Callous Disregard price countdown...

Andrew Wakefield's hardbacked spider swatter, Callous Disregard is now available new at Amazon.com for the tidy sum of $4.97. That's £3.20 in sterling - less than the price of a pint in most Central London pubs.

Oh the fucking irony.

From Barry, a typically mindless Age of Autism commenter:

How is that people with no scientific training whatsoever, keep setting the record straight for people who supposedly do?

Try asking Dan Olmsted, Mark Blaxill, Anne Bloody Dachel or John "Cock" Stone, you fucking irony-free dickhead. That's the kind of problem that's got us in this mess in the first place.

Dan Olmsted & crank magnetism

Dan Olmsted at Age Of Arseholery has posted a remarkably stupid "From the editor" piece;

A D.C. developer dies at 59; obit notes he had a cell phone built into his ski helmet. I've had two friends die of the same brain cancer. I'm not so sure these things are so safe, are you?

Firstly, Dan, there's no evidence that mobile phone useage causes brain cancer.

Secondly, anecdote is not data.

Thirdly, if this is a newsworthy story, how about a link to a serious news outlet's coverage of it?

Fourthly, how long does someone wear a ski helmet for? Hardly all day, every day is it?

Still, it's a prime example of crank magnetism - belief in one whacko theory leads onto a belief in all kinds of other crap.

You're either a despicable scaremonger, an utter moron, or both, Olmsted. I know where my money's going.

Age Of Autism in attempt to mislead

Age of Autism today has a story about an antivaxer - "Dr Lisa Morris" - and her experiences being interviewed by NBC for a piece about "Skipping Vaccines". She makes out she's been misquoted, led to believe that the piece would be more sympathetic to her lunatic point of view - all the usual stuff. Like I give even a quarter of a shit. Still, she talks about where she gets her information on vaccination, and makes it sound all very sciencey - and that name, who could fail to be impressed by "DOCTOR Lisa Morris"?

Lisa Morris is a chiropractor. What the fuck does she know about science or medicine, given that she believes in subluxions - a cause of illness only slightly more plausible than the fucking verucca goblin or the ringworm fairy.

Oh, the irony

Click to buy the Age Of Autism t-shirt

I was going to title this post "Jake Crosby is an arsehole", but at the last moment was distracted by a comment of JB Handley's at Age of Autism. (Where else?)

Firstly, Jake "Arsehole" Crosby is bleating that he's been thrown out of a conference for asking what he sees as awkward questions of Seth Mnookin, author of "The Panic Virus". I suspect he was just being an arsehole - but I'd like to see the video footage. However, this is published at Age Of Autism, the online chip-wrapper which praises conferences like Autism One. That's right - Autism One, the organisers of which got seven armed policemen/security guards to throw two anti-anti-vax bloggers out. So, it's OK to do that, but not OK to ask Jake Crosby to leave because he's being deliberately disruptive? (Having read Jake's account of the incident, that's the only conclusion I can come to - that he was deliberately being an arsehole in order to provoke, and, ideally, get thrown out in order to write about it at AoA.)

So, that's why I was going to title this post "Jake Crosby is an arsehole". However, as I said, JB Handley popped up with this gem, which pretty much defines the word "irony".

My heart hurts for parents and families who have had their lives destroyed by idiots masquerading as experts.

Well, quite. Would you like me to list them JB? Actually, just go to Age Of Autism, and hover your mouse over the "Contributors" link in the menu bar. Evil fuckers.

Kent Bastard Heckenlively Is A Liar

Well no fucking shock there, eh? Kent Heckenlively is a berk(shire hunt) who blogs at Age Of Autism, and shows a quite remarkable propensity for being fucking stupid, and cruel to his autistic daughter (although I'm sure he thinks of it as "searching for a cure").

Anyway, he's got a thing about XMRV, the mouse retrovirus that was (most likely) mistakenly found in patients suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, by a doctor who it seems has been faking results, refusing to give out raw data for checking, and has now been sacked. Sound familiar?

Anyway, Kent's posted a piece entitled "Study Finds XMRV Retrovirus Can Infect Brain Cells", in which he cites a ropey as fuck study; "Susceptibility of Human Primary Neuronal Cells to Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-related (XMRV) Virus Infection" which he claims has been published in that very reputable journal, "The Journal of Virology". Woo, scary - maybe there's something in this then?

Except it hasn't, it's been published in "Virology Journal", a completely different publication which is most famous for publishing a paper regarding Christ's healing of influenza in the Bible.

That's not to say it's wrong, buut it's a deliberate attempt to mislead. Or, in other words…

You lying fuck Heckenlively.

CoMeD press release officially "a load of bollocks"

I'd not come across CoMeD (The Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs) before. It's an anti-vaccine site which seems to be run by those chemical castrators, the Geiers. I was drawn to its existance by The Bolen Report, a site run by Tim Bolen, self-styled consumer advocate and all round supporter of rabid conspiracy theories. He ought to use the phrase "Nothing Too Mental!" as a strapline. (Go on Tim - you can have that for free.)

