John Stone manages to demonstrate his complete grasp of "how to be an utter cock"

Anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone

I've long said that John Stone is a cock. Indeed, this very blog is the number one hit on Google for the phrase "John Stone is a cock". Imagine my joy then, when, just today, John Stone went out of his way to prove to the world in general that he is, indeed, a complete cock.

You see, John Stone has pretty much come to the the conclusion that he's lost the battle when it comes to showing that MMR (or vaccines in general) cause autism. If you look at his green-ink-ravings lately, he hardly ever mentions it, instead going out of his way to merely imply it by smearing journalists, doctors, and anyone else disagrees with him with feeble accusations of "conflict of interest", putting forward points that "prove" this in the manner of an investigative journalist - all the while forgetting to mention that the facts he's twisting have been in the public domain for years, and, crucially, do not demonstrate any sort of conflict of interest.

John Stone hates Dr Ben Goldacre (The medical doctor who writes The Guardian's "Bad Science" column, and who has blasted the media for hyping up the Wakefield "MMR causes Autism" story purely to sell papers), and has been trying to smear him for years, mainly through rants in the Rapid Response section of the British Medical Journal. Stone will have you believe that getting your name in Rapid Responses is equivalent to being "published in a medical journal" - when actually, provided your frothings aren't actually likely to attract legal attention, you're as likely to get your comment published as you are here. Fucking hell, even disgraced ex-GP Mark "Cybertiger" Struthers has had a rabid response accepted, and he's more mental than Stone.

Anyway, today Stone (who now has the grandiose title of "UK Editor for Age of Autism") has gone, all guns blazing, for Dr Goldacre and others who he sees as complicit in his grand MMR cover-up conspiracy. Shame his guns are spud guns.

Writing directly under a banner advert reading "Sponsored by Lee Silsby, the leader in quality compounded medications for autism" - a company who have a vested interest in perpetuating the lies about autism being caused by MMR / mercury / heavy metals - Stone kicks off with what he clearly considers to be a fact that blows Dr Goldacre's career out of the water - who his father is;

After years of secrecy on the matter confirmation has finally come to light that Guardian ‘Bad Science’ journalist Ben Goldacre is the son of Oxford professor of public health Michael J Goldacre

Fuck me! Really? You know, if I'd been unaware of that, I could have discovered it by, for example, reading Wikipedia in November 2008. More to the point, how is this relevant? Well, Stone goes on;

Goldacre senior was a co-author of a study of the effects of GlaxoSmithKline’s notorious Urabe strain version of MMR, Pluserix, after it was suddenly withdrawn from public use in 1992

Oh - I see. Dr Goldacre senior wrote about MMR too! Stone tries to show how legitimate this argument is, by linking to PubMed. Unfortunately he just links to the homepage. Presumably he hopes that anyone dumb enough to believe a word he says will just assume that Dr Goldacre senior is blindly defending MMR. Well, no. The paper is critical of the 'Urabe' strain of MMR, although points out that cases of Aseptic Meningitis in (Urabe) vaccinated children was still only around a quarter of the number that would be expected in wild mumps. Still, hardly a glowing endorsement.

Fresh from this major triumph, Stone heads further into conspiracy theory territory;

His [Ben Goldacre's] early article MMR: Never mind the facts won the accolade of the GlaxoSmithKline sponsored Association of British Science Writers’ award for the best feature article of 2003.

Stone then links to one of his tedious BMJ rants, where he points out that GlaxoSmithKline was a "MMR manufacturer and defendent".

How the fuck is that relevant? Ben Goldacre writes a piece for a newspaper. Some time later, it wins an award, which is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. Unless Stone's implying that Dr Goldacre took money from GSK to actually write the article? Is that it John? Are you suggesting that? There's an order of events here, which you seem keen to gloss over.

Still, Stone ploughs on;

The article, however, used flawed epidemiology for which he later offered no defence, as well as including an anonymous attack on Andrew Wakefield by one of Wakefield’s colleagues.

