Smallpox - not dangerous, apparently

JABS never ceases to amaze me. As soon as anyone actually posts some sensible information on there, whether relating directly to vaccines, or medicine in general, they're jumped on, verbally abused, have every nutter who thinks he or she knows about medicine or statistics, or has their own pet theory that they've been incubating for the last ten years call on them for more and more and more evidence (and then that evidence, when supplied, is denounced as worthless for some ludicrous made-up reason, or it's flatly stated that it's wrong.

However, when some nutcase (Suba) posts something like this;

You do not have to fear smallpox, even if you should develop it, as long as you immediately quit eating and go to bed and rest, drinking pure water only when thirsty. Smallpox is a disease of the bon-vivant, epicurean, who overeats on a daily basis, especially on animal foods. The condition of enervation is built by anyone who does not secure sufficient rest and sleep to permit the elimination of endogenic and exogenic toxins, and for the restoration of the nervous system. Once the stage of enervation is established digestion is further impaired and the body is flooded with fermentation and decomposition products from the intestines. This is what is called Toxemia, and Toxicosis. Toxicosis makes it exigent and imperative that these toxins be eliminated immediately by extraordinary means, such as through the skin.

Every single cell in your body is capable of eliminating and destroying various microorganisms and their waste products, as well as man-made organic products, but most man-made products are more toxic than those made by bacteria and they cause more damage than bacterial waste products. It can be disastrous when the body is overwhelmed by substances that do not belong inside it, and which the body cannot use under any circumstance of life. And this is what happens when diseases are "treated." Your body is inundated with toxic substances and it may drown.

then not a word is said.

Obviously it doesn't need pointing out that every word of the above quote is just utter, utter shit. Smallpox is one of the most lethal conditions known to man - going to bed, stopping eating and drinking just water is going to do you no good at all.

They're fucking nutters. I'd've thought that that liar Hilary Butler would've had something to say about this - but no. The rule at JABS seems to be "stick together, no matter how deranged you are". So long as you're anti-vax, you can spout all kinds of shit. Fortunately this isn't likely to actually affect too many people - it's an extreme example - but they'll post equally incoherent crap about more relevant stuff (vaccines, antibiotics, the dangers of measles), and some of it might just be believed.

The BBC still link to these people occasionally…

For anyone who would like to do some simply explained reading on Smallpox, Wikipedia has a good, simply explained article.

Angladrion is a liar

Angladrion, better known as New Zealand Anti-Vaccination loon Hilary Butler has been desperately trying to show off how important she is, and how clever she is to be able to misinterpret statistics by banging on about how smallpox vaccination didn't help eradicate smallpox.

She starts off by asking a load of irrelevant questions, most of which imply that because vaccination science in the 19th and early 20th century was somewhat crude, vaccination science today is equally crude.

Most of the questions are comprehensively dealt with on a Bad Science thread about them.

When a couple of posters (including the marvellous Occam) point out that most of her questions are pointless, or ask her with a sigh "Go on then - show us how clever you are Hilary, do tell us…", she proceeds to flatly refuse, explaining that:

I will not be giving you any answers to those questions, now or in the future. In your role, you should know all those answers, and it's not my job to educate you. I have better things to do.

OK - so, unusually for an anti-vaxxer, in this instance she doesn't want to "educate" people… I suggest the reason she won't explain is that she either knows her hypotheses and "research" findings could be ripped to shreds my anyone with a smattering of critical thinking or knowledge of the subject, or she doesn't actually have any evidence for her mad theories about smallpox vaccination.

However, to "prove" that she does know what she's talking about, and how important she is, she goes on to bang on at great length about some conference she claims to have given a paper at, around twenty years ago. When questioned about this, she gets very defensive:

Auckland Medical school. The invitation was organised by one of the professor's staff. The professor at that time, was Professor Jim Watson, who was out of the country at that time, and the immunologist who organised the presentation was Dr Roger Booth.

As to the exact year, I'd have to rummage around in boxes to find out. Sometime in the early late 1980's to early 1990's... But I'm sure Dr Booth could fill in the answer to such a senseless question.

She also makes one particular outlandish claim, which will she feels will back up her claim to have given this presentation, and how important it was, and she is:

Oh yeah, and.. i can give you the name of a VERY famous man who was at that presentation. You might have heard of him. He's very famous in the cancer world. Goes by the name of Dr Bruce Baguley.

very interesting man. He researches quite unique and fancy cancer drugs.

But the very interesting thing was that after the meeting, he told me how, when he got cancer, he cured his own cancer with vitamin C and Iscadore. Apart from being a very famous cancer researcher, who did some fantastic (unpublished) research on vitamin C in cancer, he is also an amazing musician.

You might like to email him too

Wow - he sounds like a really famous bloke. I looked him up: he is. He's very well respected in the world of cancer research.

It appears Rich Scopie, from the Bad Science forums also looked him up. He however went one step further, and emailed him about Ms Butler's claim. Here's Dr Baguley's response:

Not true I'm afraid - worrying how stories change. I have never had a
malignant tumour. I took vitamin C one for a condition that was
diagnosed as a possible lymphoma, but was in fact much more likely to
have been a virus infection. It's an interesting area but I don't have
any data.

