Amazing what they let through at AoA sometimes

I meant to post this months ago, but never got round to it.

This post somehow made it through the AoA filters back in June when they had their little claws out for me...



Thanks Seanos!

Callous Disregard price countdown

Maybe Wakefield could flog more copies of his "handy if you've got a wobbly table" book by advertising it as "It's almost as cheap as bog roll."

It's currently available on Amazon.com, hardback, new, at $8.95. That's £5.67 at today's rate (from xe.com).

Cybertiger loses final appeal

How did I miss this one - a story from a couple of months ago now?

Everybody's favourite pointless dickhead, Dr Mark Struthers, has lost his final appeal against his sacking.

Interestingly, his sacking wasn't due to his anti-vaccine, anti-science, AIDS-denying, pro-idiocy views (JabsLoonies Passim), but, by the sound of it, for being a dickhead.

He was sacked for gross misconduct, appealed, and lost, and then took his ex-employers to an industrial tribunal, and lost.

So please join me in raising a belated glass to the sacking of an utter, utter arsehole. And congratulations to "Bedfordshire On Sunday", currently my favourite local paper.

And Struthers' final words on the subject? Yes, he's being an cock again:

“Of course, it was not so much the winning but the taking part that really mattered and I have absolutely no regrets about giving the doctors and their business manager a run for their money."

Twat alert

It seems that some anti vaccine wingnut has found this blog today, and has spewed a load of ill thought out nonsense all over the comments.

Going by the name of "Brian Deer" (oh, that's so funny I nearly shit), my poster is claiming a load of the usual bollocks that gets spouted by the anti-vaxers.

I'll summarise the main points, and try and explain to him where he's either missed the point, cherry picking data, or just lying.

1. Measles is not dangerous, as there have only been three deaths from it [in the UK] in the last eighteen years.

Hmm. Has it occurred to you, "Brian", that there have only been 3 deaths from measles in 18 years primarily because we've been vaccinating? Are you also aware that, according to World Health Organisation figures, in 2008 there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour. 450 preventable deaths a day. Think on that one, you callous bastard.

This isn't just about the worried well refusing to vaccinate in this country, where there are generally excellent health facilities for those who do fall sick, and a high level of herd immunity. This is about the morons who preach the evils of vaccination worldwide, and would like to stop vaccination programs in India, aub-Saharan Africa, and other places with less than ideal medical infrastructures.

In the UK and the US, prior to his beloved 18 year period, there were hundreds of thousands of cases of measles, many of them fatal in the 1950s and 60s.


Click for larger version.

Given that vaccination has massively reduced the incidence of measles (to the point that in the UK, until recently, it was no longer endemic), and standards of medical care are constantly improving, it's no surprise that there have been so few deaths from measles in the last 18 years.

That, however, is a situation that my commenter would dearly love to see reversed.

2. Travelling by car is more dangerous than measles - why am I bothering arguing against the anti-vaxers?

Yes, there are more deaths on the road every year (in the UK) than there are from measles. I'll grant you that. However, there isn't a small but vocal group of fucking morons all over the internet trying to ban airbags, seatbelts and crumple zones in cars, and lying about it to vulnerable groups and individuals on the basis that they think they might be dangerous, and / or they have a massive vested interest in keeping their made up "controversy" going. If there was, I'd be pointing out their bloody idiocy as well. Also - see the point about 450 preventable deaths per day.

3. "I don't vaccinate. As i said in a previous post, I lie awake at night fearing rare cancers in the young, diabetes, asthma, arthritis, alzheimer's, Multiple Sclerosis, diabetes T1, autism. These are the increasing modern diseases, that no-one knows what the cause is. I also feel safer. "

This isn't an argument. What you mean is you've listened to a load of anti-vaccine liars, and have had a huge seed of doubt planted in your head. You don't have enough critical thinking faculties to see that there is no good evidence to suggest that any of these conditions are related to vaccines, and no statistical correlation either. None whatsoever.

4. "I cant help it if your choice to vaccinate has a positive externality for my child, at 0 risk to my child. But when you really think about it, you can CALL me scientifically iiliterate , you can call me an idiot, you can show me your degrees in science, just keep vaccinating :)"

This just translates as "I'm a selfish cunt and I know it, la la la, I'm not listening!!!"

5. "Professional research loses credibility with me, if it is sponsored by the very people who sell that vaccine. Selective funding can affect professional research results."

Or; "I'm a paranoid, credulous conspiracy theorist."

