Andrew Wakefield appeals?

On the antivaccine front, this year began with antivaccine hero Andrew Wakefield filing suit against investigative reporter Brian Deer, the BMJ, and Fiona Godlee (the editor of BMJ) for libel based on a series that Deer published in the BMJ outlining the evidence for Wakefield's scientific fraud in his (in)famous 1998 Lancet case series. This resulted in a massive rallying of the antivaccine troops around Wakefield, as well as temporarily making him appear relevant again after so many much-deserved humiliations and defeats, in the wake of his having had his license to practice medicine in the U.K. revoked by the General Medical Council, resulting in his having his Lancet article retracted and his losing his job as medical director of Thoughtful House. More importantly, it allowed Wakefield to hit his supporters up for cash for his legal fund. The basis of Wakefield's libel suit appeared wispy and tenuous to virtually any observer with half a brain and a slight knowledge of libel law in the U.S., but that didn't stop him. Not surprisingly, the court slapped Wakefield down conclusively, dismissing his suit on jurisdictional grounds, leading to another conspiragasm among his supporters.

Ever since Wakefield's suit was dismissed, people have been wondering: Will he appeal? He had 30 days to appeal, which meant that, as the month of August wound down, so did Wakefield's time to appeal. Most of us figured that Wakefield probably wouldn't appeal, having milked his followers for enough cash and temporarily brought himself back into the spotlight. After all, filing the initial suit probably didn't require too much in the way of resources, given that it appears that a buddy of his (or the father of one of his daughter's buddies) appears to have done it pro bono. However, starting an appeal risks bringing on massive expenses. So, as the 30 day deadline to file for an appeal came and went, most of us paying attention to the case assumed that Wakefield had quietly folded.

Wrong.

If you look at the Texas Third Court of Appeals website for case 03-12-00576-CV, you'll find that on August 31 a notice of appeal was filed in the court of appeals. It would appear that Wakefield is indeed going to appeal the original decision. Unfortunately, the appeal isn't yet posted on the website; so I don't know on what basis Wakefield is going to appeal, but it looks as though he is appealing. I fully expect that he'll likely be slapped down again, but I guess anything that allows him to continue to play the martyr and hit his credulous followers up for more cash is probably a good thing to him, particularly if his motivation is to try to cause Deer and the BMJ more inconvenience and the massive expense of defending a transatlantic lawsuit. He may, however, be playing with fire, given that his sure looks like a SLAPP suit to me. I'm also a bit surprised that appears to be the house propaganda organ for team Wakefield, Age of Autism, hasn't chimed in yet. I'm sure it's coming.

More like this

I tell ya, sometimes I think you guys think I'm a journalist or a 24 hour news source. I'm not, of course. I'm just a humble blogger, and I do what I can within the constraints of my every day "real life." What? I have a real life? You mean I'm not really a supercomputer who can link with any other…
I don't know what it is about the beginning of a year. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or real, but it sure seems that something big happens early every year in the antivaccine world. Consider. As I pointed out back in February 2009, in rapid succession Brian Deer reported that Andrew…
If there's one thing that a crank, quack, pseudoscientist, or anti-vaccine propagandist doesn't like, it's having the light of day shined upon his activities. In fact, so much do they hate it that they have a distressing tendency to respond to science-based criticism not with science-based…
When I wrote last week about the latest legal thuggery against an opponent of antivaccine pseudoscience, this time by hero of the antivaccine movement, who sued investigative reporter Brian Deer for defamation, there was one thing about the case that confused me, one aspect that didn't add up to me…

"I didn't let ignorance of science discourage me, so why should I let ignorance of geography stop me?"

.

By Rogue Medic (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

However, starting an appeal risks bringing on massive expenses.

Appeals are cheap. It's the trials that are expensive. If he was willing to run the risk of the massive expenses that stem from a trial with expert witnesses and weeks of testimony, I don't see why he wouldn't be willing to spend a tiny fraction of that in hopes that an appeal would lead to a new trial. Especially considering that a large portion of the money that would be spent in a full-length trial wasn't spent due to the proceedings being dismissed so early.