So there we have it. Hilary Butler is a liar. If she's prepared to tell such preposterous lies to back up her claim to be so well respected and important in the world of smallpox vaccine research, posts an exam full of idiotic and irrelevant questions then isn't prepared to divulge any of her findings (or "the answers" as she would no doubt have it) and throws temper tantrums when anyone questions the veracity of what she says, why does she think anyone (apart from that halfwit Gus The Fuss) is ever going to take her seriously?

Agenda over public health

One of the saddest things about JABS is the way they are prepared to extend their fears over existing vaccines into totally imaginary health scares.

Rosemary (who seems to have calmed down recently - she either posts the text of lunatic monkey virus sites (which most of JABS seem to have the good sense to ignore) or she simply reposts general medical stories from assorted news outlets) has posted a story from the Independent about Scarlet Fever.

As I see it, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to post on a health terror site.

However… As JABS is full of fucking nutters, they can't all let it lie, can they? Oh No.

Seonaid tries (rather half heartedly, if you ask me) to link this to vaccines:

Just as well they didn't vaccinate for this - or they would be blaming fall in vaccine uptake for it's return!

Now, from what I see, the original story was a simple news piece. "This has happened". No agenda, nothing. Certainly no mention of vaccines.

However, as we know (JABSLoonies passim.), Seonaid is a fucking cretin, so we'll perhaps pass this off as another conspiracy theory.

OH NOES!!! Minority View - the "reasonable face of JABS" - decides to have a go too:

How much you want to be[t] that a vaccine is coming? Generally, if there is a news story about an infectious disease, it doesn't really mean the cases are rising. What it means is that a vaccine is on the way and doctors have been nudged to start diagnosing whatever it is.

See the series of events on whooping cough in adults in the U.S.

First there is publicity, directed at doctors, telling them that this illness is either undiagnosed or increasing in teens and adults.

Second the doctors start spotting it, since they have been told to pay attention

Third the vaccine gets released to general acclaim and good sales

They're never fucking happy are they, unless people are getting ill, or actually dying? A simple story about the resurgence of a disease, and they start spreading F.U.D. I reckon MV or John Stone could spin a vaccine story out of the fact that Aston Villa are in the top four of the Premier League.

Cybertiger - unintentional irony

I've probably done this joke before, but it's a good one, so worth repeating…

To Cybertiger, irony is like goldy, or silvery - just a different metal.

Denis Thatcher once said,

"Better keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt."

Couldn't have put it better myself, you fucking moron.

Unsurprising lack of tact

Angladrion (who's apparently some kind of idiot "campaigning journalist") is based in New Zealand. Now, I know that the Kiwis and the Aussies don't always see eye to eye, but you'd think she'd have the tact to change her JABS signature, given the dreadful events in Australia recently.

…it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires…

Mind you - she's got a point. Brush fires kill. As does her relentless anti-vax bleating.

MMR in the media - Part 2 - Wakefield is a liar

The other big story this week was the Sunday Times piece about Andrew Wakefield, and his quite phenomenal talent for lying. Not just getting things wrong, but out and out lying.

For those of you who don't know (there must be someone who doesn't), Dr Andrew Wakefield is the man who took a load of money to prove an association between MMR and bowel problems and autism, unsurprisingly enough did so, with what turned out to be a very dodgy piece of work. This was then published in The Lancet, and kicked off the whole MMR-Autism hoax.

It turns out that the biopsies from the bowels of the children he was dealing with weren't actually diseased, and medical records show that nearly all of them (there were only 12) had shown signs of autism before their MMR vaccine, or were showing signs of Aspergers Syndrome, and not regressive autism as Wakefield claimed.

That, at least, was what the Sunday Times claimed this week.

It's worth noting that this article was written by a freelance journalist called Brian Deer - who was the first to dig into the murky world of Wakefield's finances and research, and was at least in part responsible for him being crucified by the General Medical Council.

The reason it's worth noting, is that the JABS crowd (in particular that cock John Stone) have picked up on this fact, and tried to use it as a reason why the information should be discarded. Here's Stone:

…yesterday's story, which is based on Deer's uncorroborated claims based on documents he shouldn't have, can't publish and doesn't it should be said have the competence to understand.

Now, another poster, NikkiC picked up on this refutation of the story, and pointed out that none of that guff means that any of the story is untrue.

Various other loons then chime in in support of Stone. Each time, NikkiC politely points out that they aren't actually denying the points made in the article. They plead that Deer has been using documents he shouldn't have (although it seems that the information has been revealed in the GMC hearing), they claim that he doesn't understand the information (how difficult is it to understand that medical records stated one thing, Wakefield claimed something else in his study, and hence was lying? Hardly fucking rocket science, is it?), they bleat "troll!" (as though that's any kind of defence - doesn't make the Sunday Times wrong, does it?), and they try and change the subject.