It seems that the United Nations has released a document entitled "New draft text for a comprehensive and suitable approach to a global legally binding instrument on mercury".

Here are its stated objectives:

Option 1: The objective of this Convention is to protect human health and the environment from
anthropogenic releases of mercury and its compounds [by minimizing, and where feasible ultimately
eliminating, global anthropogenic mercury releases to air, water and land].
Option 2: The objective of this Convention is to minimize, and ultimately to prevent any potential
adverse effects on human health and the environment from, exposure to the release of mercury and its
compounds by facilitating information dissemination and exchange and the employment of risk
reduction strategies [including the environmentally sound management of mercury throughout its life
cycle], through financial and technical cooperation, taking into account the relevant principles of the
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, including principles 6, 7, 15 and 16

All pretty sensible - after all, no-one can argue that the release of mercury into the atmosphere is a good thing, right?

The Geiers' press release has it a little differently;

SILVER SPRING, Md., August 1, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – CoMeD – On Friday, July
22, 2011, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) distributed a revised text for its
comprehensive global treaty on mercury. Advocates for mercury-free drugs were gratified to see
pharmaceuticals listed in “Annex C (Mercury-added product not allowed)” of the proposed treaty.
The Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs (CoMeD) helped initiate this addition through its advocacy
efforts at the United Nations (UN) negotiations held in Chiba, Japan in January 2011. CoMeD
President Rev. Lisa Sykes, the mother of a son diagnosed with vaccine-related mercury poisoning,
described to representatives of over 150 participating nations how: “… unnecessarily injecting
mercury into pregnant women and children, as part of a vaccine or other drug, is an ongoing and
often unrecognized crisis.

It then goes into a long anti-vax rant.

The document I linked to above is, handily, in pdf format, which makes it searchable. Not once does it mention any of the following words: "Geier", "CoMeD", "Vaccine", "inject", "injection", "drug", "drugs", "autism", or any word containing the letters "thim".

So it's got fuck all to do with vaccines, fuck all to do with drugs, fuck all to do with CoMeD, fuck all to do with evil bastards like the Geiers and fuck all to do with "vaccine damage".

Wankers.

John Stone, conspiracy theorist

John "Cock" Stone has posted another splendid comment on Age of Autism. In response to this;

Personally, I no longer believe this is about the personal integrity of Brian Deer .. nor .. the veracity of all Deer has written or alleged…

Stone replies:

It was always about the British establishment (and whoever lay behind them) being prepared to allow his extravagant and what should have been highly embarrassing performance to continue unimpeded.

The British Establishment and whoever lay behind them?

Come on then John, who's behind the British Establishment? The Bilderberg Group? The New World Order? The Illuminati? David Icke's Lizard People?

He runs further away from the sane/mental divide every time he puts finger to keyboard.

AoA Comment of the Day

From Benedetta - one of Age of Autism's regular commenters:

I am very glad that Fox News is honest and not part of Murdoch's empire. They have given both sides of the vaccine issue. They have even at times been highly critical of the judgment of the courts involving word games--- of don't cause autism but autism like symptoms.

It is a good thing because watching the news or semi- news shows that I can stand are becoming rather rare. I don't watch CNN because of Anderson Cooper, and I don't watch the morning show that has Matt Laur smug smile either.

So that leaves about only Fox News.

Ha, ha, and ha again. From Wikipedia:

Fox Broadcasting Company, commonly referred to as simply Fox (and stylized as FOX), is an American commercial broadcasting television network owned by Fox Entertainment Group, part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

You get a better class of moron at AoA, I have to say.

Age of Autism tries to smear Brian Deer. Again.

The head-the-balls over at Age of Autism have been trying to smear Brian Deer for years now, because he's the journalist who's been responsible for bringing to light Andrew Wakefield's lies and deceit in well researched articels for the BMJ and The Sunday Times. The trouble is (for AoA) that they've never been able to demonstrate that anything Mr Deer has written has been false. They've tried to misrepresent what he's written, accusing him of accusing Wakefield of falsifying medical records - which he didn't, he showed that he'd misrepresented the records he'd seen, and in some cases simply made up information which went into his study in order to back up his potentially lucrative theory.

They've now taken a new tack - trying to imply that Mr Deer is involved in some kind of shady journalistic practices, simply because the paper that published his work (not his employer - Mr Deer is a freelance writer and reporter) is owned by the same company which owned the News Of The World, the newspaper recently closed down by News International in the wake of phone hacking allegations / revelations. To this end, they[AoA]'ve put up two blog posts, entitled:

"An Elaborate Fraud, Part 1: In Which a Murdoch Reporter Deceives the Mother of a Severely Autistic Child" and

"An Elaborate Fraud, Part 2: In Which a Murdoch Newspaper’s Deceptive Tactics Infect the British Medical Journal"

and one entitled:

When Does a "Conspiracy Theory" Become a "Conspiracy Fact"?