By W. Kevin Vicklund (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

In addition, Notice of Appeal is usually filed before the briefs. It may be a couple of weeks, depending on the local rules, before we know exactly what his basis is, but by sheer process of elimination, it will be a variant of "Texas too has jurisdiction!"

By W. Kevin Vicklund (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

I figured that he would. Thus, my continued queries here.

This guy will never stop, he will ride this horse until the end of his days ANY way he can : he is ONLY 55!

He needs to fan the ardent flames of adulation of his many devotees. His original project was to be his avenue to fame and glory and that enabled him to accrue a fan base. The growth of his popularity was mercilessly slapped down by BD's investigation and the intrusion of reality ( GMC). He lost followers in the aftermath.

He casts out blame for his problems on others just like he attributed autism to external causes like vaccines. Pattern.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

He can't give up. If he does, he's admitting to his followers that he did indeed falsify his data and commit scientific malfeasance. One of the big issues with his followers has been them asking him why he hasn't sued for libel since he's so obviously innocent. If he doesn't follow this through to the complete conclusion, it'll be an admission that he doesn't have a case.

When he does lose the appeal, he can add the loss to his mythology of being persecuted by "the system" for telling the truth.

I was amused to learn from Deer's special appearances brief that Judge Meachum (although apparently only because she is in Big Pharma's pocket) reached a decision that is in agreement with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Texas trial judge who ruled against the plaintiff in a case that is strikingly like Wakefield's: The court considered the right of a Texas resident to sue an out-of-state publisher for reporting on events that occurred outside of Texas and before the plaintiff moved to Texas. Rejecting the plaintiff's attempt to base jurisdiction on his recent connection to Texas and the harm he allegedly experienced in Texas, the three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision that jurisdiction did not exist: "The article . . . contains no reference to Texas, nor does it refer to the Texas activities of [the plaintiff], and it was not directed at Texas readers as distinguished from readers in other states." [USDC No. 2:95-CV-163]

Of course, Wakefield can claim that, despite clear precedent, he should prevail because . . . because Brian Deer is a big meanie. However, Deer's special appearances brief cites another Texas case that is also remarkably like Wakefield's (allegedly libelous European reports of activities that occurred in Europe were carried in a European publication that is also available in Texas) the US Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision that a suit should be dismissed for the same reasons that Judge Meachum dismissed Wakefield's suit--even though there was evidence that the writer and editors were big meanies: the source for the allegedly libelous series of articles admitted that she had been paid to fabricate the story, leading to retractions, a front-page apology, and the resignations of a writer and the editor-in-chief--but not in granting jurisdiction in Texas.

The special appearances brief was posted on Brian Deer's site: http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-appearances.pdf

I'll laugh my ass off if any of Crosby's "6-Degrees" connection material makes it into the appeals brief....

If you look at the Texas Third Court of Appeals website for case 03-12-00576-CV, you’ll find that on August 31 a notice of appeal was filed in the court of appeals.

And this is likely the reason that it didn't appear until the day after the actual deadline. The notice of appeal is supposed to be filed with the original trial court, not the court of appeals. So, there are two possibilities: (1) he filed with the appeals court in advance and perfected the appeal by filing with the district court (sometime after I spoke to them) or (2) Parrish actually erred. The error isn't important in Texas, as the clerk of the appeals court will send it to the clerk of the district court, and once it's entered there, it's considered filed on the date the appeals court got it.

I think what's truly hilarious is AJW's motion to strike testimony and evidence- which was of course, DENIED!

Think of the vast amount of material that was so easily summoned AGAINST him.. hundreds of pages.. arriving periodically at the law office .. in neat packages.. and probably much more waiting somewhere in the wings if needed. Can you not visualise his attorney ( cohort) drowning in pages and pages of accurate fact-checked data.. accumulating in piles on his desk? Sweltering** in the Texas heat, swiping his brow, muttering to himself, " What in blazes did I get myself into?"

All of which is now record.
Big meanie, indeed.

** metaphorically: legal offices have climate control.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

In addition, Notice of Appeal is usually filed before the briefs. It may be a couple of weeks, depending on the local rules, before we know exactly what his basis is....