Each time, NikkiC, Sandford, and Occam come back and ask why the Sunday Times article is wrong.

John Stone even goes as far as to point everyone to the rather hasty rebuttal of all the points by Andrew Wakefield. Except, hang on… he doesn't actually say any of them are incorrect - he does the same as Stone; he argues… well - I'll leave it to Nikki to describe what he actually argues:

There's a lot of hand waving, and "oh, you don't understand" in that reply - and precious little in the way of "that is factually untrue". There's lots of "oh, it wasn't me", or "I did the best I could", but, as I say, little that says "you're lying" or "you're wrong".

Dr Wakefield appears to be trying to explain the accusations away, rather than outright denying them.

The allegation that several children had already been diagnosed with autistic "signposts" (for want of a better term) is a very serious one, but is surely one that can be simply refuted.

Dr Wakefield replies with a series of "it wasn't me", "it was the others" and "you don't understand". Not an outright "that is not true".

When it comes down to it, Wakefield's been shown to be lying, his staunchest supporters know it, and are shitting themselves.

That fucktard Melanie Phillips has taken this up by the way, publishing pretty well all of Wakefield's bleatings in The Spectator, and making herself look fucking silly. Still, at least she has a voice.

I got an email from NikkiC earlier today. She's been banned from JABS.

MMR in the media - Part 1 - Jeni "Arsehole" Barnett

There have been a couple of MMR related stories in the media - one mainly online, one in print - over the last week or so. Now, I don't generally cover vaccination issues in general, as there are plenty of people who do it so much better than I do. However, naturally, they've both brought out the dribbling fucktards at JABS.

The first was Ben Goldacre's excellent piece on possibly the world's most ignorant radio presenter, one Jeni Barnett. She works for LBC, and is a completely mindless cretin.

She ran an episode (edition? whatever) of her show, which she used as a platform for her half baked, pig shit ignorant ideas about the evils of the MMR jab. She even had a homeopath on to back her case up. How fucking stupid can you be?

Anyway - Dr Goldacre put the audio from the show on his site, and was promptly threatened by LBC's legal team. He's taken it down, but since then the audio and a full transcript of the hateful programme has gone all over the web. I personally recommend The Lay Scientist as a good starting point.

Obviously though, the JABS wingnuts have a different take on it - particularly Jeni's vile shouting over and hectoring of a nurse who rang in to politely, efficiently and sensibly point out where Jeni was wrong, and why what she was doing was a serious danger to public health. If you listen to the audio or read the transcript, you can see how polite she was, and how rude Jeni was. Predictably, that cockend Cybertiger sees it differently:

You've got things a bit ar*e over t*t on this one, Vince. Yasmin [the nurse] is the dolt ... and I cannot see where Jeni Barnett has been rude ... enough. Listen again, Vince.

I'm quite confident that you can make your own mind up on this.

The thread on JABS is called "Support Jeni against Bad Science" - after you've listened to the audio you might want to go there and add your 2p-worth.

Echinacea - as likely to be a cause of autism as MMR

Apologies for being away for so long - I've had a load of half baked ideas for blog posts, and then thought "no – no-one would believe them". I've also had a life to live. Still… there have been so many hand grenades tossed into the foaming mass of vipers that is JABS lately that I can't ignore it any longer.

First of all, a kind of follow on from comments on my last post - Thanks to John H and DT:

There's been a discussion on JABS about echinacea, a herbal supplement which is supposed to boost the immune system and help prevent colds and minor ailments. I tried it once - I told my boss I was feeling a bit under the weather and she recommended it. I didn't feel any better, and once it made me throw up. Still - I suspect it works among those who go for the woo approach (and, while I liked my then boss a lot, she did have "woo" tendencies). Nothing really to worry about though.

However, this particular discussion started when a new poster pointed out a study showing that echinacea, in some people, could cause bowel problems. Could this, given that the Wakefield crew believe that MMR causes bowel problems and those bowel problems cause autism, also cause autism?

Now, I suspect this to be a wind up, but the JABS lot went mental. I'll repost DT's comment on my earlier post, as it says it all really…

But instead of countering the hypothesis with a bit of science based critical analysis and common sense, the jabbers have taken the line of:

1. Echinacea is natural! So it is obviously harmless! (Suba)


2. North American Indians use echinacea and I haven't heard they have rates of autism of 1:150 (Suba again, Lola and Aasa)
   
3. No-one would give kids echinacea (John Stone, ignoring the fact that plenty would, and the OP specifically talked of the transmissability in breast milk)


4. I never gave my son echinacea, so it cannot have caused his autism (John Stone again)


5. Remember that it is only vaccines that cause autism, nothing else could possibly do it! (actually that's not in this particular thread, but that's what they think)


6. But herbs harm people less than conventional treatments which kill millions of people (Truthseeker)


The fallacious and mind-numbingly stupid and predictable arguments they are trotting out has quite put me off my lunch. All we need now is for Cyberpussy to tell us how Roy Meadows is embroiled in all of this.