What Stone is referring to is his rapid response, which cherry-picked quotes from various studies to make it appear that there was still some doubt over the safety of MMR - when the studies he was quoting from claimed no such thing. Frankly I'd be surprised if Dr Goldacre knew about Stone's accusations, let alone concerned himself with replying to them. It's hardly as though they were valid scientific criticisms in a peer reviewed paper. No, they were the rantings of a fool. John Stone, however has delusions of grandeur (and a massively over-inflated sense of his own wit, intelligence and importance).

Next, Stone goes on the attack (in the manner of an elderly, toothless, three-legged Yorkshire terrier), by quoting one of his favourite lines;

A stock-in-trade has been his generalised attacks on parents of MMR damaged children. His Bad Science blogsite for a long time offered this intimidatory advice to would-be contributors:

“..personal anecdotes about your MMR tragedy will be deleted for your own safety”

Several problems here John. There's no evidence of MMR damage, that's hardly "intimidatory", nor an attack on parents, and you clearly don't recognise a throwaway (if possibly a little insensitive to the hard of thinking like yourself) comment telling readers of the blog that anecdotes will be given short shrift; it's a site about science, not a place for "debating" with alt-medders and the likes of you and Guss The Fuss. Also, this line was removed from the site years ago - hardly the actions of someone for whom abuse of parents was "stock-in-trade".

Next, Stone makes another laugh out loud comment;

A fundamental of Ben Goldacre’s journalistic method is the ad hominem and he always talks across opponents: he can always depend on the greater prominence of his published views and he never answers the many awkward criticisms.

Stone doesn't do irony. John! Your whole piece is one big ad-hom! (I realise that here I can be accused of much the same, but I'd like to point out that the fact that I think John Stone is an unpleasant cock is not why I have a go at him. I have a go at him because his views are so ill thought out, his science so abysmal, his ability to discuss a rational point is non-existent and (most of all) he's endangering the lives of children. My stating that he's a cock isn't ad-hom, if anything it's just random abuse (although I'd actually say it's demonstrable fact).)

We've already discussed what Stone means by "answering awkward criticism". Why not write a paper on your views John, see if you can get it published in a reputable journal, and then maybe the answers to the "awkward criticisms" you dream up over your dining room table might be provided. While you remain the internet's equivalent of the man dragging a broomhead down the street on a lead, shouting at invisible goblins and smelling of piss, it's unlikely anyone's going to give you the time of day.

The Goldacre dynasty seem to be one of several with on-going connections with the MMR affair:

Dynasty - ooh, sounds grand. Stone then goes on to imply (never stating - he knows that there's nothing to his implications and that he'd be sued from here to fucking doomsday if he actually stated any of them outright) that a series of other science writers, MPs, and publishers are connected with the MMR affair. Well, yes, they're connected in that they all were all involved in the demonstrating that Andrew Wakefield was a fraud, his research was fraudulent and unethical, he was paid massive undisclosed figures to find the results that he claimed… etc etc. Funnily enough, Stone doesn't suggest that there was a huge conspiracy to puff up the story, as demonstrated by the Daily Mail, the Express, credulous fools like Melanie Philips, himself, Clifford Miller, etc… No. He just lists a load of people who don't agree with his viewpoint.

Stone's not finished yet, oh no. Back to Dr Goldacre. He repeats another of his favourite quotes;

“people periodically come up to me and say, isn't it funny how that Wakefield MMR paper turned out to be Bad Science after all? And I say: no. The paper always was and still remains a perfectly good small case series report, but it was systematically misrepresented as being more than that, by media that are incapable of interpreting and reporting scientific data.”

Of course, he omits to mention that that comment was made before the evidence of Wakefield's fiddling results, lying to team members and unethical practices came to light. Had Wakefield's research been honest, then yes, it would have been a "perfectly good small case series report". But it wasn't, and it wasn't. However, Stone then goes on to feign incredulity that what Dr Goldacre wrote (before all the evidence came to light) wasn't listened to by the GMC when;

Wakefield and colleagues were found with remarkable ingenuity to be in innumerable respects in breach of the terms of the protocol which they had reasonably pleaded they were not doing.

