Monday, 30 March 2009

There's a fairly new poster on JABS, who goes by the name of "Spambuster". He or she has made an interesting point:

As the average age of diagnosis of childhood autism is 3-4 [depending on which sources you use] and for Aspergers it is around 8 years old, this means that half the children of those average ages will not yet have been diagnosed.

If this is the case, how come anti-vaxers claim that parents can identify the very moment their child started regressing into autism? And that moment is always shortly after vaccination? Or do they write the moment on a calendar, then wait between two and seven years before taking any concerns to a doctor?

Sunday, 29 March 2009


Minority View gets more of an arse every time she posts on JABS.

"Advice3" has made some comment,

The position often stated in this forum is that the decline of measles etc was due to better sanitation and hygiene, and not vaccination.

This is true. The JABS position has always been that measles deaths have been on the decline, and so measles would have died out without vaccination. The truth is somewhat different, as I outlined in my last post.

Minority View now agrees with me.

You dudes really cannot get things straight, can you?

Decline in measles, no. Decline in measles deaths, yes.

Just look at the rate of measles deaths in U.S. in 50s and compare to rate of measles deaths in Africa. Were all the children vaxed against measles in the U.S. in 1950? No. Did they die by the 100s of thousands? No.

But this may be too subtle a concept.

No, MV. It's not "too subtle a concept" - we understand that. Measles mortality has dropped dramatically, mainly due to, as you say, improved hygiene, better medical care, antibiotics etc. Measles incidence has dropped dramatically due to vaccination.

What may be too subtle a concept for you, is what's mind-fuckingly obvious to the rest of us;

If death from measles has dropped to such a low level - say, one in 10,000 - then if thanks to vaccination the actual number of children infected is in single, or the low double figures, then the number of deaths will be zero. Or maybe one in ten years.

If, however, you don't vaccinate, and every child gets measles, at that such low level, we'll have ten, twenty, thirty, a hundred deaths a year. And that's deaths. Kids are left permanently disabled due to measles and mumps. Yes, they may well be kids with reduced immune function - but if you vaccinated all the kids around them, they wouldn't be exposed to measles in the first place. YOU MORON! But you don't actually care, do you? You, Stone, Fletcher - you don't care about real children, dead children, do you? No. You care about proving your vile pseudo-science point. You've been shown to be wrong again and again - but you can't let it lie. And children will die because of you. You evil witch.

Now - how difficult is that?

Minority View, and all those who support her witterings, WANT CHILDREN TO DIE.

Anti-vaccinators should be retitled as "advocates of lethal diseases".

Friday, 20 March 2009

Lies, misrepresentation, and abuse

With the absence of any good news for the anti-vaccinators, the JABS crowd have gone back to their favourite hobbies: being abusive, misrepresenting data and doling out dangerous medical advice and misinformation.

First of all comes a new poster by the name of "catrin-m", who posts a link to the comments on a BBC piece about vaccines (not the piece itself, just the comments), and asks what the JABS regulars think about it. Sounds like a sock puppet to me, designed to give the ranters something to shout about. Sure enough, the king of incoherence, Gus the Fuss pipes up with a link to Clifford Miller and John Stone's blog, Childhealthsafety (oh, the irony). He then quotes from the site;

This is the data the drug industry do not want you to see. Here 2 centuries of UK, USA and Australian official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies.

All this is is the tired old graphs about mortality rates, the graphs that purport to show that measles would have died out without vaccines. Which is bollocks. Over the last hundred years or so - the period that Miller's graphs cover - standards of nutrition have gone up, hygiene has improved, and the standard of medical care has improved massively. Of course mortality rates were on the way down. Miller extends the rather vague "best fit" line to "demonstrate" that measles would have died out anyway. The trouble is, he doesn't show the incidence rate. This is perhaps a little more informative:

Measles incidence, showing quite clearly where the vaccine has (or had, until the anti-vax lobby decided to start trying to kill children) pretty much wiped measles out.