Another new(ish) poster - "NikkiC" then chimed in, I suspect simply playing "Devil's Advocate", pointing out that if the JABS regulars were prepared to take the leap of faith that Wakefield suggested, from bowel problems caused by measles vaccine to autism, why was it such a problem to make the leap of faith from gut problems caused by echinacea to autism?

Again, the JABS nutters weren't prepared to argue this with science, or with reference to papers showing the safety of their favourite herb. Oh no. John H sums up their responses to that in a comment here:

You could argue that:

1. so is hemlock but it will kill you. To paraphrase a lady contributor "Suba is a twat"


2. so there is a causal relationship between taking echinacea and alcoholism is there because there is certainly a correlation in the US Indian population


3. maybe the kids got homeopathic doses of echinacea - the less they got the more it would affect them (err maybe)


4. ditto. As that lady constantly says "John Stone is a twat" as well.


5. words fail me - but you are perfectly right.


6. ask Truthseeker to name the millions who died from conventional medicine (OK a tough task, just name what they died from then). As a certain lady says "TruthSeeker is a twat"

Lucky for me I could just paste "twat" in otherwise I would have been typing for hours.

Hey - I may not have many readers of this blog, but I like the ones I do have!

What I love about this particular JABS exchange is that if you take the word "echinacea" out, and substitute "MMR", it's exactly the argument that the JABS nuts are trying to push as their whole agenda. There's no real evidence for either being a cause of autistic spectrum disorders, yet they're passionately arguing for one, and getting really nasty arguing against the other.

There's no negotiating with fucking nutters.

Cybertiger is a loser

Cybertiger - Dr Mark Struthers - is an evil bastard. He doesn't really believe that MMR causes autism. He doesn't really believe that preservatives in vaccines cause harm. He doesn't even really believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. However, he wants to have the loonies at JABS on his side for his personal mission, which is to attack anyone in the medical establishment who's been more successful than him.

You see, Dr Struthers is a salaried GP (not even a partner) in a local practice in Flitwick. For those of you who aren't aware of Flitwick, it's a small town on the outskirts of Luton.

He hates Roy Meadow, not because of his cock-ups, but because he's more successful than him. He can't stand Simon Baron-Cohen, because he's more successful than he's ever been.

You see, Dr Mark isn't even as successful as his Mum, Joyce. Joyce at least made it onto some sort of enquiry board - although its findings were rapidly dismissed - but she at least got that far. No-one's ever asked Dr Mark to be on any kind of panel, board or even pub quiz team. Possibly because he's mental, or, more likely, because he's not that bright, and doesn't have an original, or interesting thought in his head.

However, on the JABS forum, he likes to think that he's some kind of intellectual, and, given that the level of intelligence there hardly challenges that of most shellfish, he's probably right.

Here's his latest rant:

Spreading fear in a gullible populace drove the American taxpayer to fund the ugly wars on Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza. The American military-industrial-complex were thrilled.

Spreading fear of measles, mumps, rubella and the HPV has driven the British taxpayer to spend collosal sums of money on the 'wars on innocuous contagion'

What the FUCK does this have to do with vaccines? Um - nothing whatsoever. However, Dr Struthers knows full well that the critical thinking ability of the average JABS subscriber is roughly equivalent to that of a pipe cleaner, and so likening five wholly unconnected military conflicts with perfectly reasonable fears of disease is likely to gain him some more support from cretins.

However, because Dr Mark has never done anything in his life worth mentioning, and is still little more than a fill in doctor - not being deemed bright enough to be offered a partnership, that support does little for him. The man is an idiot - as judged by those who read his internet rantings, and seemingly by those who he's worked with. There are no papers with Dr Struthers' name on, there's nothing he's ever done that will advance the cause of medicine - he's a nobody, a nothing. Zilch. Zip. Fuck all.

If, in order to make himself feel more popular he has to argue that measles, mumps and rubella are diseases that shouldn't be fought, borders on criminal. Dr Mark Struthers should be struck off.

JABS bleating over well argued points. Funny that.

"The Vaccine Book" by Dr Robert Sears has become a big hit among the worried well and University Of Google-educated American middle classes. It's written to sound like a reasonable discussion, but in fact repeats all the anti-vax lies that the JABS crowd spew out - it just suggests that they might be a problem, rather than stating them outright. Planting a seed of doubt - the most effective way of getting the anti-vax ideas propogated. At the end of the book, it suggests an alternative schedule of vaccination for children - one that sounds reasonable to those worried parents who don't have the critical faculties, or the time to actually read any primary sources.

Dr Paul Offit has written an excellent critique of the book, which has been published in Paediatrics.

It's well written, calm and collected, and extremely well referenced - and it acts as an excellent reference for debunking a lot of common anti-vax lies and misinformation that you might come across being spread by the likes of JABS, or parents at your child's school or pre-school.

For this reason (probably more than the takedown of the "alternative schedule" - which obviously isn't as anti-vaccine as the foaming JABS nutters would like), they're doing the usual trick of rubbishing it without producing any reasons why it's wrong.