Actually, they didn't plead that to most of the charges. Read the GMC's verdict. Most of the charges were "Admitted and proved". But you're not going to tell the readers of AoA that, are you John. You're going to make out that Wakefield et al fought until the end. They didn't. They admitted most of the charges when they knew they were fucked.

Right. That's it for tonight.

Unfortunately there are another five paragraphs of Stone's rubbish - they'll have to wait for another day.

John Stone flogs dead horse - still a cock - no shock there then

Anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone

Age of Autism is full of shit - buy the t-shirt!

John Stone again seems intent on proving himself incapable of arguing himself out of a wet paper bag.  It's taken him two weeks to come up with what's frankly little more than a rehash of his usual "I'm right because I say I'm right - listen to my spin and lies" rants of the last few years.

Since he discovered that former Lib-Dem science spokesman Dr Evan Harris may have had a hand in the bringing low of Stone's personal love interest, Andrew Wakefield, Stone has turned his miniscule intellect on him.  Indeed, in the fortnight since Dr Harris wrote a very sensible piece in the Guardian about the Fletcher decision, and how, despite the spin put on it by the likes of Age of Autism, it's not any kind of admission that MMR causes autism, Stone has clearly spent his days and nights frothing over a load of bollocks that AoA have stuck on their blog.

Let's see what the swivel-eyed loon has to say;

In the aftermath of the Fletcher vaccine damage award case, former Liberal-Democrat MP and ‘science’ lobbyist Dr Evan Harris mounted a defence of MMR vaccine in a Guardian ‘political science’ blog (HERE), leaving all the usual questions unanswered, both the manifold questions about vaccine safety and policy

To an extent, yes, they're the "usual questions" - "usual" in that Stone keeps asking them - but they've been answered many, many times.  There is no evidence that vaccines, and specifically MMR, cause autism.  The only studies that suggest they do have been extremely small, badly conducted ones - usually involving Wakefield, or one of his team - which have been analysed in minute detail, and shown to be science-free rubbish.  Plenty of studies have, on the other hand, shown no association.

List of studies supporting (three, with one retracted) and refuting (25) an association

Where does Stone go from there?  Well, I'm not entirely sure, as he appears to be talking utter gobbledegook;

…and his own role in its defence including such issues as:

• his bureaucratic fall-back position on vaccine damage ignoring legitimate parent concerns
• how he helped precipitate the Wakefield affair but has failed to defend key points of GMC’s decision
• his defence of controversial proponents of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy diagnosis Drs Meadow and Southall

Taking these points one by one;

• What on earth is a "bureaucratic fall-back position on vaccine damage"? Dr Harris has a strong scientific background - I don't think he's likely to say that Stone et al are talking shit because some paper pusher's told him to. The man's a scientist and forms his views from the available evidence - not from rhetoric and quasi-religious belief (unlike Stone). At least, I think this is what Stone means. I could be entirely wrong.
• Why, in an article about lack of association between autism and mercury is Dr Harris's involvement in bringing that fraud and liar Andrew Wakefield to book remotely relevant? MMR never had mercury in it. Additionally, why should Dr Harris feel the need to defend the GMC's ruling? Most of the charges were admitted, those that were contested were backed up by evidence, and only halfwits like John "Cock" Stone think otherwise.
• What has the article to do with Drs Meadow and Southall?

Do I get the whiff of John Stone just looking for an excuse to throw everything he has (which amounts to the cube root of fuck all) at Dr Harris?

Still - let's carry on.

Stone then starts quoting his own comments on the story, as though they're fact;

Vaccines are not inherently safe and they are not very well tested, as Cochrane points out.

This is Stone cherry picking out of context quotes.  He is of the belief that the Cochrane Review of the available evidence on MMR indicates that there are still questions to be asked about the vaccine.  There aren't.  The abstract of the Cochrane Review actually says:
"Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis".

The plain language summary reads as follows:
" No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn's disease was found."

Yes, the Cochrane Review points out that studies are not perfect, but then, that's partly the point of a Cochrane Review - to improve studies in the future. However, there's nothing in the review to suggest that there is any problem with MMR.

