Friday, 24 October 2008

John Stone sucks Cybertiger's cock…

… metaphorically, I hope.

Were I not banned at JABS, I'd obviously post this there, and politely point out why he's being a disingenuous cocksucker. As it's my blog, I'll do it here and point it out in no uncertain terms. Rudely.

I am not sure I can see what the big story is with Cybertiger and his mother. They both disapprove of David Southall. This fact may not be without interest, but it is not in any way sensational.


The big story, dickhead, is that Cybertiger, Dr Mark Struthers, who recently clumsily dodged the question as to whether or not he gives or recommends Meningitis jabs to his patients, and also works for a practice that actively encourages its elderly patients to get 'flu jabs, spends a lot of his time on the JABS forum (an anti-vaccination forum) being personally abusive about Professor David Southall, a man who was roundly condemned in a report that his mother was partially responsible for. That report was (which had nothing to do with vaccination), in itself, castigated by pretty much everyone except Dr Mark. Dr Mark wrote to the BMJ (the journal that you're always so proud of when they print one of your rabid responses John - it's not a medical paper, it's a comment on a blog, dickhead) to say how unfair the vitriol aimed at his mum's report was, while claiming no interest. Dr Mark now sees fit to get back at the nasty man who caused his mum so much pain and anguish by swearing at him on the JABS forum. Awww. How sweet. I'm sure she's ever so proud.

See it now, dickhead?

(Did I mention that John Stone is a dickhead?)

5 comments:

millipede said...

Why do you hope its only metaphorically?
They appear to have great affection for each other.

strummer said...

Ha ha! Where is John Stone stupid enough to say that? He really is a malign old hypocrite isn't he?

millipede said...

For an example of just how dumb John Stone is, check out the comments after Ben Goldacre's column in the Guardian.

Goldacre criticizes pharma companies that publish the same results over and over, to try and give the results more weight.

Stone, writing as Pluralist tries to show that Ben Goldacre is in conflict of interest because his institution accepts money from Lilly, the company Ben is criticizing.

Either Stone is dumb as a post or he didn't read the article at all, before he started to criticize it, which means he is dumb as a post.

Or should it be dumb as a Stone?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/25/medical-research-science-health

Brpwrdnsfrnzy said...

Stone is clearly so consumed with loathing for Ben G that he'll try and turn anything into an attack. His favourite seems to be this "conflict of interest" that seems to crop up regularly - even when, as in this case, the opposite is clearly true; any possible conflict of interest has clearly been ignored as Ben is criticising that company that Stone sees as being the hand that feeds him [BG].

Dumb as a box of rocks.

DT said...

Looks like Struthers takes Viagra to boost his erectile function - John Stone will be pleased!
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=14#203737

Struthers also has his own theory on what causes Heart Attacks: " ...heart attacks are caused by a dysfunctional Hypothalamic-Pituitary- Adrenal axis (HPA-axis) – it’s that simple." Er, no tiddles, try again.

Both John Stone and Mark Struthers appear to have very bad cases of obsessive compulsive disorder, and in Struthers case he comprehensively fits the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder.

One of Stone's main obsessions is "conflict of interest", yet I see from his last utterances on the BMJ rabid responses that he thinks Wakefield's reciept of £500k is only what he terms a "debateable" competing interest when it comes to publishing articles blaming vaccines for autism.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=14#203466

Incredible.