Let's look at the "Elaborate Fraud" story. Here's part 1.

The piece is written by Dan Olmsted - I'm a little surprised that he's writing this, as he's generally a supporter of the Mercury-Autism link, rather than MMR, but hey, as Orac says, it's always the vaccines - and starts with a short explanation of the BMJ's accusation that Wakefield had committed an elaborate fraud with his initial study on the MMR vaccine.

It explains some of Mr Deer's methods, including:

Deer identified and interviewed parents of some of the children in the anonymous Lancet case series, describing what he said were significant disparities. "I traveled to the family home, 80 miles northeast of London, to hear about child 2 from his mother," Deer wrote of one interview. The child had severe autism and gut problems that she blamed on the MMR.

All well and good so far. But wait, there's apparently a problem.

What Deer did not say in the BMJ article is that he had lied to the mother about his identity, claiming to be someone named "Brian Lawrence" (his middle name). Deer had written a number of critical articles about parents' claims of vaccine injury, and if he gave his real name, he doubtless feared, Child 2's mother would not agree to talk to him. Once she checked his blog, she would be more likely to kick him out of the family home than sit still for what turned into a six-hour inquisition.

OK, so the name "Brian Deer" is very well known among the anti-vax community - Olmsted's quite right. The mother of Child 2 probably wouldn't have agreed to the interview had he given his real name, so he gave a modified version of his real name. If Child 2's mother didn't realise she was talking to Brian Deer, she'd be more likely to talk to him and more likely to set the facts as she saw them out accurately and without bias.

However, yes, Brian Deer, an award winning investigative journalist, researching a story that needed to be as objective as possible, to get the raw facts as accurately as possible, and which might well expose a huge fraud which had put at risk the health of the nation's (and indeed the world's) children, gave a slightly altered version of his name and used a Yahoo email account when talking, openly, for six hours, in the comfort of her own home, to one of the key witnesses in the story. Yes, six hours. Olmsted now describes this as an "inquisition". Yes, it's a deceit, but one that needed to happen in order to get the accurate raw facts of the story.

Now, because this story was destined for the Sunday Times, Olmsted brings up the point about phone hacking, implying somehow that Deer's use of a "fake" name is somehow equivalent.

The Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, part of the News International division that has come under a Watergate-size cloud in England for its newsgathering tactics – fraudulently obtaining confidential information, bribing police, hacking 9,000 phone numbers, gaining access to bank accounts, and using large financial settlements to keep some victims quiet.

How is this, in any way, related to Deer's investigation into the dangerous actions of Andrew Wakefield?

Let's see - Deer didn't fraudulently obtain confidential information (he interviewed someone under what's actually his real name - just not the one he's usually known by), he didn't bribe police, he didn't hack into a phone, he didn't get access to anyone's bank details, and didn't pay anyone off.

Olmsted then tries to claim that, when the information that came from this interview was used in the BMJ feature some years later, it breached trhe BMJ's ethics rules, which read;

"Any article that contains personal medical information about an identifiable living individual requires the patient's explicit consent before we can publish it," according to the policy (italics in original).

Yes. This is why the patient is referred to as "Child 2". I certainly can't identify anyone from that description.

Part two of the feature though has an even more non-world-shaking relelation. Let's see what Olmsted has to say:

As she sat down to write the Sunday Times of London on Saturday, November 29, 2003, Rosemary Kessick was beside herself. The day before, a reporter for the paper named Brian Lawrence had come to her home to interview her – and kept at it, relentlessly, for six straight hours. It was more like an inquisition than an interview.

First of all, I'd like to bring up a point here - although Brian Deer didn't identify any of the children involved in Wakefield's fraudulent study, Olmsted just has. By using the name of the child's mother. Olmsted embellishes the story with emotive words like "inquisition" and "relentless". If it had been that unpleasant, why didn't Ms Kessick ask the reporter, whatever he called himself, to leave, at some point in the six hours? Was it because she wanted to tell her story?

Now, I don't know Brian Deer. I've never met him. I have no opinion on whether he's a nice person or not. I'm certain he can be dogged and determined when it comes to getting information, and making sure that information is accurate. I can imagine that he can be a tough interviewer. That doesn't make him guilty of any breach of journalistic ethics.

Olmsted then publishes an email conference between Ms Kessick, Brian "Lawrence" Deer, and various executives at the Sunday Times. It begins with an email from Ms Kessick complaining to the editor of the Sunday Times about the interview style, claiming that Mr Deer

…displayed arrogance in his own perceived ability and knowledge which when probed, consistently revealed a dangerous bigotry and clear ignorance of the many legal and scientific facts salient to the MMR cases.

…and that he was rude and arrogant. Fair enough.

There's also an email from Mr Deer to Ms Kessick, apologising if he came over at all rude.

A few other emails are reproduced, all of which basically say the same thing - "Brian Deer's not a very nice man and I felt he was rude and overbearing when he came to interview me." (I paraphrase, clearly).