Cybertiger is, unsurprisingly, banging on about trust:

Why not look again at 'trust' and the controversy Paul Offit has stirred up over 'trust' in the scientists who work for the great medico-pharma-vaccinology-industrial-complex.

Dr Paul Offit MD etc, reviewed 'The Vaccine Book' by Dr Robert Sears with its suggestions for boosting flagging trust in what the vaccinologists say about vaccines and their safety.

Um - because this isn't about your paranoia regarding the whole medical community; this is about keeping children and adults safe and healthy, not spreading lies about vaccination programmes. You twat.

Minority View throws a non-sequiteur in:

Ah! So it doesn't count if children end up dead, paralyzed or brain-damaged from vaccines. Glad to have that cleared up.

But, as I never tire of pointing out, there's no evidence that this happens, is there, MV? You'd like there to be - but there isn't. And you're worried that sensible writing like this points out the huge holes in your flimsy anti-vax arguments and lies.

Have a read of the pdf linked above - it's quite long, but well worth it.

Lalala, we're not listening

Just quickly…
Gus the Fuss has linked to a piece on Age Of Autism which is "covering" a new study which again suggests that there isn't any evidence that thimerosal causes autism. The AoA piece is here: www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/feeding-the-hungry-lie-italian-style.html, but you can read a quick précis here if you like:

"A new study has shown that thimerosal doesn't cause autism. *insert fingers in ears* LA LA LA LA!!! WE'RE NOT LISTENING!! WE KNOW WE'RE RIGHT!! LA LA LA!!!"

The original piece, in "Pediatrics", is here.

Edit: I've just come across Orac's excellent explanation of this research and the stupidity of the anti-vax crowd.

Autism may or may not be a medical condition

Gus the Fuss has posted a snippet of a quote from Simon Baron-Cohen (who seems to have turned into some kind of bogeyman for the JABS crowd recently) which includes the line:

Because autism is a medical diagnosis, it shouldn't be given out lightly

Gus has picked up on this line, but I have no idea what he's arguing when he says this:

If autism is a medical diagnosis why is there no protocol of medical testing in place---blood/urine/stool/hair?

He appears to be saying autism isn't a medical condition - which, coming from the father of an autistic son is rather odd. He also appears to be saying that every condition should be testable by looking at something physical. So is he denying the existance of (for example) Alzheimer's? Clinical depression? I really haven't the foggiest idea what point he thinks he's making.

(I suppose it's possible he just can't stand Professor Baron-Cohen, and so feels he has to disagree with every statement he makes…)

Just how stupid is Gus the Fuss?*

Rosemary has, for once, done a sensible thing. She's reposted a letter to the Guardian from Prof Simon Baron-Cohen (I can't find it on the Guardian website, so I'm taking it on trust that she's copied it properly - it's here: http://jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3474) in which he bemoans the poor and misleading reporting of his recent study which "found a correlation between levels of foetal testosterone (FT) and the number of autistic traits a child shows at the age of 8."

He's gone through the errors point by point, and explained, in simple terms exactly what was wrong with the reporting, and how his work was misrepresented.

This isn't enough for Gus the Fuss, a man who is apparently psychic and psychotic in equal measures, believing that a) He knows more than Professor Baron-Cohen does about his own work, and b) That the reporters from the Daily Mail, and the lunatics who inhabit the insane world of JABS have a better insight into his work, despite most probably having not actually read the research.

Looks like Cohen and Fitzy re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!

While the band plays on ..we believe you Cohen along with your other crack-pot theories..DUH we all got it wrong,BBC,Mail, and your right ?NOT!

The Big Lie has nothing on you,you now have surpassed all your peers in producing the most irrelevant, inaccurate and stale study on autism yet.

I don't understand the mindset of someone who rabidly rants at an article, but when the author of the original source material says "Let's clear this up - actually, that's not what I meant…"; then rants at them for lying, maintaining the first version was true.

As ever, let's not let facts or research get in the way of irrational belief.

* a rhetorical question.

Obviously this is only anecdote…

A new poster by the name of Maxybrown has asked if anyone on the JABS site has an unvaccinated child with autism.

Amethyst, a fairly regular poster and anti-vaxer has politely replied:

Yes I have a 5 year old who has autism and he is free from vaccination, apart from VIT K which was administered without our knowledge or consent.

He was born 10 weeks prem so at the moment, we put his condition down to that.

I have a 17 year old damaged by the MMR who is on the AS and a 14 year old who was vaccine damaged by the DTP, causing him massive brain damage, also on the AS.

This, to me, and probably to you too, suggests that Amethyst's family is a prime example of autism being primarily a genetic condition; three children on the autistic spectrum, blamed on three different environmental factors? You've got to be pretty pigheaded to just deny out of hand that this could in any way be genetic.

Another new poster, by the name of Forbalance has pointed this out:

Several studies have demonstrated that autism has a strong genetic component. If one child in a family is autistic, there's about a 10 percent chance that a sibling also will have autism.

