Saturday, 31 October 2009

How do these people make the connection?

Another new poster on JABS ("Sher") has said:

One year on from receiving her first MMR jab at aged 7, my child has displayed symptoms of severe psychosis, pre-onset of puberty and regressive autism.

Can anyone explain how, if this is true, she has made the connection that it was the vaccine wot dunnit, and not any of the other thousands of experiences her child has had in the last twelve months?

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Amusingly, Seonaid tells the truth

Yes - it's true! That arch-arsehole Seonaid has finally - although accidentally - posted something true!

The greatest lie ever told..........


Yes, that is indeed a lie. How Jackie Fletcher let this one through her moderation net is beyond me.

Admittedly, I may be quoting out of context, as the post also contains a link to an anti-vax YouTube video presented by an utter wanker with personality of a pelvic floor exercise device and the reasoning skills of a head of lettuce…

Monday, 26 October 2009

Please read this

Peter Bowditch, of fame has a page on his site showing highlights from his ten year battle for sanity with the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN). The AVN are the Australian ("NO! I Don't believe it!" I hear you cry, sarcastically) equivalent of JABS ("Now I really don't believe it!!" you scream), but possibly more mental ("Becky, you're making this up!!").

Well - see for yourself - please read this:
Peter Bowditch v AVN.

Warning for the squeamish: Peter has posted some pictures of the results of vaccine-preventable diseases. They're not pretty. Personally, I'm tempted to send them to every anti-vaxer I can think of, with a big red label, saying "Look what you want to happen." Now, where's Fletcher's email address..?

Peter Bowditch deserves a knighthood.

Sunday, 25 October 2009

JABS spam

Amusingly, while the JABS forum is moderated these days, in order to keep rational discussion to a minimum, it seems Jackie Fletcher is quite happy to let the forum be spammed to the furthest reaches of fuck with dodgy meds advertising. This makes me laugh more than is probably strictly necessary.

(Click the image for a slightly larger version)

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Excellent vaccine article

Thanks to Wired magazine:

This is the sort of thing that the worried well should be reading - not the shit that comes out of JABS.

MMR given by mistake? I think not.

A new poster (*cough* SOCKPUPPET *cough*) has posted the following on JABS today:

My beautiful little 3 year old girl has just been given the MMR vaccine instead of the pneumococcal and she's already had the 3 x single jabs for MMR which we've travelled many hours back and fourth and paid out a lot of money to have them singly.

I'm devistated. We chose not to have the MMR and the surgery are well aware of our decision and have on numerous occasions talked to us about it.

Not only has the decision we made now been taken away from us, but our little girl now has the MMR inside her and I can't understand how a mistake like this has happened!

I'm at a low.

I don't know what to do next - any ideas?

First of all, this sounds very unlikely.

Let's see - a doctor gets the wrong vaccine to give a child? Without thinking he just sticks the closest needle to hand into your a three year old? I think not.

To me this stinks of sock puppet, a scare designed to drum up fear in parents.

However, Mr "DelMonte" - presumably you said "yes" to the injection? - if this is actually a true story, I'd suggest you calm down, watch your little girl grow up healthy, in fifteen years wave her off to University, safe in the knowledge that she's safe from nasty diseases that could be passed onto her in that hall of residence she's living in, from her next door neighbour whose parents were so moronic that they didn't get her vaccinated.

Now then - life's a bit better now, isn't it?

(Oh - I'm guessing this is Truth Seeker, given the abysmal spelling…)

Edit: Tellingly, the first reply is from… Truth Seeker. Funny that. His reply? Well it's much the same as mine, but costs more money and sounds like it's coming from the mouth of a brainless arsehole.

If it were me i would buy the MMR nosode from either Helios or Ainsworths homeopathic pharmacy. 200C potency and give 1 tablet a day for at least a week.

So - do nothing.

Monday, 19 October 2009

Admin post: Twitter

I've finally bitten the bullet and signed up for a Twitter account, so anyone who's interested should be able to find me in their Twitter client of choice by searching for "fisseux".

Kind regards,


Friday, 2 October 2009

The tragic case of Natalie Morton

This just shows up the morons at JABS for the evil bloodsuckers they are.

In case you're not aware, Natalie Morton was a UK teenager who died several hours after receiving her Cervarix vaccine. Naturally the anti-vaccination lobby on the web and in the press leapt on this, and assumed correlation meant causation - that the vaccine caused her death. "Look at us" they gloated, "we told you all along that vaccines were dangerous!"

Quite properly, a post mortem examination was carried out, which showed that Natalie had a previously undiagnosed, large, malignant tumour on her heart and lungs, which could have killed her at any point. Any connection to the vaccine has been ruled out.