OK - maybe that's so, but since when has "being a nice person" been a prerequisite for being an ethical journalist?

To round off his smear attempt, Olmsted admits that Ms Kessick wasn't even quoted in the original Sunday Times story, the interview was mentioned in a followup article when Mr Deer said he had cooperation from the parents (well - talking to a journalist for six hours sounds like cooperation to me), and quotes were only used in the BMJ article in 2011.

Now, if anyone can find anything in there which compares to the News Of The World hacking into the voicemail of a missing (and as it turned out, murdered) schoolgirl to listen to and delete messages please tell me what it is. If there's any evidence of illegal activity - please point it out to me. Otherwise Olmsted, shut the fuck up.



Edit: 26 July.
Sullivan has also covered this at LeftBrainRightBrain - here - and Brian Deer has left a long comment, putting Olmsted right on a few points.

John Stone - Vaccines spread AIDS

Anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone


Oh look - famed vaccine wingnut John Stone has finally admitted his paid up membership of the Fucking Loony Party.

This link is possibly the nuttiest thing he's posted - and that's saying something.

Of course, we ought not forget where the Aids epidemic started.

John Stone (who, in case you'd forgotten, is a cock) has linked to a mental "Vaccines Caused AIDS" video on YouTube entitled "Dr. Maurice Hilleman, explains why Merck's vaccines have spread AIDS & other plagues worldwide". It's here. It's also fucking nuts.

In a supposed interview with Dr Maurice Hilleman, it bangs on about the SV40 "monkey virus" - which has never been demonstrated to have any ill effects in humans - in polio vaccine, and then goes on to suppose that AIDS has been spread by vaccines - despite "Hilleman" never suggesting anything of the sort.

Watch the video - then marvel that John "Cock" Stone thinks that this represents evidence that AIDS was spread by vaccines. The man's a fucking loon.

John Stone - Vaccines spread AIDS

Anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone


Oh look - famed vaccine wingnut John Stone has finally admitted his paid up membership of the Fucking Loony Party.

This link is possibly the nuttiest thing he's posted - and that's saying something.

Of course, we ought not forget where the Aids epidemic started.

John Stone (who, in case you'd forgotten, is a cock) has linked to a mental "Vaccines Caused AIDS" video on YouTube entitled "Dr. Maurice Hilleman, explains why Merck's vaccines have spread AIDS & other plagues worldwide". It's here. It's also fucking nuts.

In a supposed interview with Dr Maurice Hilleman, it bangs on about the SV40 "monkey virus" - which has never been demonstrated to have any ill effects in humans - in polio vaccine, and then goes on to suppose that AIDS has been spread by vaccines - despite "Hilleman" never suggesting anything of the sort.

Watch the video - then marvel that John "Cock" Stone thinks that this represents evidence that AIDS was spread by vaccines. The man's a fucking loon.

Age Of Autism cheers the downfall of News International. How Ironic.

Age of Autism is cheering that News International (which owns the Sunday Times, which first reported Brian Deer's features on Andrew Wakefield's fraud) is in big trouble. How ironic then, that NI owns The Sun, which happily reported anecdote as fact in order to create fear and doubt, and to sell more chip-wrappers.
(www.ageofautism.com/2011/07/crisis-of-ethics-at-news-international-as-james-murdoch-closes-down-the-news-of-the-world.html)

"growing concern of possible links between MMR and autism and bowel disorders have seen a massive drop in the number of parents opting for the treatment. The connection was made by Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998. No scientists confirmed his findings but many parents say their children changed dramatically after the injection".
(The Sun, 5th Feb, 2002)

And who's doing the trumpeting? Yes, that arsehole John "Cock" Stone. What a fucking shock there, that Stone doesn't know his arse from Rotherham - and couldn't find either with both hands and a map.

A call for violence from AoA?

Kent Heckenlively has posted a rather disturbing piece on Age of Autism, in which he calls on God to smite the vaccine-autism unbelievers (ie, rational people), quoting the Bible (psalm 94) and Stephen King (the Stand) to make his point.

It's not unreasonable to see this as a call to extreme God-Botherers to rise up, and, just in case God's a bit too busy to do all that smiting, give him a helping hand and get some smiting of their own done. After all, God's work needs doing, right?

Am I being a bit extreme? I don't think so - look at the actions of the more extreme pro-life (or, as they should properly be called, anti-women's rights) activists. Murder and arson have been in their arsenal for some time. Why should religious anti-vax loons be any different?

(As ever, Orac has a more eloquent discussion of this…)

Following Vaccinations

Joan Campbell - a regular on the JABS forum has recently launched a new website followingvaccinations.com.

For the last few months, she's been collecting short anecdotes from parents worldwide about (ostensibly) how their children were damaged by vaccines.

Now - it's going to be very difficult for me - and other bloggers, no doubt - to pull this to shreds without being accused of being heartless bastards. If that's how any of this post comes across, it isn't meant to; as I've always said, I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for parents of autistic, and other ill children. The people I feel loathing for are those who are prepared to use those parents in order to further their own twisted, anti-vaccine agenda.