No-one is arguing that in "Western" countries, the consequences of catching measles aren't as dire as they once were - better health care, better nourished (generally) kids means a far lower percentage of kids actually die from the disease - but without the vaccine, the number of kids catching the disease would be so much higher, and hence the number of deaths proportionately highter.

Why Gus the Fuss, Clifford "Twat" Miller and John "Cock" Stone can't see that is beyond me. It's basic maths. (Actually, it's not beyond me. The reason's perfectly clear - between them they don't have the intelligence to win a battle of wits with a dandelion.)

John Scudamore (owner of Whale.To, pig farmer, and self-confessed receiver of arse burns through sitting on a ley line) then chimes in with pretty much the same argument, but, as is his style, endlessly quoting his own website and assorted discredited "Experts", especially the late Robert Mendelsohn. He cites conspiracy;

usual BBC propaganda, like the Times, along with most of the comments, never managed to get anyting onto BBC comment section yet.

(Yes John, that's because you're fucking mental)

In a subsequent post, Scudamore cites that proven liar Hilary Butler:

"Take the 1991 measles epidemic. They calculated that this epidemic costs the country 8 million dollars to treat the 9,000 plus cases. I'm not sure about that figure, but the FACT that over 60% of those children were appropriately vaccinated was never taken into consideration in that calculation."

Hilary Butler's another one with a poor grasp of maths - or a good grasp of maths, but uses it to misrepresent statistics in order to back up her argument that vaccines don't work.

If you have a population of (say) one million, 95% of whom are vaccinated with a vaccine that prevents infection 95% of the time, and lets say that a disease will infect 50% of non-vaccinated people, if the whole population are exposed to the disease, then:

50,000 non vaccinated people - 25,000 will get the disease.
950,000 vaccinated people - 47,500 will get the disease.

So, yes, in this simple example, 65% of those who got the disease were vaccinated.

If no-one had been vaccinated, around half a million would have caught the disease. You're an evil witch (and a liar) Butler.

Finally, John Stone weighs in:

I think Finn's piece was offensively patronising. A miscalculation which shows a shoddy intellect.

All I have to say about that is "Pot, kettle, cunt."

Monday, 16 March 2009

Andrew Wakefield tries to fend off the fact that he's a liar

The anti-vax-o-sphere has been awash over the last couple of days with the news that "Saint" Andrew Wakefield has made acomplaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the article in the Sunday Times (note to overseas readers: It's the "Sunday Times", not the "Sunday Times Of London". Just the "Sunday Times") that alleged that Dr Wakefield FALSIFIED THE DATA that lead to the 1998 study. That's the study that was published in "The Lancet", and subsequently retracted by nearly all its co-authors. Basically, the allegation was that DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD LIED. Given the potentially massive financial gains he stood to make if MMR was discredited, I can believe that.

Of course, as soon as the Sunday Times published this, the usual cock-end suspects leapt from the woodwork to discredit Mr Deer's reporting. John "Cock" Stone, Age of Fucking Autism (AoFA), JABS, fucking everyone. Interestingly, they didn't focus on the important point (that Wakefield HAD MADE IT ALL UP and had FALSIFIED HIS RESULTS for FINANCIAL GAIN; rather, they bleated on about the fact that Brian Deer had found this out by having access to documents that they claimed he shouldn't've had. Despite the fact that they'd been brought into the open in the GMC hearing against Wakefield.

So, faced with these career-destroying allegations, what does Wakefield do?

Well, it seems that he's spent a month or so writing A 58 page complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. The PCC, who can give a paper a slap on the wrists for unethical behaviour.

Interestingly, he hasn't instructed solicitors to go after the Sunday Times with the full force of England's not insubstantial libel laws - if someone printed untrue allegations about me that would destroy my career, that's what I'd do. But no. He contacts the PCC, and then… get this… issues a fucking press release about it.