One both the clerk's and reporter's records are in, they'll have 30 days to file the brief or request extension.

Although I would not want to see BMJ or Deer have to endure the expense and hassle of a trial, the outcome would likely be the same as the outcome for David Irving: Failed libel action costs Irving his home: The disgraced author David Irving yesterday lost a last ditch attempt to stave off the seizure of his home after the disastrous libel case which left his reputation in shreds.

By Cervantes (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

He appeals to some; not so much to others.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Cervantes: It is interesting that David Irving lost his home...in the U.K. I don't think "it is a given" that Wakefield will lose his home, if the appeal and lawsuit go forward, he loses his case, and he is assessed damages/fines under Texas' Anti-SLAPP law.

I see *other possibilities* however. Once assessed damages and fines, lawyers for the BMJ, Godlee and Deer, will pursue Wakefield's other assets, the sources of his income streams (and there are income streams, aplenty)... and they will attach the assets as well as putting liens on his future income derived from his income streams.

It appears that Irving was on the hook for a full trial under the UK loser-pays system. If Wakefield wins his appeal (heh), then the anti-SLAPP motion comes next. If this succeeds, he's only on the hook for the fees and costs that have already occurred, plus punitive damages "sufficient to deter the party who brought the legal action from bringing similar actions." The court would have little reason to make these disproportionate to his ability to pay.

@ Narad: And, how much are the defendants' costs that they have already incurred?

Lawyers fees for the individual defendants don't come "cheap". How about loss of earnings for the defendants? Deer, I believe, is a free-lance writer and he has monetary damages. Deer also collected a bundle when Wakefield discontinued his defamation suit in the U.K. for the loss of income and for his lawyers' fees.

I referred to Wakefield's income streams and future earnings which the defendants will go after. I *know* he has steady income, from the sale of his many books and his not-so-secret associations with autism-related business enterprises.

Here is Wakefield's interview, where Lew Rockwell introduces Andy as the "head of the autism channel" (part of the Autism Media Network)...Andy did not disavow that connection.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/05/22/278-the-autism-v…

Dr. Wakefield's appellate lawyer is Brendan K. McBride, a co-founder of the now-defunct organization Dads Agains Mercury. You can read his 2005 article, "Solving the Autism Puzzle: The Science They Don’t Want You To Know About," on the Wayback Machine here, where he opines that autism is mercury poisoning from Thimerosal in vaccines. It seems like McBride didn't stay in the mercury=autism herd for long, but here is is now, seemingly back in the fold.

@ lilady:

AJW may be the recipient of discrete charity from admirers.
And since the fellow has a history of fiddling with numbers, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that there are quieter streams of income. Many of his fans value his opinion: might some counselling/ medical advice be going on? Should we really expect this guy to be honest? Now?

The Wakefields don't live like poor folks: the house is a showplace; he has children; he seems to wear 'very nice' suits and one photo of Ms W seemed to scream,
"Escada!" at me.

The above is purely speculation and represents my opinion.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

Denice,
I may have misread your last but do you mean discreet as opposed discrete?
I shall now go home and remove my liver while chewing on tinfoil if I'm in error.

@ Peebs:

You are correct. But on some leveI I probably mean both.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Mephistopheles O'Brien

He appeals to some; not so much to others.

Repeated for its pure awesomeness.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

And, how much are the defendants’ costs that they have already incurred?

Not in the millions. I worked through part of my undergraduate time, part of my graduate time (until my advisor found out), and some of the time afterward doing nights at a very large firm in what was ultimately a para-paralegal role, so I can crudely reckon about billable hours. If I had to guess, that guess would be that it's still under six figures or not much over. This has not been protracted litigation.

How about loss of earnings for the defendants? Deer, I believe, is a free-lance writer and he has monetary damages.

My understanding is that Deer indeed prepared his own declaration, which is a big part of the stack of documents submitted. I don't know whether this is compensable as a legal cost, but he seems like the type that would probably have had it all pretty efficiently together in the first place.

I referred to Wakefield’s income streams and future earnings which the defendants will go after.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Any punitive damages would be purely within the discretion of the trial court. There's nothing to go after until this happens, and the goal of such damages is to leave a significant sting, not to break the loser's back.