Mrs Campbell is a parent herself - her story is listed, among 900 others - but she's clearly had her head turned by the anti-vax zealots; the Wakefields, the Stones etc of this world, and her new site is deliberately playing right into their hands. For instance, Dan Olmsted has described it on Age of Autism as;

…one of the most important documents ever created about children's health

and

in this case, the plural of anecdote is the truth.

No Dan, it isn't.

While many of them are heart-wrenching stories - which was clearly the intention - there are a lot which don't mention vaccines at all, or do so only tangentially;

…but my son, looking back, showed signs from birth

I believe from the day he was born there was something wrong. He wouldn't breast feed, he wouldn't eat and now that he is 6 yrs old he does not chew at all.

Unable to pinpoint @ an infant which vaccine, but after diagnosed at age 12 with NLD versus Asperger's

the dates sound mysteriously made-up;

My son started having seizures after his one month MMR

or they're just repeating standard anti-vax rhetoric;

I don't think a specific vaccination causes autism. I think it's all the crap in vaccinations, like all the heavy metals that are loaded into it as they are very toxic.

As we're all aware - vaccines can produce adverse effects - no-one's denying this, so some of the stories are to be expected;

My son was always rushed to the e.r after his shots he was lethargic, it was scary.

There are a lot more stories that don't add up - or really have no place in Mrs Campbell's list - but there are an an awful lot more stories of ill children. It's telling that so few of them have mentioned that any kind of expert opinion has agreed with their decision that their children's conditions were in any way vaccine related.

While these are heartbreaking stories, they are not evidence that vaccines cause autism, or any of the other wide range of ailments that the anti-vax zealots like to claim they do.

In case Mr Olmsted is reading this, as you well know, the plural of anecdote, even heartbreaking ones like these, is not truth.

Note: Having just read this through, I just know I'm going to attract hate mail for this post, so I'll say it again - I have nothing but respect and sympathy for parents of ill children. I loathe the anti-vax brigade who've given you spurious information and a "reason" for their conditions, in many cases in order to line their own pockets.

Neither am I accusing parents of lying - although I suspect many of them may be mistaken about aspects of their children's experiences, and have, in their own minds, and with no intent to deliberately deceive, made those mistakes to fit the anti-vaccine story.

AnneDachel.com

I've just come across

AnneDachel.com

. Woo - it's full of some seriously advanced and dangerous anti-vax wingnuttery…

For those of you who don't know, Anne Dachel is the "Media Editor" at Age of Autism, and is, frankly, so full of shit you could burst her with a pin and fertilise several acres of prime farmland.

I'll be pulling some choice crap apart in the next few days. Stay tuned…

John Stone's most feeble COI so far…

Anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone

John "Cock" Stone's favoured tactic to rehabilitate Andrew Wakefield in the eyes of his adoring public, and to reignite the long dead MMR - Autism "link" that he pulled out of his arse, is to find "undeclared conflicts of interest" involving anyone even remotely involved with any medium which, quite rightly, portrays Wakefield as a fraud, charlatan, liar, incompetent scientist, danger to the public and buffoon.

In March of this year, the BBC broadcast an excellent documentary series entitled "Science Betrayed", episode 2 of which dealt with well known fraud, charlatan, liar, incompetent scientist, danger to the public and buffoon, Andrew Wakefield.

John Stone has finally, three months down the line, managed to concoct an undeclared conflict of interest for one of the co-producers of the show. It goes like this:

Alexandra Feachem (the co-producer of the programme, along with many other excellent science programmes for BBC Radio) is the daughter of…

Sir Richard Feacham, who, as well as being Professor of Global Health at both the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley, a Visiting Professor at the University of London and an Honorary Professor at the University of Queensland (Wikipedia) is the founder and director of an organisation called…

The Global Health Group, an organisation which, according to its website, has three main focus areas:

• The Evidence-to-Policy Initiative (E2Pi)
• The Malaria Elimination Initiative
• The Health Systems Initiative

Of these, the Evidence-to-Policy Initiative is supported by three-year funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Evidence-To-Policy initiative doesn't have anything to do with vaccines, but…

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gives a large amount of money to support vaccination programmes worldwide, and, in addition…

Bill Gates once said something true about Andrew Wakefield.

"Well, Dr. Wakefield has been shown to use absolutely fraudulent data. He had a financial interest in some lawsuits. He created a fake paper. The journal allowed it to run."

So, the co-producer's father has (as one of his jobs) a post working for a non-vaccine related organisation which is, in part, funded by someone who once said something you didn't like (but was true) about Andrew Wakefield. And you think that's a conflict of interest that should be declared?

Fucking grow up, you cock.

Australian TV - excellent stuff

Thanks to Orac's "Respectful insolence" blog, I've watched this excellent piece on Australian anti-vaccine stupidity and evil.