Hurrah for Forbalance. But then Cybertiger - who let's not forget IS A DOCTOR, a real, medical doctor - not a naturopath or anything else made-up; a proper doctor - sticks his oar in:

And your point is, Mr. Balance?

Now, Dr Struthers, you know perfectly well what Forbalance's point is. He's suggesting that in this case it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the cause to Amethyst's three childrens' atuistic spectrum disorders is genetic. However, because you need the loons and the nut-jobs, the religious nutters and the out and out liars on your side to bolster your own agenda, you're using your status as a doctor to imply that you believe this to be absolutely not the case. You've been quite clever - you've not actually written anything that could get you into trouble - just implied it. I'm prepared to bet that this thread will be full of the usual suspects by teatime, claiming that there's no genetic component to autism, and that it's all environmental.

I feel so sorry for Amethyst - I can't begin to imagine what she must go through every day - but Cybertiger is quite happily propping up her paranoia and fears by suggesting that no, it's not genetic, yes, it's something she did to her children, she's to blame, and she has to live with that for the rest of her life. Dr Mark Struthers should be stuck off.

ABORT! ABORT!

Over the last few days, several newspapers (The Guardian, The Telegraph and others) have carried a story about research done over eight years to test for a correlation between high levels of testosterone in fluid surrounding foetuses, and higher levels of “autistic traits”, such as poor verbal and social skills later in life. None of the children in the study were autistic, the study did not seek to develop a test for autism. The conclusion of the research was that their findings fit with the theory that exposure to testosterone in the womb is related to higher levels of autistic traits. That's it. There's an extremely good write-up on NHS Choices. The research team was led by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University.

So far, so good.

You'd've thought that this kind of research into autistic traits would be welcomed at JABS, as while it doesn't actually look at autism, it's sensible, thorough scientific research in that direction, which may, just may help us understand some of the real causes of autism.

Oooohh no. That's not how it works over at JABS. Sensible research is there to be rubbished, built up as conspiracy and completely misunderstood and lied about (whereas anything "alternative" is to be praised and lauded - clay baths for detox, weird tests for monkey viruses, drinking bleach etc). JABS is fundamentally anti-science. This is how Gus the Fuss hysterically reports the story:

Baron-Cohen wants to abort autistic foetuses

All these a*** lickers are trying to do is test a babies suitability to take the massive ammount of vaccines they pump into them just now.

Does the test include Aspergers, ,ADHD, both on the Autism spectrum.If it did on current goverment Autism figuresare 1 in 100 babies would be terminated take ADHD and aspergers in with the autism and every 2nd and 5th child born in a family of 5 babies would be terminated.

and hes meant to be looking out for the good of autistic children
Sounds like the return of holocaust

Hmm. The study isn't aimed at creating a "test for autism", vaccines aren't mentioned, none of the children involved were actually autistic, and I'm buggered if I know where licking arses comes in.

Gus's post was quickly followed by another which likened Baron-Cohen and his team to Nazi eugenics enthusiasts, but this was (surprisingly) removed fairly quickly. However, Aasa has chimed in with some words of "wisdom":

I think the idea of developing a screening test for autism "in the womb" is ridiculous. The testosterone in the womb could be interacting with heavy metals that the mother and fetus are exposed to. Whether the children will develop "autism" later also depends on their exposures to heavy metals and other toxins which can affect their development, even after birth. If they haven't even figured out how autism is caused, how can they expect to screen for it in the womb? Aside from that, the idea of screening for something which is likely environmentally caused, and then terminating pregnancies on the basis of that, certainly does not seem ethical.

So, what Aasa is doing here, as well as completely misunderstanding / not reading the research, is dismissing it out of hand, in favour of her (I just assume Aasa is a "she" - don't know why) own pet theories of environmental factors for autism, especially heavy metals - a theory for which there is no evidence, and which is primarily pushed by private "clinics" offering dangerous, expensive and useless chelation / biomedical therapy.

As I said earlier - you'd think that research along these lines would be welcomed by parents of autistic children; after all, it may eventually provide them with some reasons for their children's condition. But no - because it doesn't support their own theories, for which there is no evidence, it's lied about, blown up out of all proportion, and misrepresented. It's a prime example of the anti-science agenda at JABS.

-- later that day --

A bit more on this - Suba has confirmed what I pointed out about Aasa's post:

The plethora of possible causes of Autism especially genetic ones are but a smoke screen to divert one's attention from the real environmental causes. Vaccines being the major insult to the immune system are consistently swept under the carpet. The carpet has a luxurious deep pile of excuses but the threads will soon wear thin under the weight of a big white elephant.

Doing research into topics the JABS crowd are interested in is no good if you don't come up with results that match their preconceptions.

That cock Mark Struthers has also weighed in with a smattering of abuse for Professor Baron-Cohen - although what he's actually done to annoy Struthers is mysteriously not mentioned. (I get the feeling that Struthers is a very bitter man, ending his career as a salaried GP in Flitwick, instead of with the titles and knighthood he feels he deserves. This may explain his hatred for anyone who's had some degree of success in medicine.)