This, of course, isn't good enough for the JABS crew.

Suba quotes the school's chaplain:

"I have seen Natalie's file and there is nothing on it to suggest that she had any underlying health problems."

There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, the man's the school chaplain. Not actually any kind of health professional. Suba will no doubt be quoting the lollipop lady outside the school next. Or the bloke who runs the sweetshop down the road. Both are equally well placed to give a professional opinion on health as a bloody vicar. (And what's he doing looking at health records any way??)

Assuming that the chaplain did actually say this (and I've seen it quoted in a couple of papers), it seems Suba is unaware of the meaning of the word "undiagnosed". So here's a little lesson for you Suba. "Undiagnosed" means that no-one was previously aware of it. So the health records wouldn't have shown an underlying health problem, because no-one knew about it.

"Jacquia" chimes in, linking to that well known organ of truth and level headedness, the Daily Mail, pointing out that Natalie had

"a rare and grave underlying health problem"

and then dives in with this gem:

I am sick of all our Government's lies, and propaganda!

Ah - conspiracy theories… Just what's needed at this point.

Fortunately, there's a voice of sanity at JABS - "Phoenix", who points out the tumour, and a quote from Natalie's parents:

"We now know that Natalie's death was the result of a serious underlying medical condition"

This, however, isn't good enough for Suba, who is by now trying to assume a rôle as some kind of medical professional:

Nonsense, she would have been in real pain and discomfort if it affected both her chest and lung


Everyone is saying that she had a smile from ear to ear and that she had a smile all the time. Not someone you would associate with late stage lung and heart tumour

Oh really Suba? Do you have evidence to back up this assertion of yours?

She (or is Suba a he?) drags the chaplain back into it, and then plays the trick beloved of all anti-vaxers, asking for "independent" verification:

The chaplain of the blue coat school said there was no underlying health conditions. We need a totally independant inquiry from another pathologist.

How is the original pathologist not independent? What you mean, by "independent", Suba, is "someone who agrees with ME!" And obviously, that's just what Natalie's parents would want, isn't it?

(At this point, Truth Seeker chimes in, and uses the opportunity to plug his favourite "I'm not allowing my children to have vaccines unless you accept full responsibility" form - no point in letting a good opportunity for self promotion get away.)

Now it's jennyr's turn - remember jennyr? The one with fluffy bunnies working her brain - it's the only explanation, no-one can really be as vacant as she manages.

She too decides that since it's been demonstrated that there was an underlying cause for Natalie's death, it must be a cover-up.

Be interesting to get a little more information on the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination. What is his background, how independent is he from government influences. Will the results be verified by a second/third opinion?

One thing's for certain jennyr - he's not a school chaplain.

Perhaps our health officials should listen to someone who knows what they are talking about for a change

Again, Jenny dear, why not say what you mean? You want them to listen to you.

While this has been a terribly sad incident, it has been investigated quickly and efficiently, and despite the scaremongering of the idiots at the Daily Mail and at JABS, it's been resolved. Stop trying to score points, and let Natalie's parents mourn their daughter in peace.

Orac has blogged about this, as ever, far, far more eloquently than I ever could. As you probably know, he's a cancer specialist, and has this to say:

Cancer doctors know that it's amazing how large tumors can sometimes grow without causing much, if anything, in the way of symptoms. In sudden death cases like this, moreover, quite frequently in retrospect it is noted that there were symptoms before the death, often for weeks or months beforehand, symptoms such as easy fatigue, vague aches and pains, or other relatively nonspecific symptoms. (Pancreatic cancer is notorious for growing to a deadly extent while producing few, if any, symptoms.) While it is true that many advanced tumors do cause a slow wasting away, there are a number of complications from tumors in the chest that can cause rapid death. The most obvious example that comes to mind is for the tumor to erode into a major blood vessel, resulting in massive internal bleeding. Another mechanical effect that can result in cardiac failure and sudden death is pericardial tamponade, which is what occurs when the sack surrounding the heart fills with fluid and compresses the heart. This fluid can be serum (from a reaction due to the tumor) or blood (from a bleed). Because the pericardial sac is fairly stretchable, a tamponade can develop slowly but then, once the capacity of the pericardium to stretch is exceeded, quite rapidly result in critical right heart failure leading to death. Then there's the fact that the blood in cancer patients often clots too easily; i.e., it's hypercoagulable, due to factors secreted by the tumors That means cancer patients are prone to deep venous thromboses and, worse, to pulmonary embolus, large ones of which can quite easily cause sudden death.