Viera Scheibner (who's frequently quoted as an authority by anti-vax wingnuts, and especially that arsehole John Scudamore at Whale.to) features pretty heavily, and manages to demonstrate pretty effectively how vile and deluded she is.

Please watch this - and point any parents you know who sit on the fence towards it.

Another flop from the anti-vax crowd

Not only is Wakefield's book being heavily discounted, but it seems that anti-vax wingnuts Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill are less popular still. Their dismal load of old bollocks (technical term - keep up) entitled "The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-Made Epidemic", which has a recommended retail price of $27.99 (a shade over seventeen quid) is now available, new, hardback, through Amazon.com at just $6.71 - £4.08 (price conversions by xe.com)

Alternatively, if you're in the UK and need a nice colourful fly-swat, why not get it from Amazon.co.uk (unlike Wakefield's tome of toss it's legitimately available in the UK) - just £4.24.

Callous Disregard price countdown…

I'm sure you'll all be pleased to know that Andrew Wakefield's collection of papier maché in waiting, "Callous Disregard" is now available (new) on Amazon.com for $7.98. That's £4.86 at today's rates (from xe.com).

JB Handley and John Stone in foot shooting incidents

Both John Stone and JB Handley have recently posted feeble defences of the Elizabeth Birt Center's recent "study" claiming to link vaccine injury to autism.

Stone's post (here) tries to argue that Dr. Paul Offit's statement that children who may have autistic symptoms do not necessarily have a diagnosis of autism is wrong, and surely if a child has an autistic symptom, he or she is autistic, and has hence been compensated for autism.

Handley tries arguing the same thing, in an evidence free, personal attack on Dr. David "Orac" Gorski - here.

Handley says:

Let me repeat myself, Dr. Gorski, the kids ALL HAVE AUTISM.

Err, no JB, they don't, they don't have a diagnosis of autism - and this is an important point.

Let's imagine that Handley and Stone are correct, and that an autism-like symptom constitutes autism, and warrants a diagnosis of autism. Well, then yes, the vaccine injuries compensated for show a much higher prevalence of autism than in the prevalence in the wider community - which anti-vax groups variously put at somewhere between 1 in 50, and 1 in 100. Sounds bad, eh?

But wait - We then need to apply those new "Handley/Stone Criteria" across the whole of the population. Anyone with any autistic trait now has a diagnosis of autism, thus pushing the rate up - hypothetically to as much as 1 in 25 or 1 in 33 - more than likely, around the same prevalence as that found by this "study".

What's this though - 1 in 25? AUTISM EXPLOSION! One might go as far as to say "AUTISM EPIDEMIC!!" I can see the hysterical headlines now, from the likes of AoA:

In 2005, autism rates were 1 in 67 - today they're 1 in 25! What's happening to our kids? It can only be the vaccines!!

Yes - Handley and Stone have shot themselves in the foot by finally managed to demonstrate that increases in rates of autism are down to, yes, changes in diagnostic criteria - and are both arguing for more changes in order to increase the apparent autism rate.

John "Cock" Stone again tries to spin the facts...

Anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone


…in the manner of a clown with some cheap plates from QD Stores, but, as ever, ends up with them crashing around his feet in the manner of an incompetent buffoon. How apt.

He's moaning about Brian Deer again, and how his word has been taken as "the truth", whereas, as he sees it, Mr Deer has conducted a;

seven year campaign against Andrew Wakefield

Yes, Stone, that's called "investigative journalism". Unlike you, who simply writes down any conspiracy theory you can come up while you eat your rusks (or whatever other soft foods you're still allowed) at breakfast.

With no sense of irony, Stone accuses Deer of an

ignorance of basic medical protocol

Which is a bit rich coming from a man who still thinks it's OK to take blood from kids at a jelly and ice-cream party in the name of research.

Anyway, the spark that's ignited his ire this time is a programme on Radio 4 entitled "Science Betrayed", which examines Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent and fucking evil scaremongering. (My synopsis - the official version is: "Dr Adam Rutherford investigates the case of medical misconduct that led to the MMR scare." - much the same thing.)

Stone goes on to accuse the BBC of leaving out all his imagined conflicts of interest, castigating the presenter for not being a medical doctor (maybe not but he's an editor at Nature, has a degree in evolutionary biology and a PhD concentrating on the genetics of the eye. For balance, Mr Stone is an self-proclaimed expert on Mozart), complaining that Mr deer wasn't challenged about any of the points raised (why should he be? - Wakefield has been found fucking guilty, and admitted most of the charges), and then starts bleating on about red baby books - which (apparently) Mr Deer (nor Stone) has seen, and so might exonerate Wakefield.

Before I rip Stone a second arsehole by pointing out all the scientific and legal facts presented in the programme, not one of which he addresses, can I suggest this; If the data in the baby books might show that Wakefield didn't make up the timelines for autism in the kids in his study, and the parents of the kids concerned are so grateful to their beloved Saint Andy, then why the fuck don't they just give him the books, he can show he was right all along, and can sue Brian Deer's arse off for libel and defamation of character? Just a thought.

