Ed Arranga cements his "dickhead" tag

If you look over to the right of this page - assuming you're reading it on a computer screen and not your brand new iPhone 5 (no, I can't afford one either) - you'll see a list of popular search terms for this blog. One of them is "Ed Arranga is a dickhead". Rather splendidly, judging by his recent spleen venting on Age of Autism, Mr Arranga (husband of proven liar Teri Arranga) seems intent on demonstrating the absolute truth of this statement.

Before I continue, let's consider two rather self-contradictory facts about Ed Arranga.

1. He really hates the British.
2. He's desperate to suck MMR fraudytrousers ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield's cock. (Metaphorically. If Arranga's lawyers are reading this, you can put the sports car magazines down now.)

Somehow, Arranga can hold both these views at the same time, despite Wakefield being, y'know, British. Mind you, clear thinking has never been one of Ed Arranga's strong points.

Let's take these one at a time.

Firstly, Ed wrote a piece in the comments section of Autism One's website;

Enjoy your haggis, blood pudding and tripe, Ms. Fisher-of-the-UK, and let the grownups get to work. This is America where we solve problems by listening to what people have to say. And, in a few years, we will again cross the Atlantic and save the U.K. from itself.

He followed this up with a remarkable piece of borderline racism on Age Of Autism, a piece so abysmal that even John "Cock" Stone called him out on it;

In the UK, one learns one’s place at an early age. It’s a stifling society with a rigid class system made up of the nobility and commoners; it hasn’t changed all that much in the last 300 years. Lords, dukes, earls, and sirs fill the top slots of industry, academia, and government, reminding everyone else of their betters.

Creativity takes a back seat to etiquette, and etiquette flows from the top down. Manners, a stiff upper lip, and being proper are not mere courtesies – they are the life blood of British society. When creativity does make an appearance, it comes out sideways in that very British “Pink Floyd” or “Monty Python” way. The British know they are oppressed, and they scream at it or laugh about it. What they don’t do is challenge it.

We have old-boy networks in the US, but nothing compared to the permanent insider track to power, money, and privilege bestowed by birth in the UK. The one word to describe Britain is “club.” Like the Cosa Nostra, the first rule is “omerta”: absolute silence and secrecy must be kept at all times.

Challenging the status quo is an affront to the established order. When one is called “Lord This” or “Sir That” all his life, it creates pomposity – a breeding ground of arrogance. Something is right by virtue of you having done it. Multiply that a thousand times over and you have a taste of the arrogance of the upper class. Mere commoners are to know their place and to keep their mouths shut.

…to which Stone replied;

In my opinion if this is your idea of how to lead the autism movement, it is shameful, pointlessly divisive and embarrassing.

…

It must be said that the idea of Britain that you presented in your article belongs curiously to 50 years ago and its contemporary problems are entirely different.

There you have it. If even John Stone thinks you've made a cunt of yourself, you're in real trouble.

The second fact - wanting to (metaphorically) suck on Andrew Wakefield's shrivelled knob - is also demonstrable. Ed is the brains (and I use that word very loosely - if brains were e-coli, Ed Arranga would have difficulty soiling himself) behind Wakefield's wanking for coins operation, set up to fleece gullible morons of their last few dollars in order to keep Wakefield in the manner to which he's become accustomed (big house, sharp suits, fraudy trousers, that kind of thing) - although the stated aim is to fund his legal action against Fiona Godlee, Brian Deer and the BMJ. Yes, the one that was thrown out of court at the first hurdle. That one.

So, having established these two facts about Ed "Even John Stone Thinks I'm A Cunt" Arranga, why am I writing about him in such a fair and even handed manner?

Well, it seems that Brian Deer - the man who pointed out the lies and fraud in Andrew Wakefied's scaremongering study into MMR, gut problems and autism - is due to give a couple of lectures at the University of Wisconsin - La Crosse in October. Ed doesn't like this one bit, and so launches into a fact-free, hate-fuelled rant at Mr Deer.

Let's look at some of his dribble.

Brian Deer – a liar, fraud, and former reporter for The Sunday Times of London

Hmm, Ed, I think you'll find that Brian Deer hasn't been shown to be a liar, or a fraud, and was in fact a freelance journalist who has worked for the Sunday Times (not the "Sunday Times of London" - just "The Sunday Times"). And isn't it writing like this, using words like "liar" and "fraud" which has got Andrew Wakefield into such a lather that you're fundraising for his court case? (Of course, the difference there is that Brian Deer backed up his claims with those oh so inconvenient little things called "facts" and "references")

He goes on.

Deer’s talks at La Crosse are a continuation of the misinformation campaign to destroy Wakefield and to deny his Lancet case series (here) that was published in 1998. Wakefield found bowel disease in children with autism spectrum disorder and raised questions about the safety of the MMR.

