Talk:David Kirby (journalist)

Kirby's telephone consults
David Kirby is selling videos and telephone conversations about vaccination and thimerosal. It could be argued that there is a bit of a conflict of interest here--his sales will do significantly better if more concern is stirred up about thimerosal. I also wonder about the ethics of an individual with no formal medical training giving medical advice. (And charging for it.) I'm not quite sure how to address it. I don't want to overstate the matter, but I don't think it should be ignored. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly. Selling his phone time is not the only thing questionable about Kirby.

Kirby says (on a Yahoo! group board) that he has sold the rights to the story to someone in Hollywood. The more dramatic he can make the case for widespread mercury poisoning, the better a movie sounds. The more dramatically he can portray "good guys and bad guys" the easier it is to sell the "story" of "Evidence of Harm". If you read Michael Fitzpatrick's review of the book on the British medical Journal's website you can see some serious criticism of how the information is slanted in the book to sound more dramatic. The book also contains factual errors, one of which Mr. Kirby admits to openly and says he'll have fixed in the paperback version. Others he hasn't admitted to, at least not that I know of. It appears that "ombudsman" only wanted to tell one side of the story when he started this wiki page. I am concerned over how a large part of Kirby's career, that as a gay rights advocate was not mentioned at all in his bio. Many of the parents who are very deep into the "Evidence of Harm" theory are also very religious and anti-all-vaccines. It would appear that Mr. Kirby has chosen not to talk about his activities as a gay rights promoter because of that. Though that is only speculation, his behavior seems very odd, and in my opinion, calculated to sell books and to sell the movie rights.

Never mind the science, which is in some cases, quite twisted and distorted to support the "autism=mercury poisoning" theory. I hope that the wiki article doesn't end up promoting falsehoods so that Mr. Kirby can push his own material advantage. User: autismdiva

Choosing not to talk about parts of his resume unrelated to the subject matter of his book (evidence of harm from vaccines) is hardly "odd" ... most professionals have long resumes/vitas which they selectively target to highlight their expertise in the particular area they are covering, ignoring the rest. And trying to sell movie rights to a book is not a COI, it is an accomplishment (remember The Insider?) to leverage their investigative journalism work to a much wider audience. What source for statement: "Many of the parents are very religious and anti-vaccine"? religion is not the subject of Kirby's book. Improves (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)user: improves

Lack of NPOV
The Strange Bedfellows section is badly in need of editing, as it makes several unreferenced assertions and is clearly not NPOV. - DaveSeidel 10:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Sorry about that, I didn't understand at first that this was a long quote. Hopefully this is clearer now on the page. - DaveSeidel 00:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's still a rather NPOV page. I see almost no criticism of Kirby, save for the following phrase: "Kirby was apparently portrayed as biased and as siding with delusional conspiracy theorists", which is written to be a sideways compliment; if it was a PORTRAYL, it was probably false, and it was merely an APPARENT portrayl, well... obviously he CAN'T be biased or side with delusional conspiracy theories! And a paragraph that seems only to serve as a vehicle to provide a quote to attack the "left-wing" is so very POV ... I just can't see any relevance in that quote to the issue at hand whatsoever. If someone else has better ideas than I about how to make it NPOV, please do. I expect that if I wander back in a few days and nobody's done anything, I may just start hatcheting away some of the slant I see... Thsgrn 06:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Won an award-- Should this should be mentioned?
http://www.ire.org/history/pr/2005IREawards.html IRE, (founded in 1975 by investigative reporters and editors, is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to training and supporting journalists who pursue investigative stories and operates the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting, a joint program of IRE and the Missouri School of Journalism. The IRE awards, called certificates, are divided into 15 categories based on market or circulation size, most for print, broadcast and online media. David Kirby won the 2005 book award for Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic — A Medical Controversy. "Autism, rare in the past, is exploding in the United States, and Kirby investigates whether one of the causes is thimerisol, a vaccine preservative that contains mercury, a neurotoxin. Through careful and meticulous reporting, Kirby tells the story of stonewalling, denial and cover-up by federal regulators, medical groups and the pharmaceutical industry."

Not mentioning this recognition gives the false impression that all reviews were/are as negative as the one included, which they are not. (There are other positive reviews, but IRE is an objective source) IRE Awards judges comments are positive and informative would balance out the only review referenced, a negative one. Here are full judges' comments from IRE's press release: "Autism, rare in the past, is exploding in the United States, where it is now found in one in 166 children. Attention-deficit disorder also has skyrocketed. And 1 in 6 children today has a learning disability. David Kirby investigated whether one of the causes of these childhood afflictions is thimerisol, a vaccine preservative that contains mercury, a well-documented neurotoxin. In the 1990s, the mercury-containing additive was injected into children far in excess of federal safety levels. Kirby told the story of stonewalling, denial and cover-up by federal regulators, medical groups and the pharmaceutical industry. And he documents covert efforts by some of those same powerful forces — along with the U.S. Congress — to grant blanket immunity for drug companies that put mercury in vaccines. Like so many scientific controversies involving complex science and big business, the topic is controversial. Kirby's careful and meticulous reporting is exemplary in its balance, accuracy and documentation." Improves (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)improves

I'm also a bit puzzled that you settled for one negative review--I saw a number of positive reviews when the book first came out.MinorityView (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ideally, we'd provide a cross-section of prominent reviews to describe the book's immediate reception, as well as some perspective on how well the claims in the book have weathered the test of time. If you have more sources for reviews, that would be ideal. MastCell Talk 19:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Death
David Kirby died on the 16th of April but the only source so far mentioning his death is an anti-vaccine website so until reliable sources are found we cannot add his date of death to the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)