Anyway, that's just an aside. Let's have a listen to the programme, and pull out some choice lines that for some reason Stone doesn't try to refute:

found guilty of… four counts of dishonesty

Does Stone refute that? No.

… about a dozen counts of causing vulnerable young children to undergo invasive, risky procedures that were not warrented…

Hmmm. No refution of that.

then he was found guilty of buying blood from children at a birthday party

Nnnnope. Still no denial.

…ordering tests when he didn't have the proper medical qualifications

Nope. Still nothing from Stone.

All pretty damning stuff. The recording's only a minute in!!! Four serious medical misconduct charges in a minute, yet Stone conveniently ignores them. Still, let's go on.

A couple of minutes in, Wakefield expresses surprise at the findings, as, apparently do his legal team. I notice they've not overturned any of the findings yet. Still… maybe we'll find out why.

Anyway - now, onto Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ, and one of Stone's personal demons at the moment. After all, he's accused her of every kind of conflict of interest under the sun, without once refuting any of the actual points raised by the BMJ. She rightly points out that the GMC panel wasn't set up to, and didn't have a remit to investigate fraudulent behaviour - merely medical misconduct. (As if that wasn't enough to have Wakefield metaphorically strung up).

Dr Rutherford then goes through the history of the Lancet paper, with a description of the findings, and mentioning Wakefield's infamous press conference, and the disclaimer ("no association proved") in the paper. It's pointed out that Wakefield still clings to this disclaimer as an "I didn't do it guv" get out clause - despite his advice to avoid the MMR jab at the press conference.

Let's go back to Stone's piece for a moment - has a denied the truth of any of this so far? No.

OK - about 7 minutes in comes the revelation about the legal aid money, Wakefield being a "hired gun" to find a link, the letter from Wakefield and Barr stating the link between MMR and disintegrative disorder, which was written two weeks before any children were selected for the study.

No - still no refutation from Stone.

Wakefield then flannels around about his massive conflicts of interest (which Stone ignores) while he's confronted with statements he and Richard Barr have made which clearly indicate that he was actively seeking a link between MMR and autism.

Given conflicts of interest are Stone's forté - you'd expect him to pick up on this. But he constantly ignores it, in favour of vague "GlaxoSmithCline advertise in the BMJ and so the BMJ can't be trusted" statements.

Anyway - enough of financial irregularities - what's next for Stone to ignore? Oh yes. Making results up.

"The pathologists original reports indicated no serious gut inflammation in any of the twelve children, contrary to the central point of the Lancet paper."

Surely Stone can claim that this isn't true? Oh. No, he can't. Presumably because it is.

Autistic symptoms didn't match up to MMR timings - Wakefield claims that he didn't see GP records, only the Red Books. In the paper, Wakefield states that he'd checked developmental records from parents, health visitors and GPs.

Now, Stone starts to bluster;

While referrals are generally made with accompanying communications between GP and consultant it is not normal practice for GPs to forward all the patient’s notes.

Do you not see, Stone? Wakefield, in the paper says he checked developmental records from GPs. Whether passing on full notes is normal practice or not, he specifically stated that he'd checked developmental records from GPs. Do I need to say that again? He specifically stated that he'd checked developmental records from GPs.

Brian Deer then makes some interesting points about red books. These are a record of a child's general health, and a record of vaccinations, height and weight, any hospital visits etc. My daughter's got one. Health visitors and doctors do not, as Mr Deer points out, write in diagnoses of behavioural problems as a matter of routine. Reliance on red books for a study of this importance is so incompetent as to be laughable - yet this is what Wakefield is now claiming.

Stone writes;

The developmental records, Personal Child Health Record or Red Books, are routinely brought by the parents of young children to medical appointments of every kind and contain much essential information.

Yes, you cock, but that's a bit disingenuous, isn't it? They are routinely taken to any kind of doctor's appointment, but doctors don't routinely write detailed diagnoses in them.

Now the programme goes on to describe how UCL offered to fund a massive project to replicate the work done in the study - but Wakefield wasn't prepared to take part in that study. This claim is made by Professor Mark Pepys, who Stone claims has conflicts of interest, being part funded by GSK. Ok Stone, if that's the case, and Professor Pepys never made that offer to Dr Wakefield, why doesn't he fucking sue? It's a pretty damning claim, isn't it? Or could it be that Professor Pepys, as a reputable scientist, has paperwork showing it to be true? I know where my money is - and it's not on the three legged donkey lining up in the 3.15 at Newton Abbot that you seem to be wagering everything on.

Stone, like the donkey, is short of legs to stand on. What a cock.

What does tax evasion have to do with quality of research? Oh yes - nothing.

The toothless, wheezing old dog that is Age of Autism has its claws out again, this time for Paul Thorsen, a researcher who's worked on various projects that show yet again no association between vaccines and autism. But are they going after him for bad science, or for fabricating evidence? No. They're going after him because he's been charged with tax evasion to the tune of around four million Danish Kroner. Sounds like an awful lot, doesn't it? But... I wonder why they've not bothered to convert it into US dollars or UK pounds for their core readership? Ah - is it because it's a shade under £500,000 - pretty close to the same amount that Andrew Wakefield received for his fraudulent MMR research?