6. "Can you tell me if the increased vaccine load, or a component of the vaccine increases the risk of any of these diseases [Rare tumours in the young, asthma, diabeties type 1, Arthritis, MS , autism, nervous system tumours] 20 years after the injection? No? "

Well, idiot boy, given that all the evidence suggests that vaccines do not increase the danger of these conditions, why don't you tell me why you think it does. The onus is on you to show some plausible mechanism for it, or some statistical correlation. Come back when you can.

"Brian" has clearly swallowed the anti-vax bleatings of the likes of JABS without applying any actual thought. One of the main themes running through his slew of comments is that vaccination is more dangerous than measles. Let me run a few figures past you, shall I Brian?

Risk / Benefit analysis of vaccination vs measles (taken from a recent Guardian CiF thread, compiled by DeeTee from (I understand) HPA stats):
If one million kids are given vaccine (MMR):
1000 will have a febrile convulsion.
30 will get thrombocytopenia.
10 will get a severe allergic reaction.
1 will get encephalitis (ADEM).

If one million kids get measles (in Europe, in the 21st century):
200 will die.
100,000 will be ill enough to need hospitalisation.
90,000 will get otitis media.
80,000 will get gastroenteritis.
50,000 will get primary viral or secondary bacterial pneumonia.
5000 will have a febrile convulsion.
1000 will get encephalitis (ADEM or SSPE), 100 of whom will die and 2-300 will have residual brain damage.
1000 will get various other problems such as hepatitis, myocarditis, thrombocytopenia or miscarriage if caught in pregnancy.

Now - wanna rethink?

Excellent piece on the dangers of anti-vaccine wingnuttery

An excellent piece today in The Guardian on the dangers of anti-vaccine lies. Those hateful people like Stone, Jake Crosby, Jenny McCarthy, Meryl Dorey et al should give it a good read, then think about their actions, and the number of children they're helping to doom to an early death.

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?

Callous Disregard price countdown...

Andrew Wakefield's useful (if you need to prop a door open) tome of lies and bollocks is now at $10.60 on Amazon.com. According to Google, that's £6.67 (UK cover price £17.40) at today's exchange rates. Anyone want to bet when I'll be able to pick up a copy for a penny?

Excellent resource

Thanks to Dr Anthony Cox, I've been pointed towards this excellent vaccine resource;

There's a comprehensive history of vaccines, a great section explaining some common vaccine myths / lies, and all kinds of interesting, well explained, um, *stuff*.

Next time someone chucks up a vaccine myth - point them towards this. It won't change the view of the lunatic fringe - the AoA morons, John "Cock" Stone, John "Pigfucker" Scudamore etc - but it's a great resource for nervous new parents.

Tell your friends.

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 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.

Callous Disregard in "not very popular" shock.

Age of Autism T-Shirt - tell the truth!

Andrew Wakefield's book is now available for less than twelve dollars, new, on Amazon.com. List price $26.95. Twelve dollars is about eight quid. Cheaper than an "Age of Autism Is full Of Shit" T-shirt, but with less street credibility.

Penn & Teller on Vaccines

Age of Autism T-Shirt - tell the truth!

Orac's got a link to the Penn & Teller "Bullshit!" episode about vaccines.

The second half gets a bit overly snarky at the anti-vax wingnuts they've got lined up - much in the manner of yours truly - but the first half is just straight facts, explained simply (albeit with a little of that P&T snark… No point making TV if that's not there!) and concisely.

If you're one of the anti-vaxers that reads this - and I know there are a fair few - watch this through until the end, with your famously open mind…

Age of Autism will no doubt shortly be publishing some sort of bleating lies about this programme - but it's unlikely they'll actually bother watching it.

Periodic Table of Vaccine Rejectionism

This is genius. (Courtesy of Orac.)

Age of Autism t-shirt

It would be so nice to get to the top of the Google search listings for this particular search term...

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

So, should anyone fancy helping me on my quest, please feel free to copy the code in the page and paste it into your own blog / website, because, as we all know, Age of Autism is full of shit.

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.

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.

An Excuse for Abuse

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

Age of Autism has a contributor called Jake Crosby. He's apparently:

Jake Crosby is a college student with Asperger Syndrome at Brandeis University who is double majoring in History and Health: Science, Society and Policy.

(Hey Jake - I hate to tell you, but if you carry on down the anti-vaccine road, you're fucked when it comes to the "Health: Science" part of your college course.)

He apparently believes journalism involves pointing people towards information about people he doesn't like, that's freely available on the web, then either twisting it to claim it shows something it doesn't, or simply telling people it shows that that person is unreliable.

