerable by immune or genetics, to environmental poisoning and damage' then blaming this and how stupid blaming that or acting like then this growing group doesn't need to be accounted for and things changed then to suit that otherwise its like my earlier example of setting the rollercoaster bar against short people maybe in a world where 'wow suddenly everybody's getting shorter'
I have a couple of particular focuses on the issue of Autism (neither of which are the examples given the above)
-- but in my mind it, all of it, still all ties together
John's getting the right idea, at least sort've it seems anyway as far as some of the sorts of methods for resistance and information sharing that are required
(I happen to be a lot more familiar with the 1960's and some of its famous participants than I am of a "kirby' or a 'cutler' or half the other high end players in all of this, but I get the point)
s it possible this Kirby was somehow forced/obligated to put disclaimers like this in his book?
The more I think about it, the more that seems very possible to me
Droopy,
That wouldn't explain him always using the word "MAYBE" when he speaks rather than stating the facts with conviction.
Sorry it took me so long to get back; I ended up falling asleep alongside my kids the other night and I got busy with other things the next day as we are moving into a new house.
"I also think blaming people for a 'genetic weakness' makes about as much sense as setting the safety bar on a rollercoaster so its only safe for people 6'0" and above and then blaming most of the population that's shorter than that for falling out of the rollercoaster (if THIS many people are 'genetically weak' then its not a 'genetic weakness' any more than calling everybody under 6 feet tall 'too short' is any answer -- I might not be able to express this concept real well but I know what I mean anyway)"
I think this is honestly the best analogy I have ever seen in the vaccines and autism argument. I have actually seen comments on some of the scienceblogs (I've read there, but never posted there) that even if vaccines cause autism that it is still the fault of the person's genes that they developed autism and not the shots themselves.
That honestly makes me kind of sick. That someone genetically predispositioned to not be able to handle vaccines doesn't deserve to be as safe as the rest of those who can in the eyes of those people. A baby that dies or has brain damage after a vaccine reaction is no less valuable of a human being than a baby that dies of whooping cough. That right there bothers me a LOT, to be honest. It is easier to justify not helping a child if you do not believe they are not worthy of it. The most militant anti-vaxers are always crying "eugenics" and people roll their eyes at them and call them extremists, but really, that attitude is EXACTLY eugenics.
I watched the rest of your videos and I get what you are saying about the "maybe".
And "maybe" David Kirby found a clever way to make money with his book that said "maybe".
Like I said, I have never actually read his book so I cannot comment on it as thoroughly as you can.
navywifeandmom said...
"Droopy said...
"I also think blaming people for a 'genetic weakness' makes about as much sense as setting the safety bar on a rollercoaster so its only safe for people 6'0" and above and then blaming most of the population that's shorter than that for falling out of the rollercoaster"
"I think this is honestly the best analogy I have ever seen in the vaccines and autism argument."
So do I.
"The most militant anti-vaxers are always crying "eugenics" and people roll their eyes at them and call them extremists, but really, that attitude is EXACTLY eugenics."
It is. But pro-vaxers would argue that sacrificing some babies and children for the benefit of the many is acceptable.
From the CDC in 1996..
"While any serious injury or death caused by vaccines is too many, it is also clear that the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the slight risk, and that many, many more injuries and deaths would occur without vaccinations."
It is a pity we are not warned that we are risking the lives of our babies before we vaccinate them, and that GPs and nurses make "mistakes".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1151805/NHS-blunders-spate-vaccine-overloads.html
~ Watson
Post a Comment