What actually happens in the real world is that even serious adverse effects are neither recorded or monitored

Yes they are, you cock. That's what the yellow card system is there for. It can be improved, certainly, but it's there, and unlike the VAERS database (which is often quoted as evidence by anti-vaxers), it's monitored, and results are taken seriously. The chances of a report of someone turning into the Incredible Hulk after a vaccine making it through are minimal.

Apparently Dr Harris ignored this. Are you surprised, Stone? These are points that you make every time you put rabid finger to spittle-flecked keyboard, and they're refuted by scientists and doctors every time. It's not all about you, y'know.

Stone then goes back to his second favourite subject - his fantasy lover, Andrew Wakefield.

No wonder the great interests were all so angry when Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch of the Royal Free Hospital stepped out of line and actually listened to the parents, and investigated their children’s medical history.

I'm not entirely sure who "the great interests" are supposed to be, but plenty people were angry - not because Wakefield et al were investigating anything, but because their "results" (later shown to be fraudulent, or in plain speak "lies") didn't support the conclusions that were drawn from their work.  It's not a conspiracy; Wakefield has been pilloried for unethical behaviour and lying.

Stone then gets on his high horse when Dr Harris doesn't respond to his pointless, repetitive questions about his involvement in helping Wakefield be finally brought before the beak.

John, let me explain something to you.  Dr Harris wrote the article.  The floor is then open for people to comment on the article, not to demand that they write another article, just for you, on an unrelated topic.  I know, next time you rewrite your fucking pointless diatribe, I'll show up, asking you questions about why the Pope has been covering up priestly paedophilia for decades, repeatedly, until my fucking keyboard wears out, then I'll post a diatribe on some shitty, ill-thought out American blog, give myself the pretentious title of "UK Editor" just because I live in the UK, ranting on about how John Stone supports child abuse* because he wouldn't reply to any of my questions.

Stone then proceeds to use the opportunity to rehash a few more of his personal theories and bleatings about the Wakefield affair,  continuing to berate Dr Harris for not answering his questions.  As I said before John;

"While you remain the internet's equivalent of the man dragging a broomhead down the street on a lead, shouting at invisible goblins and smelling of piss, it's unlikely anyone's going to give you the time of day."

Now that your pet hypotheses are being shot down again and again, why don't you just fuck off?

* True.  Opposing potentially life saving vaccines is, in my book, tantamount to child abuse.

Avoid Vaccines Because Jimmy Savile Was A Paedophile

Repugnant anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone

John Stone (who is, as we're all well aware, a cock) has surpassed himself today. He's claiming that no-one should be vaccinated because Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. Or something. Actually, I haven't a fucking clue what point he's trying to make... Let me go back a little.

A few days ago, some knob by the name of John Gilmore posted a fairly standard load of shite at Age of Arseholery, trying to rev up its New Jersey readership into contacting their senator to stop a bill designed to tighten up "religious" exemptions for vaccines. According to Gilmore (and, for the purposes of taking the piss out of John Stone I have no idea, and indeed care less, whether he's right),

If S1759 is signed into law, it will require parents seeking a religious exemption to:

• Specify their exact religious tenets;
• Explain the nature of the religious tenet or practice that is implicated by the vaccination;
• Explain how administration of vaccines would violate, contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with that tenet or practice;
• etc etc…

You get the idea.

Now, to rational people, that might seem reasonable. If you're going to claim an exemption or benefit for anything, not just vaccines, on the basis of your religion, you should really be required to explain why your religion entitles you to that benefit - and to show that you really do follow that religion, and aren't just making it up. If I told my boss I needed to leave early on Fridays in Winter to get home before sunset because I'm Jewish, I think he'd want a bit of evidence - and he might start questioning the odd bacon sandwich here and there.

So why should it be any different for vaccines?

But I digress…

A commenter (who seems to have no axe to grind) has asked:

Which actual religions have a prohibition on vaccines?

It's a perfectly reasonable question, if a rather awkward one, as I don't think there is one. I thought the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists) did, but it seems not - more on that later.

As is to be expected, when faced with an awkward question that makes it through the micromesh that is Age of Autism's moderation policy, John Stone jumps in and starts flinging irrelevant words around.