He's tried it with Orac, and today, he's having a go at Brian Deer - the journalist who uncovered a lot of Andrew Wakefield's lies and deceit - simply because he has a page of photos of himself on his personal website. Sorry Jake, but I don't follow the logic.

Conflicted “journalist” Brian Deer’s website is perhaps one of the biggest resources of disinformation on the internet. Even worse, there is likely no better example of one man’s online shrine to himself than briandeer.com – a cesspool of self-adulation. Nothing quite sums this up better than a particular webpage that reads “Brian’s pictures” at the bottom of the homepage. You’d think it would be the many different photos of news events from his journalistic exploits, but a click of the mouse shows that it is in fact – literally – all him. See for yourself.

Still, it provides an excuse for a load of other dribbling sycophants to have a go at Mr Deer.

How Age of Autism can claim any credibility, or claim to speak for anyone when it publishes shite like this is beyond me.

About me

For a while now, "offended" parties (John "Cock" Stone, Clifford Miller, commenters on Age of Autism) have been wondering who I am. So here's a picture. It's not a bad likeness.



Other than that, I'm exactly who I've said I am. Clearly I'm not going to give out much more information, as I find Stone's obsession with me creepy enough as it is.

Edit: Click here if you want a t-shirt! :-)

Kim Stagliano Age of Autism shows its her hateful side

You may have caught the very, very sad story of Saiqa Akhter and her children recently. Ms Akhter is a mother who has been charged with killing her children by choking them with wire, allegedly because they were autistic. It's a terrible story.

However, nothing's been proved yet, no-one's been found guilty, no medical reports have been made public. Nothing.

As a mother myself, I suggest that while nothing can condone this action, any mother who's driven to the extreme of killing her own children is more than likely to be very, very ill herself and in serious need of help - possibly help that's been needed for a long time, but never given.

Whatever the story, it's going to be far more complicated than "woman kills children because they're autistic."

What's the verdict (without hearing testimony, evidence, medical reports etc) of Age of Autism?

The good news is that it happened in Texas and with any luck … this bitch will go to her death courtesy of the Texas Justice system.

Lovely, caring people eh?

No.

Edit: Ironically, the people who support Age of Autism are very often people who believe child abuse murders are usually actually caused by vaccinations.

"Alan Yurko was forced to admit manslaughter to secure release for a crime he didn't do - and to let vaccines off the hook for killing a baby" - Cybertiger

Edit 2: It seems that Kim Stagliano (Managing Editor of Age of Autism) has misjudged her readers on this one, as most of the comments pretty much echo my sentiments above. So I've amended the title.

Autism One hates the UK

It seems my comments on Teri Arranga being a liar have hit home. A poster on the AutismOne website has left the following comment.

Before getting to the bigger picture in subsequent blogs and newsletters let’s have a final look at Ms. Fisher-of-the-UK. As mentioned, in the newsletter, Ms. Fisher decided it would be “okay” to continue the campaign of terror, which originated in the U.K., against Dr. Wakefield in America.
Ms. Fisher-of-the-UK actively attempts to disrupt events where Dr. Wakefield is scheduled to speak. Let me rephrase that. A British subject attempts to cancel an American event. An event hosted by American organizations, paid by American dollars, attended by American citizens, held on American soil.
Granted, the pharma blowhards are strange and awkward people, but Ms. Fisher’s behavior leaves the borders of bizarre far behind and enters a weirdly alternate universe before the Bill of Rights or 911.
Freedom of Speech is the most treasured American right. We view with great concern foreigners who would attempt to impose their limitations here or threaten anyone’s Constitutional rights.
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.

Hmm. Someone's got a bee in their bonnet about the UK. Or maybe that's just jingoistic nationalism. And what does "but Ms. Fisher’s behavior leaves the borders of bizarre far behind and enters a weirdly alternate universe before the Bill of Rights or 911." mean, for fuck's sake?

In America, where you solve problems by listening to what people have to say, it seems that freedom of speech means "the freedom to fucking lie to people in order to scare them into believing your sick and twisted agenda". Without wanting to stoop to your depths (but I'm going to), Mr AutismOne, you've got a fucking history of that in the States, haven't you. How is the Rev Jim Jones these days?

Anyway, who posted this screed? Oh look, it's someone by the name of Ed Arranga. Does Teri have to have her husband fight her battles for her these days? I notice there's not a sign of a retraction, nor a shred of evidence of my bullying...

What a cock. Let's see if I can make this blogpost the numberone search result in Google for Ed Arranga is a dickhead.