Heliantus - I bask in your comment.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

Orac: " conspiragasm among his supporters."

Right. There's definitely an element of sexually tinged obsessiveness amid the worship in that sorry relationship.

Well, SOMEBODY has to say it.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

Speaking ofAndy and (not so) respectful insolence, check out #1 (the last one in this countdown formatted article).

I’ll laugh my ass off if any of Crosby’s “6-Degrees” connection material makes it into the appeals brief….

Maybe Jake will try to file an amicus brief with some dirt on one of the court reporters.

Orac please please go on the Alex Jones Infowars website and have a look at the crap on vaccines they post I am 1 sane voice in the wilderness and would dearly love back up as this site has a lot of listeners and readers its hard to get through to people and I fear there will be an outbreak of diseases which we thought were long gone.

(And only now do I look at Rule 11. PleasePleasePleasePlease, somebody.)

I saw the title....."Andrew Wakefield appeals"...and all I could think of was..."To who?"

By Kelly M Bray (not verified) on 07 Sep 2012 #permalink

If Deer etc don't file a SLAPP suit I will be extremely surprised. It's clear that Wakefield is just continuing to try and hold them hostage by wasting their time further.

What he doesn't appeal his own GMC case, but is happy to appeal this? I mean, which one would you rather spend money on if you're innocent?

If Deer & Co. file a SLAPP suit, will there be tickets sold?

I'll bring the popcorn.

@ Narad:

Rule 11 says it all!

Oddly, I have heard nothing about AJW from Natural News and PRN ( previously they were very vocal- even had him appear/ had 7 hour specials about his case)- perhaps they realise that it's not to their advantage to be seen backing a losing bet.
And neither has let up on anti-vacciniana.
Later on, they may use his story as another case of the Man ( Woman) persecuting the Righteous or suchlike.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Deb:

While I cannot speak for our peerless ( and fearless) leader, I personally don't comment on alt med/ woo / New Age websites because:
I don't want them to have the e-mail I use
I suspect it would be a waste of time because these people moderate fiercely
and I feel that I can reach more 'reach-able' folks here.

I was very surprised when Age of Autism allowed a few of the minions ( Lawrence and Alain) to comment. In Lawrence's case, it was probably because they thought he was someone else they hate; Alain calls himself "Autistic Lurker" that may be why they allowed him on. They may have allowed another guy because he would have blogged about it if they didn't ( Mike Stanton).

About Infowars:
you'll notice that Mike Adams appears : he also is a substitute host for Alex; I am already subjected to his swill from its original platform so there's no need .

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ flip:
@ Darwy:

Here's what I'm not sure about ( maybe someone else knows the legal issues):
would the SLAPP only be initiated if the suit continued ? How I understand it, it is to stop the suit. Suppose the present matter- jurisdiction- had NOT been dismissed, THEN they would SLAPP him.
If the case is finito, they won't proceed. Why should they?

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

The anti-SLAPP motion has already been filed. This isn't a separate suit, but within the existing proceeding. If that restarts, it's already there.

@ Denice, they (AoA) do censor my comments from time to time such as the latest one where I got angry and said something similar to that:

So you want to paint me in pharma's pocket? Go right away, even better, have Jake Crosby paint it 6 degrees of separation on me.

In the meantime, I'll do my best to prevent vaccine preventable disease from occuring and also, I'll do my best to have autistics people live as autistics people.

Alain

By Alain (aka Aut… (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Denice, BTW, my latest post on my blog (AJW's vaccine patent) is a sort of answer to them :)

Alain

By Alain (aka Aut… (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Alain:

More power to you?
-btw- if JC does do the 6 degrees, you'll be linked to yours truly, needless to say, Jake doesn't like me. It someone ever did the 6 degrees on me, it might freak them out entirely.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

Correction:
More power to you!!!

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

When Brian Deer and the BMJ lose the case it will leave the whole case open for libel against Brian Deer who has corrupted the legal system in the UK by his articles in the Sunday Times owned by the (honest gov Rupert Murdoch)..well time shall tell Brian is certainly in the cross site.. for compensation due to kids who have never ever had a trial in the UK LINKING MMRr -AUTISM THANKS TO DEER AND HIS MIS-INFORMATION...