No Ed, it's not a misinformation campaign. Wakefield was shown to have faked his results and to have drawn inferences from his work that weren't justified. He was also found guilty of ordering non-medically indicated procedures on children for research purposes. He was subsequently struck off the medical register.

Wakefield claimed to have found a novel bowel disease - reviews of his work found no such thing. He raised unfounded questions about the safety of the MMR, and, assisted by a credulous media, caused vaccination rates to drop to such low levels that measles is now endemic in Britain once more - although that wouldn't worry you, would it?

The Deer-inspired, GMC-trumped-up charges and findings were so rotten and perverted that when the case finally got before a real judge, in a real court – the High Court of London – Justice Mitting overturned the findings.

No, he didn't. He found that Professor Walker-Smith (Wakefield's co-author) had been misled by Wakefield to the extent that he could have reasonably believed that he did have ethical approval for the work he was doing, and that that work was treatment rather than research. No findings against Wakefield have ever been overturned - in fact, he didn't appeal. While you'll no doubt claim that that's because his insurance didn't cover it, there's no evidence to show that - it's just a claim that John "Cock" Stone makes - and he seems perfectly well funded to pursue a legal case in America. (Except that's not why you're raising funds, is it Ed? It's so Wakefield can carry on living the life to which he feels entitled, and you, you gullable fool have fallen for his lies.)

By the time Judge Mitting blasted the GMC and Parliament began investigating and arresting Murdoch reporters,

You omit to point out that Brian Deer wasn't one of them, he's never been accused of illegal or unethical behaviour or information gathering techniques (apart from by your mates at Age of Idiocy Autism), has never been linked to phone hacking in any way, and, as far as I know, never worked for the News of the World, or anyone who has since being charged with regard to the phone hacking scandal. This is just a feeble attempt to smear by association - a tactic that your so-called "mate" John Stone has tried, and been made to look like a cock. (Funny that.)

Deer’s BMJ series created the intended frenzy. Finally an answer… well, not really an answer, but any questions about the autism epidemic could now be sidetracked by mainstream media into a “Blame Wakefield” mantra.

No - Deer's series unpicked most of the lies spread by Wakefield. All the media did was realise (mostly - there are still a few arseholes, mainly at the Daily Mail who believe him) that they'd been had, and that Wakefield was directly responsible for plummeting vaccination rates and the re-introduction of measles (like an endangered species) to Britain. They've never really fallen for the myth of an "autism epidemic", being, generally some way ahead of you and the morons at AoA when it comes to critical thinking skills. Probably in terms of walking-and-breathing-at-the-same-time skills too.

Some who’ve had the misfortune of meeting Deer describe him as reptilian and repulsive. Others would describe him in less flattering terms. Setting the sleaze factor aside, Deer’s legacy of slander and libel signify a far grimier, foul and filthy place than most of us would care to venture. Deer is the invention, the dark underbelly, the hideous caricature of those who deny an MMR-autism connection in order to protect themselves. He assuages the conscience of those without one, and scrubs clean the crime scene. Vicious and small, Deer’s pious position is untenable and in short order he will be hunted to ground and brought to justice.

Now this is just descending into abuse. However, I'm not exactly one to chastise anyone for abuse, although accusing Brian Deer of slander and libel is pretty much a case of "pot, kettle, cunt". Your last sentence though Ed, (emphasis mine) to me seems to be a call for actual violence - using a phrase like "hunted to ground" while telling the world and his wife exactly where they'll be able to find Mr Deer sounds like incitement to violence to me. Should anything untoward happen to Mr Deer on his visit to the States, Ed, I think you might have some serious explaining to do.

Soon the full truth will be uncovered, revealing Deer for what he is. In January Dr. Wakefield filed a defamation lawsuit against Deer, the BMJ, and Fiona Godlee, its editor. Currently under review by the 3rd Circuit Court in Texas, the question before proceeding to trial is: Does Texas have jurisdiction? We are extremely confident the appeals court will rule in Dr. Wakefield’s favor within the next few months.

I'm sure it will. As I've said before, I don't know whether Mr Deer's a nice or a nasty person (and don't care), but as an investigative reporter, he's done us all a favour by revealing Wakefield's fraud, lies and deceit.

And you're confident that the appeals court will rule in Wakefield's favour? Um - if the appeal succeeds, all that means is that Wakefield will be able to have the case heard. It doesn't mean he's been vindicated in any way - he'll still be metaphorically crucified, and quite possibly have to pay damages to the BMJ, Ms Godlee and Mr Deer under Texas anti-SLAPP laws.

In court his testimony will doom the BMJ and himself, and open the floodgates of suppressed corruption.

Sorry, there's nothing I can say about this, other than "you sad, pathetic, deluded wanker, Arranga."