Sacha (Borat) and Simon make splendid pantomime dames. Any thoughts on a stage name for Sir Simon Baron-Cohen?

What a cock.

Truth Seeker has posted a load more nonsense all over the JABS forum, including this spectacular piece of misdirection about vaccines in general - as a response to Reality Check's very reasonable post (see previous post).

You should reassure us that vaccine cell lines are not contaminated, with bovine,chicken or monkey contaminants.
see http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3469
You should be able to prove beyond all doubt that vaccines are not capable of suppressing TH1 immunity, foreign DNA does incorporate into our own dna and is not linked to auto immune disease.
You should have some ethical arguments as to use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines and why we should not have moral issues regarding this.
You should say why you think its safe to inject aluminium into babies and why this can not cause nerve damage.
You should say why babies who have not deveopled full Myelin sheath protection are not more at risk from vaccinations.

You see, Truth Seeker, the problem is that there is no evidence, nor suggestion that any of these are true. You know (actually, you may not, as you appear to have the intelligence level of an out of date packet of Weetabix) that it's not possible to disprove a negative - however, the fact is that, when applied to vaccines, none of your assertions have any evidence to back them up. You may as well demand; "You should say why vaccines do not increase the likelyhood of being struck by a meteorite, cause gang war, or cause the sacking of football managers". There's no evidence to suggest that any of these are likely outcomes of vaccinating - just as there's no evidence to suggest that any of your hypothetical problems are anything more than ramblings that you've just picked up from you latest favourite fundamental Christian or alt-med website. Yours sound a bit more "sciency", and scary, but have no more basis in fact. Why don't you change your forum name from "Truth Seeker" to "Credulous Prick"?

Sensible post drives JABS regulars into frothing frenzy

A new poster on JABS, who has one post to his name (and is unlikely to be allowed to post again) has written a splendid rant, which, before it's deleted, I'll post in full here. Let's hear it for "Reality Check"!

Suba
Dont be silly. This article, like all those before it state quite clearly that vaccines save lives. Stop getting your evidence from daft websites and face up to facts. Vaccines are the best tool we have in medicine and that is why we are working to develop more. Obviously websites like this one (and its adherents) are doing lots of harm as highlighted by the BBC today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7819874.stm
..or do you think the Beeb is in the grasp of your "big pharma".

Vaccines are developed in laboratories, universities, research institutes, hospitals - do you think we are all corrupted to tell lies so that kids get sick?

At what point in the last few years did Wakefield become a hero figure to you lot? He is one of the biggest crooks going who made a fortune out of the worried well (as we call them) who were gullible enough to buy his single shot vaccines and made him very rich as a result. Can't you see when you are being taken for a ride?

Actually, a lot of this anti-vaccine stuff is generated and stirred by the alt med sector, like it has been doing for the AIDS story, because it seeks to profit from those who cannot tell the difference between manipulated anecdotes and facts. Remember, many of the contributors to this website (and other similar ones) are trying to sell you rubbish medicine – don’t fall for it - look at the REAL evidence, the sort of analyses looking at thousand of patients over many decades. If you must get your evidence from the internet, at least bother to check out the author – are they qualified? Are they selling something? Where is the article published?

The bottom line is - if you want to be a good parent, get your kids vaccinated. And always remember - wanting to believe something, does not make it true.

Get real folks, before its too late and more kids die from our collective stupidity.

scarter

This has, predictably, driven the regulars into a hysterical rage. Let's take that grade-A moron Truth Seeker first, as he goes down the "informed choice" / big pharma route, before reeling off a load of made-up "ingredients" of vaccines:

What nonsense if you want to be a good parent you will not blindly vaccinate like a robotic sheep but make a fully informed choice based on the truth, not coporate bad $cience.

If you are happy to inject your child with such filth as animal pus, fetal bovine soup, DNA from aborted babies, monkey glands, aluminium rat killer,and other toxins go ahead but dont tell me anyone else what to do with our children based on silly emotional arguments about being "good parent"

"Emotional arguments" Truth Seeker? You're the one who posted a picture of bottles of brown liquid with the words "Fetal Bovine serum" photoshopped onto the labels so badly that it could only have been worse if whoever did it had used Comic Sans.

Following hard on Truth Seeker's heels in the moron stakes comes that venal bastard Cybertiger. He replies to the comment about Andrew Wakefield's dishonesty with this gem:

Don't be silly! I think you'd better take a reality check before you shoot yourself up your backside.

Dr Struthers - everyone knows by now that you have no actual arguments other than innuendo and insult, but "don't be silly" is pathetic, even for you.

Minority View then sticks her oar in, with a big old juicy lie, accusing the poster of being heartless:

I think you win the tactless of the year award. The majority of the posters on this site have a vaccine damaged child.