Which actual religions prescribe vaccines? Most religions have ethical tenets and people could feel that these are being transgressed. Offering a child up to the scientistic belief systems surrounding vaccination might be one of way of transgressing your beliefs - a totemistic belief in dogma (Prophet Paul Offit).

Now my answer would be "most of them", as most religions are quite keen to, y'know, keep the faithful alive.

Stone then does the "science as religion" gambit, and even throws in a "worshipping false idols".

Still, it's about what you expect from Stone when faced with a question he either doesn't know the answer to, or the answer doesn't fit his beliefs.

Anyway, the rest of the echo chamber chimes in, suggesting that Christian Scientists don't vaccinate, and then just descending into irrelevant toss.

With much prayer and reflection I know God is on the side of saving our children from harm, I don't need a religious group to join in with my beliefs or to have my back.

See - fucking wingnuts, the lot of 'em.

Anyway, the poster of the original question, one John O'Neill pops up again, showing that Christian Scientists do not, as popularly believed, have a prohibition on vaccination, and - and this is the best bit - calling Stone out on his ridiculous comment.

John Stone - There are plenty things that no religions prescribe: Watching television, flying in aeroplanes, playing cricket - that isn't an argument to avoid them.

Stone then loses it completely, and sets off on one, likening the vaccine industry to ex-Radio 1 DJ and alleged paedophile Jimmy Savile:

There might not be specific prohibitions against television in most religions - Amish? - but that doesn't mean watching anything on television is alright. People might very well say certain television programmes were harmful to their children or harmful in general. In the UK we recently learnt that one of our most celebrated TV personalities was using his position to serially sexually abuse children, the disabled, the orphaned, the insane, maybe even the dead in industrial quantities, and even with the help of the Department of Health. Last year when he died he was accorded about the grandest public funeral since the Queen Mother, but with all the shows of big heartedness, the millions raised for charity he was all the time pursuing harm, sponsored and protected by the BBC, and much of the British establishment. It is now being seriously suggested that a paedophile ring was being operated from the cabinet office in No 10 Downing Street at an unspecified period. Personally, I never watched him deliberately, would switch off if I saw him, and actively the whole thing was as it turned out just a big pretext to pursue criminal harm to children and other vulnerable people.

Oh, my aching sides!! That's the stupidest thing he's ever said, and that's a high target.

So there you have it, John Stone says don't vaccinate because Jimmy Savile was a paedophile - and that's religious exemption, kids!

Or something.

I don't know about you, but I'm fucking convinced.

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!

John Stone - "paranoid" doesn't even come close…

John Stone has lost it big style. Already known for his loathing for The Guardian's "Bad Science" writer Dr Ben Goldacre, he's really gone off on one over a comment made in the NHS Blog Doctor blog.

"Dr John Crippen", the author of the blog has posted an interesting piece about, and video of Dr Goldacre's appearance on the "London Tonight" television programme, pointing out how dangerous LBC's Jeni Barnett was when she broadcast an hour long anti MMR vaccine rant.

He's also posted a couple of links to other blogs which discuss the making of the piece, and how a reference made to "radioactive paedophiles" at the end of the piece had to be removed. The story about a "radioactive paedophile" is here. Having watched the video, it's clear that the reference to the story was intended to show how the press sensationalises science, turning anything it can into a scare story.

All very reasonable.

However, that pointless dickhead John Stone doesn't see it like that. He sees the reference to "radioactive paedophiles" as a personal attack on him and the rest of the JABS crowd.

I see the latest thing from him is that we are "radioactive paedophiles"

This is outrageous paranoia, and narcissism. It's also potentially libellous; no-one's calling anyone a paedophile, radioactive or otherwise. This is pointed out to Stone by a couple of posters, interestingly, including "jabba" - a staunch anti vaxer - who also posts the text of the actual "radioactive paedophile" story I linked to above. He finishes his post with one of the most sensible things anyone's ever said on JABS;

Lighten up John. Not everything is about you.