By One Queer Fish (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

Denice, right, the anti-SLAPP motion won't go forward unless the appeals court decides that there is jurisdiction over the defendants and reverses the trial court's dismissal of the case. The defendants shouldn't be asking for the Texas courts to do anything but dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. Otherwise they will be consenting to jurisdiction.

@ Anne,

If I follow your logic, the defendant issued an anti-SLAPP motion instead of asking for a dismissal on juridictional ground? Exact? That would mean the case could go forward?

Alain

By Alain (aka Aut… (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

Um, defendants can't waive lack of jurisdiction. They are free to move for an anti-SLAPP judgment without prejudicing against a jurisdiction dismissal.

By W. Kevin Vicklund (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

Ok, Thanks :)

Alain

By Alain (aka Aut… (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

Perhaps the filing of the anti-SLAPP was the defendants way of saying, "Go ahead, bring it on!" Perhaps they would welcome the fight so they could put an end to this charade once and for all and the entire world would be able to see how dishonest and what a fraudster old Andy really is. I don't know anything about law so I'm just going by what other people have said, if I understand it correctly. (Hi lilady! I got tired of the nonsensical arguments between the two trolls on the other blog and lack of moderation there too. So, to quote Russell Casse from Independence Day, "Hello boys [and girls] I'm BAACCK!")

By Lara Lohne (AK… (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

Defendants can't confer *subject matter* jurisdiction by agreement - the court either has it or it doesn't. But they can consent to *personal* jurisdiction, which is the issue here. They filed their anti-SLAPP motion only because of the time requirements for it, while reserving their objections to personal jurisdiction. They also filed motions to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. And they won those, so the anti-SLAPP motions are no longer in play. But if they lose on appeal, they haven't blown the time for their anti-SLAPP motions. So they're good to go.

This issue is personal and nothing to do with science. The article was by the Royal Free Hospital in 1998 and to be going on today is an absolute farce. The paper has been scrapped for several years now. Of more than a dozen co-authors, Andrew alone rests castigated for what is a personal account of clinical findings that are the collective work of the hospital and at times different from those of the doctors locally around the country.

The link fo autism to other illnesses is self-evident with gut issues being frequent.

This discrepancy local practising doctors to national experts level is normal and the reason why one paper on its own should not carry too much weight. Give any illness to 20 doctors and get 20 different diagnoses.

I can name hundreds of papers where the FRAUD is real and important to our health today. Eg using anti seizure drugs to hide adverse seizure events from a drug to be accepted into use etc etc. Proving the power of anti-seizure medication and not the lesser power of a drug to induce seizures.

While we argue about one person dying from measles in the UK every ten years, where is all the interest in the fact that nearly half of us have pre-diabetes signs, one in four of some groups is the yearly risk of Alzheimers Disease and the number of people dying from Multiple Sclerosis every year is higher than those with the illness 30 years ago.

Infectious illness is under control with some exceptions but non-infectious illness is PANDEMIC and kept very quiet about.

The last national survey of MS in USA was back in the 1970's. And for autism the numbers are anyones guess especially with the long term trends. Is it going up, down or staying the same. Who knows? The only thing I know is that there seem to be many more with neuroligical problems today and yesterday I knew just the village idiot rather than a village of idiots.

By John Fryer (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@John Fryer: The last survey of MS was in the 1970s? Wow, we really need a citation here. And I am confident that is not the case here in Canada. Besides, we are talking about Wakefield appealing not chronic disease. I suggest you go have a look at the Canadian Diabetes association web page which lists a lot of research going on right now. And do try to stay on topic.

John Fryer,
Of course there are more chronic diseases in a population that doesn't die young of contagious diseases. To claim they are kept very quiet about is simply untrue. Why do you think we are constantly told to lose weight, eat more fruit and vegetables, get more exercise, to keep our minds active in old age etc.?

As for:

The only thing I know is that there seem to be many more with neuroligical problems today and yesterday I knew just the village idiot rather than a village of idiots.