Hmm. For starters, MV, you're not one of them. You don't have a sick kid. You're just pushing your bullshit anti-vax agenda, using those parents who do have sick kids as a crutch to support your vile propaganda. Secondly, parents on the forum do not have vaccine damaged children. They have ill children, certainly; desparately ill in some cases, I'm sure, but vaccine damage is a self-diagnosis. That diagnosis hasn't been provided by real medical professionals, has it? It's a belief, not a medical fact. And you're just trying to exploit that belief to push that murderous agenda of yours. Now who's the heartless bastard?

Oh, and Gus spouts some shit a bit later on. Nothing to worry about - just some abuse.

So, hurrah for Reality Check!

Sugar pills to replace MMR vaccine?

Another new poster as coincidentally popped up on JABS to ask about single vaccines - what a coincidence, as Merck have announced in the last few days that they'll no longer be producing single vaccines. I claim "sock puppet" again - still, no matter. Single vaccines and "choice" is at least in line with the claimed JABS agenda. However, Truth Seeker then chimes in with a claim for "twat of the week":

Have you considered homeopathic nosodes of mumps, measles and Rubella?

Now, this is a bit sneaky. What Truth Seeker would like to see is the whole population rejecting all vaccinations, and as a result having a fair proportion of children ending up in a hospital or a mortuary. However, he seems to have realised that this is an unpopular point of view among new posters, and is making out that he's suggesting a valid alternative, when actually he's advocating treating children with, well, nothing at all - a treatment that if followed nationwide would end up with thousands of children in hospitals and morgues. Evil bastard.

John Stone posts the same old crap. Again.

John "Cock" Stone has again shown his skill in the use of CTRL-C and CTRL-V by copying a post from AgeOfAutism, regarding a groundless and timewasting complaint made about "eleven British health officials" by Bill Welsh, an anti-vax "activist" from Edinburgh. These are his primary complaints:

1. The inexplicable, and unforgivable, failure to react appropriately when it was established in 1998 that autistic children had a novel form of bowel disease/ inflammation.


2. An insistence on an “MMR or nothing” policy in face of the initial, and accumulative, scientific and anecdotal evidence re MMR’s lack of safety for a sub-set of children.


3. A refusal to press for proper investigation, using the most appropriate scientific means of research, of the claims of thousands of parents that the MMR vaccine had damaged children.


4. The promulgation, in conjunction with the Health Protection Agency, of information relating to MMR vaccine safety that is likely unreliable and potentially misleading in that context.


5. The recommendation that unethical treatments be given to children when there is no clinical need and irrespective of whether the child might be prone to adverse reactions.

Let's just take these one by one, shall we?

1. In 1998 it wasn't "established" that there was any such link. It was suggested in one paper, a paper that ten out of its twelve co-authors have since disowned. There was no good evidence.


2. There was no initial scientific evidence, and is no accumulative evidence for a lack of safety. Anecdote and conclusions drawn from coincidence are not evidence.


3. Now, I don't know how many parents Andrew Wakefield and friends, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph frightened into complaining about MMR, but any claim that there hasn't been follow-up research is ludicrous. It's just that there's been no good quality, peer reviewed, published follow-up research that agrees with the conclusion Welsh and Stone would like.


4. The information put out by the Department of Health that MMR is safe seems, in the face of a total lack of evidence showing it to be anything other than safe seems to me to be perfectly reasonable.


5. Unethical treatments? Like what? As head of the Autism Treatment Trust, Bill Welsh is no stranger to dangerous and unethical treatments, such as "maximised heavy metal detoxification" - when there's no good evidence that autism is caused by heavy metal poisoning. I assume he's implying that MMR is an unethical treatment. Sadly for Welsh and Stone - all the evidence says otherwise.

All this stuff, John Stone is completely aware of - but as I've pointed out before, to admit it would mean a massive loss of face, so he continues on his ever more ridiculous quest, grasping at thinner and thinner straws. The man's an immoral cock - he's campaigning for something dangerous, when he knows his position is a lie.

So - that's Welsh dealt with. Can we have him locked up for malicious time wasting?

Anti-vaccination is a religion

Now tell me that these people aren't nutters. Truth Seeker has posted a quote from immunizationinfo.org, which explains the science behind the myth that vaccines contain foetal tissue.

"Some vaccine components have been derived from human fetuses. The abortions were not conducted for the purpose of vaccine discovery or vaccine production"

Perfectly reasonable.

However, as Truth Seeker has shit for brains, he then goes on to claim that this is an absolute lie, by copy-and-pasting a great long diatribe from a website by the name of www.jesus-is-savior.com. The specific page is: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in America/Abortion is Murder/aborted_fetus_vaccines.htm. You can imagine the kind of reasoned discussion you'll get on that site, can't you…? To save you the bother of your own copy and paste job (as I refuse to link to this kind of crap), it starts with a big gory header that reads "The Abortion Industry Contributes To Vaccine Manufacturing", and carries on in much the same vein for pages of shite.

When the JABS crowd resort to backing their arguments with quotes from fundamental religious whack-jobs, any last remnants of their supposed sheen of respectability drains merrily away down the toilet.

Amusingly, the next post, from that halfwit aobbard reads:

Brings it home doesn't it?

Err, no. It makes you all look like twats.