John "Me me me me me" Stone's not having this though. He retorts;

I have no doubt that this is where the epithet "radioctive paedophile" comes from but it is a pretty obscure reference, and I didn't suggest Crippen invented the term. Crippen used it in the context of people who expressed reservations about the vaccine programme. This is hate rhetoric. It is no use you and Advice 3 pretending that he didn't say it, or didn't mean it.

Advice3 points out to him how idiotic he looks;

"This is hate rhetoric. It is no use you and Advice 3 pretending that he didn't say it, or didn't mean it." has nothing to do with vaccination; your attempts at distortion and spin are making you look rather sad.

Jabba continues;

If you are going to refute them it is incumbent for you to understand what they are saying.
If you are really convinced that Goldacre called you a radioactive paedophile, then you should file a complaint with London tonight, or consult a solicitor.

Stone appears to realise that he's made himself look a bit silly, and starts wriggling;

The phrase wasn't used on London Tonight and it was not used against me personally so that is an absurd suggestion. There isn't much of a clue to what "radioactive paedophiles" is about, but it come at the head of a piece about people who doubt the safety of MMR, so it is evidently a piece of atmospherics.

Stone, you cock, there's every clue as to what "radioactive paedophiles" is about - there's a link to the story, and if you read the text in the link about the making of the piece, and actually bothered to watch the video, you'd realise that it's not got anything to do with you, you self important, pompous TWAT. Do you think anyone really wants to give you the oxygen of publicity? No. You're a fucking moron who realises it's all going horribly wrong, but you'll keep bleating until you're blue in the face, because you can't possibly admit that your only reason for existing is a tissue of lies, idiocy and fabrications.

More Vile Posturings

The JABS crew have been bleating over the George Fisher verdict. For those of you not immediately aware of the case, George Fisher was an 18 month old child, who tragically died - for no immediately apparent reason. Dreadful though this is, it happens. Toddlers drop dead - adults drop dead. They just die. It's dreadful, but it happens.

In George Fisher's case though, Jackie Fletcher, of JABS, and that evil bastard John Stone, have persuaded Mr and Mrs Fisher that the MMR vaccine that George had, ten days before his death, was to blame.

Lets think about that for a moment. Mr and Mrs Fisher have just lost a child - the worst thing that could happen to any parents. Then Fletcher and Stone turn up, and say "Your child was killed by SOMETHING YOU DID!!! YOU KILLED YOUR CHILD BY VACCINATING HIM!!!"

However, if you then take anyone in sight to court, claiming it was THEIR (Big Pharma, Ben Goldacre) FAULT, you can assuage that guilt.

The trouble is, the inquest that Fletcher and Stone have pushed the parents into has turned round and said "Er, no. Vaccines had nothing to do with this child's death."

John Stone is still bleating on, as are several other posters on the JABS forum, making out that there's some kind of cover up. Let's see what kind of shit they're coming out with, shall we?

Gus the Fuss: The pharma cartel lies about the vaccines given when the baby is born and then lies yet again when the baby dies evil filthy liars

Allison: Another point I'd like to make that has since bowled me over;

The Coroner, Alan Crickmore with the sole decision into the findings of the death of Georgie Fisher is "a divorce lawyer".

He cited death by natural causes.

Was he really a suitable choice to be allocated such an important medical based decision? I think not.

Aasa: I don't know about the UK, but here in Ontario, coroners need to be practising physicians. One would think that that should be at least a minimum requirement to be a coroner.

Now, it's interesting that the choice of coroner wasn't cited as a problem before the verdict was announced.

It's impossible to please these evil bastards who are, when it comes down to it, dead set on trying to kill your (of if not your, someone else's) children.

They want to ban vaccines, and they want to do this by having a scientist tell the world that they're likely to kill children, or cause autism. To this end, they find any dead child they can, badger their grieving parents by lying to them about vaccines (as we've seen), and then wait for the outcome of a pointless enquiry. They know full well that the enquiry will say "No, vaccines weren't involved", but they put the parents through the horrible experience anyway.

They just hope that one day they'll get a judge / coroner / whoever who's suffering from early onset Alzheimers who'll give them the result that they want. However, they keep getting reasonable human beings, who keep following the evidence and saying "No, nothing to do with vaccines."