Now, I'm not defending anyone who doesn't pay their tax - far from it. I hope Mr Thorsen, if found guilty, is punished accordingly.

However, this has nothing to do with the quality of his research - it's not as though he was paid that money to make up some spurious association and lie about his data in order to make more millions from his own patents. He's not declared a (substantial) sum of money to the taxman, and is being prosecuted for it. It does not negate the value of his work in any way.

Once again, AoA can't find fault with the science, so they go for the man.

Pathetic bastards.

John Stone in "still dumber than a box of rocks" shock.

As I've mentioned before, anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone has pretty much given up on any scientific approaches to showing that vaccines cause autism, and spends his days thinking up weaker and weaker ways to smear anyone even vaguely involved in pointing out Andrew Wakefield's fraud.

His latest attempt is at Age of Autism, where he accuses the BMJ itself of not declaring its competing interests.

Firstly he tries to argue that taking advertising is a undeclared conflict of interest. How can advertising be undeclared John? Look, it's there in front of your eyes. "I'm an advert, trying to sell you something!"

Then he points out that GSK and Merck part fund the BMJ awards. Shock horror - an undisclosed conflict of interest! Except it's not undisclosed. It's there, on the BMJ awards page on the BMJ website. Stone even provides a link to it! How is that possibly undisclosed?

What a moron. Just goes to show - John Stone is a cock.

Age of Autism redesign

Anyone had a look at the dog's dinner that is the Age of Autism redesign?

Fuck me it's shit.

Is it up to me to put their muddle headed design thinking alongside their muddle headed thoughts about vaccines, and then go "FUCK ME, YOU'RE FUCKING MORONS!!"??

I dunno - maybe some people like it.

From a design point of view, it stinks.

Age of Autism tells more lies

Not content with trying to smear Brian Deer over his exposing of Andrew Wakefield's fraud and failed money-grubbing schemes, Age of Autism has today put up a willfully egregious blog post about an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

The title of this post reads:

NEJM Article Perpetuates Distrust by Mislabeling Victims of Vaccine Adverse Reactions "Antivaccinationists"

Oh, the cruelty - the NEJM clearly has no compassion for the parents!!

Actually, that's not what the article says at all:

Today, the spectrum of antivaccinationists ranges from people who are simply ignorant about science (or “innumerate” — unable to understand and incorporate concepts of risk and probability into science-grounded decision making) to a radical fringe element who use deliberate mistruths, intimidation, falsified data, and threats of violence in efforts to prevent the use of vaccines and to silence critics.

So, what the title really ought to say is:

NEJM accurately labels antivaccinationists as "antivaccionationists", while AoA perpetuates fear by mislabelling autism as "vaccine damage".

There, "Nancy Hokkanen" - I've fixed it for you.

John Stone admits Wakefield is a liar and a fraud

Anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone

John "Cock" Stone has tacitly agreed that Wakefield is a liar and a fraud.

If you're a reader of vaccine / anti-vaccine blogs, you'll no doubt be aware that the British Medical Journal has published an excellent piece by Brian Deer about how Andrew Wakefield faked his results, pre-decided his results, didn't declare massive financial conflicts of interests, etc etc. It's a long read, but you can read it here: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full, and it's well worth it.

It's a fascinating read, explaining how Wakefield endangered the health of the nation's (and the world's) children in pursuit of hard cash, from taxpayers (via the legal aid fund) and via private enterprise (through his applications for alternative patents on vaccines).

As you might expect, the anti-vax loons have been all over this, screaming that all Wakefield (or to give him his full medical title, "Wakefield") did was "care for the children"…

Infamous anti-vaxer and internationally regarded halfwit John "Cock" Stone, writing on the anti-vax blog "Age Of Autism" has dribbled a green ink screed, foaming at the mouth, and trying to dismiss Mr Deer's story. Except…

Stone's entire piece is based on his belief that Mr Deer shouldn't have the data, the information about the children involved in the study that he has.

OK, I don't pretend to know how Brian Deer got the information on all the children involved in Wakefield's fraud, and whether it's all entirely legit - although he's spoken to the parents,and I don't see them making complaints about his access - but isn't this a little strange? Let's have a little think…

Stone has written a great long piece rubbishing Brian Deer's article (which demonstrates, with references, the evil that Wakefield did), and - and this is the important bit - doesn't try and refute a single point of fact that Mr Deer made in his article.

John Stone is trying to smear Brian Deer - which we expect, he's tried the same tactic many times over. However, he no longer tries to argue that anything Mr Deer writes is inaccurate.

Conclusion?

John Stone is tacitly agreeing that Wakefield is a liar and a fraud. That's the headline.



Edit: Fixed the link to Age of Stupidity Autism. Thanks to CVB for pointing that out!