So, you can see the thoughts going on in the mind of this fraud. Press release about complaint gets splashed all over the internet and (hopefully) supportive and gullable print media, complaint gets laughed out by PCC, silence. It then appears that he wins. It costs him nothing to complain to the PCC, avoids actual real allegations, and makes him look like the "maverick doctor, fighting for truth" that he wants to be.

When actually he's a fraud, a liar (he also repeats the untrue allegation that Brian Deer is the original complainant to the GMC) and a quack.

There's stuff on this at JABS but I can't even be bothered to quote the shit there any more.

Saturday, 14 March 2009

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.

Friday, 13 March 2009

How vile can you get?

Seonaid is trying to pin not only the Albertville massacre on big Pharma, but Dunblaine too, then, not content with blaming medication, tries to spin it into an unconfirmable conspiracy theory.

Could this possibly be yet another SSRI antidepressant story?

It is rumoured that Thomas Hamilton - Dunblane massacre - was taking prozac. Some results of that particular inquest are to remain sealed for 100 years.

Rumour, conjecture and lies - that's the whole anti vax line. Co-opting a massacre just to support your lunatic conspiracy theories - that's just fucking evil.

Friday, 6 March 2009

Flu Vaccines may or may not be cobblers

I suspect I've covered this before, but he's a cock, and he's at it again…

Cybertiger - a doctor don't forget - writes:

I have never had a flu-jab and don't intend to start having one now. Like the statin drugs, flu vaccinations are a load of cobblers

Cybertiger - Dr Mark Struthers - works at Flitwick Surgery.
From the front page of the Flitwick Surgery website, Nov 2007:

"Yes, it is that time of year once more. If you believe you fall within one of the categories which require a flu vaccination please read our newsletter and ask at reception."

and from the newsletter page;

"Flu Vaccinations

Priority for flu vaccinations will be given to those patients who need it most i.e.

Everyone aged 65 and over.
Patients who have been diagnosed with chronic respiratory disease, asthma, chronic heart disease, chronic renal disease, chronic liver disease, diabetes, immunosuppression.
Anyone else not included in the list above will only be considered once the priority categories have been vaccinated.

The flu virus is different each year, so last years injection will not protect you this year. You will be asked to sign a consent form when you have your injection and be given leaflets to read beforehand."

I wonder what Dr Mark Struthers' employers (he's not a partner, remember, just a salaried doctor) make of him encouraging people not to have 'flu shots?

Thursday, 5 March 2009

Teh vaccines makes you a gayer!

"Sam" is obviously going to be a big player in the JABS community, being a raging homophobe, science free, and a paranoid conspiracy merchant.

If we observe what is happening in society today in particular in the US and UK we have an increased exposure to a gay is good agenda with even homosexual male couples being allowed to adopt children. It appears to seamlessly tie in here with vaccine ingredients likely to contribute to increased male homosexual tendencies.

Yes, you heard it here first. Vaccines make you gay.

Wednesday, 4 March 2009

Awkward questions removed

It seems to be a pattern at JABS. Any awkward questions are removed by the administrators - even if what they ask or allege is demonstrably relevant or unpleasant to admit. The post from last night alleging that Hilary Butler is a liar has gone, as have the replies. However, here's the post, preserved for posterity.

And they accuse the Big Pharma Conspiracy of silencing its critics…

Tuesday, 3 March 2009

Hilary Butler "Liar" claim asked on JABS

It appears someone has decided to ask on JABS whether the liar claims put forward for Hilary "Angladrion" Butler are true.

I grabbed a screenshot, just in case it, as an awkward question, gets "lost" from the JABS database in one of their seemingly more and more regular "upgrades".

Fucking liars.

Edit: Ooh - that witless moron "Truth Seeker" has already replied:

As the Big Pharma and the government have been found out to lie, decieve and covered up many things such as bad drug trials how can we trust them which is a far more important question
In the case of smallpox you can do your own historical research and come to your own conlusions i would have thought.

Ooh (again) - and so has "Jabba" - an ironic name if ever there was one…

Pharma trolls must not make allegations against jabs parents.

Is that a rule now? No allegations - even if they're true?