In the meantime, they'll push as many parents through this whole (as John Stone puts it) "sorry farago", destroying their already shredded lives even further.

John Stone, Jackie Fletcher et al, I hope you rot in hell.

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.

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.

John Stone and Cybertiger in "No-one likes us and we're going to cry" shock

John Stone likes to present himself as the reasonable face of anti-vax lunacy, but whenever anyone points out compelling evidence why he's wrong, he tends to turn into a shouty ranter, flinging ad-hom attacks left, right and centre.

Cybertiger has been whinging that the majority of posters on OnMedica (other doctors - intelligent, thoughtful people mainly) think he's an arse. He even posts their comments to illustrate this. (I think he's hoping to convince people that he's outsmarting them all with his wit, but he just proves what a cock he is).

It's a long post, so here's the address (I'm not linking to it - you'll need to copy and paste): http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1379&whichpage=3

John Stone then chimes in with his usual debating tactic:

It is pitiful. The only response to parents who complain about damage is to claim they are lying - even before inspecting the evidence. What a bunch of nauseating toads. The innuendo over the botched colonscopy says it all. The newspaper repeats allegations which have been withdrawn. Innuendo rules.

What a twat.

Since I started this post, the "debate" - or rather, Dr Struthers trying to wriggle out of awkward questions - has raged on, and Anthony Cox has turned up to add a little more sanity. This should be good; CyberStruthers loathes Anthony Cox. :-) So, what happens?

1. He shoots Cybertiger down in flames:
   

   So Mark Struthers who routinely makes accusations about other peoples conflicts of interest, usually without any supporting evidence, accepts money from the government to administer vaccines to patients when he believes that those vaccines are both dangerous and unnecessary. What a surprise. No doubt he also prescribes statins despite his view that they are a scam, and anti-retrovirals to HIV patients despite his views on the "mythology of HIV causing AIDS".



2. He finds the perfect description for Jackie Fletcher and JABS:
   

   Jackie Fletcher describes her group as a group representing parents of vaccine-damaged children. Certainly vaccines can cause adverse effects, and this is accepted by both the medical profession and government, but the sad fact is, that in the case of the autism-MMR vaccine hypothesis, many of the parents are not parents of vaccine-damaged children, but victims of a terrible hoax that has led them down a desperately sad false trail of anger and despair. Now that every aspect of the Wakefield hypothesis has been undermined or disproved, it is time that we moved on from this debate and that efforts were put into research of treatments and support for autism that work. It is clear that for parents of autistic children, JABS is actually a counterproductive organisation that is undermining research in autism by continually associating autism with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.

Hurrah for Anthony Cox, laughs all round at Cybertiger who appears to have slunk away with his tail between his legs, and "YOU'RE A COCK, STONE!" for John Stone.

StoneWatch: John Stone spews hate over the parents of dead children

Anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone

Age of Autism is full of shit - buy the t-shirt!

Swivel-eyed anti-vaccine loon John Stone - Age of Autism's UK Editor - recently accused real doctor and journalist Dr Ben Goldacre of offering

"generalised attacks on parents of MMR damaged children"

Well, that's nice isn't it.

Especially when you're the author of this:

An infant dies, it is claimed almost certainly falsely from whooping cough.

[Emphasis mine - Becky]

Nice. This is the story. (Précis: A child has died in Australia, from whooping cough. That vile woman Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) has been harrassing the family, claiming the child didn't die from Whooping Cough) John Stone, despite having no qualifications in microbiology, immunology, or, in fact, anything, other than being a cock and shouting at Mozart feels free to dismiss a diagnosis from halfway around the world. He doesn't actually suggest what maybe did kill the child.

That's because he's an evil fucking cock.

Astounding quote mining from John Stone at AoA

Anti-vaccine wingnut John Stone

Age of Autism is full of shit - buy the t-shirt!

John Stone's latest Age of Autism latest post contains a spectacular piece of quote mining.

The story is a piece rubbishing the search for genetic causes for autism, and starts off by criticising a BBC story which covered a link discovered between a genetic condition and ADHD. I must admit, I also felt that the story as reported by the BBC and in other places claimed greater things than the study actually showed, but that didn't immediately invalidate the whole search for genetic causes of conditions for me.

However, Stone then goes on to pull this quote from a Daily Telegraph opinion piece by Steve Jones - professor of genetics at University College London;

"In other words, our chances of being born with a predisposition to a common illness such as diabetes or heart disease are not represented by the roll of a single die, but a gamble involving huge numbers of cards. Some people are dealt a poor mix and suffer as a result. Rather than drawing one fatal error, they lose life's poker game in complicated and unpredictable ways. So many small cards can be shuffled that everyone fails in their own private fashion. Most individual genes say very little about the real risk of illness. As a result, the thousands of people who are paying for tests for susceptibility to particular diseases are wasting their money."

Stone uses this to suggest that all research into genetic causes of disease and conditions is a waste of time. What Professor Jones goes on to say, however, is nothing of the kind.

"Not all the news is bad, however. Some genes, even those that have a small influence, hint at what may be going wrong in the case of a particular malady. Several of those behind a certain age-related blindness that runs in families are involved in the immune system – an unexpected finding that hints at what its cause might be, and where to start looking for a cure.

Even so, many geneticists now think that the constant pressure to sample thousands and thousands more people for a myriad of unknown genes that have a tiny effect may be misplaced. Instead, we would be better off abandoning the scattergun approach, and reading off the entire three thousand million DNA letters of a much smaller number of individuals, healthy and unhealthy, to see in detail what might have gone wrong.

Professor Jones is simply arguing that we're going about the search for genetic causes the wrong way - that genetic causes are more complicated than was at first thought, and we should change approach.

Not quite what you're suggesting, is it John?

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.

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.

You'd think John Stone would be pro-vaccine, really...

Given that John "Cock" Stone is a self-proclaimed expert on Mozart, and given what he's written about him, you'd expect him to realise that most of the vaccine-preventable diseases can be extremely nasty - and are potentially fatal. Indeed, according to Stone himself, writing in "The Mozart Compendium" (quote from http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/mozart_freemason.html)

John Stone writing in ‘The Mozart Compendium’ lists eleven serious
illnesses which wracked our brother’s short life. The first, in 1762, was
scarlet fever. Bro Mozart was only four. The following year he suffered two
infantile bouts of rheumatic fever. He had whooping cough, when he nearly
suffocated, typhoid, smallpox, hepatitis, and several bouts of rheumatic fever,
among other illnesses.

He now tagteams with Clifford Miller, claiming that so-called "childhood illnesses" are mostly harmless.

What a twat.

Ref: STONE,JOHN, Mozart’s illnesses and death in The
Mozart Compendium(H.C. Robbins Landon ed.),
London: Thames and Hudson, 1990

John Stone and friends lying again

While we're on the subject of mendacious bastards, there's a fairly recent post over at John Stone and Clifford Miller's ludicrous "Timecube" inspired blog "ChildHealthSafety". It's simply propagating a vaccine myth that was recently punted round the internet.

See the story [video just below] of previously healthy Desiree Jennings horrifically crippled only days ago by the flu vaccine and just 10 days after getting the shot. Desiree was a cheerleader and led an active life until now.

They then embed the "Desiree Jennings staggers around" video and cite it as clear evidence that the 'flu vaccine causes irreversible neurological damage. Under the title "Flu Vaccine Cripples Healthy US Cheerleader for Life".

Every neurologist asked about this case, and major dystonia charities have come to the conclusion that this is not dystonia, and that the symptoms are psychological, and as John Stone and Clifford Miller like to position themselves as the educated and rational face of anti-vax lunacy, you'd have thought that they'd at least have the decency to issue an apology saying "we were taken in too - sorry", or at the very least, to quietly remove the post. But no, they're keeping it there as "evidence".

John, Clifford - why not read this?

Fortunately, and frankly unsurprisingly, Desiree Jennings has now been "cured" of her condition by a quack. So that's all right then.

C'mon John - I'll accept it's an oversight - apologise, feel a bit ashamed and remove the post, or at least remove the insinuation that this poor girl's condition was caused by a vaccine.

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.

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."

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 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?