If you had done some volunteer work in hospitals for the 'mentally handicapped' as I did in the UK back in the late 70s and early 80s, you would know that there were just as many people with neurological problems back then, they were just locked away out of sight.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

@John

Of more than a dozen co-authors, Andrew alone rests castigated for what is a personal account of clinical findings that are the collective work of the hospital and at times different from those of the doctors locally around the country.

He was castigated because he was the main person behind the creation of the paper, including fudging the results of the other people who were working on it amongst other things.

While we argue about one person dying from measles in the UK every ten years

[citation needed]

Infectious illness is under control with some exceptions but non-infectious illness is PANDEMIC and kept very quiet about.

Under control because of... drum roll... vaccines!

Is it going up, down or staying the same. Who knows?

Well not only have you not bothered to read the quite condemning information about *why* Wakefield was the mastermind of a fraudulent paper, you've also not bothered to look up whether or not stats are kept on rates of autism?

@Krebiozen

they were just locked away out of sight.

Or simply not labelled as autistic...

@flip
7:12 am
I have seen two different figures cited,I forget which is which,about people born before 1990.One says only ten percent of these people who are are autistic have actually been diagnosed,the other says twenty.One was from the US,the other was from the UK,I forgot which was which.There are efforts to go back,and diagnose these people,but they are not as large and widespread,as they should be.

Anyone who is interested in this,as well,as how autistics used to be treated,should go watch this talk,given by Patricia Howlin,of the Saint George Hospital in London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG89fft6-HA

I belong to a couple of Yahoo! groups for autism,and at one of them,that is not especially vaccine/biomed related,this woman had posted some dreck from prisonplanet.com,drawn mostly from naturalnews.com,where else.This woman was gloating about how many parents she had discouraged from vaccinating their children,and that her side was "winning" because the "truth" was getting out.

By Roger Kulp (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

Just a nullity to wake up the Recent Insolence returned feature. Sorry to have to bother anybody.

By Bill Price (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen

That's one of the things that gets me about the anti-vax loonies. That claim that there are more people with neurological issues today, but they forget that back in the "good old days", people with mental and MR/DD issues were often taken to facilities and left there.

I told this story once before, but when I worked at a mental facility, me and the other workers were taught about the history of the facility. Among the things I remembered was that the facility often held people that would be considered autistic or dyslexic today. But back then, they were considered "idiotic" or "stupid", unfit for modern society, and sent there, most of them living the rest of their lives there.

@ novalox:

I was fortunate to have a developmental psych prof who would end his basic course with a discussion of how the CONCEPT of the child itelf has evolved over human history ( giving examples from scripture and literature) and how those beliefs affected the care, treatment and education of children. If you view a child as a sinful heathen or as a tiny adult, you will not treat it as an individual in development who understands the world in incredibly different ways than we do and is extremely vulnerable to our actions.
Of course, he also discussed deplorable treatment and mis-guided education for dis-abled as well as average children.
While he will remain nameless, I'm glad that he has become a very important voice in SB therapy.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

I'm going off line for a few hours. Catherina posted this story on the The Poxes blog...the companion story that Reuben and I had fun with it...Rob Schneider again protesting against AB 2109.

You need to be on Facebook to post.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/09/california-…

Some of our regulars are posting there...as well as the "Dachel bot and her crowd from AoA. Try to get there to post.

Some of our regulars are posting there…as well as the “Dachel bot and her crowd from AoA.

Don't forget to ask Lowell Hubbs if he was thinking about child safety while accumulating his impressive DUI record.

With regard to changing labels, today the AoA blog's Jake Crosby labels himself autistic. In the past, he would simply have been an asshole.

Wow, I see Lowell Hubbs is a total loon. I googled his name and came up with a ton of crazy. He spouted a lot of nonsense at Vactruth, I needed a pair of waders. The best comment came from someone else though. This is the mindset of many who are against vaccines. Wanna bet they are a Paulbot?

"The powers to be promote everything that weakens God in our midst and strengthens the power of evil and govt. Thus govt. promotion of homosexuality, loose and sordid sex, abortion, drugs use, total dependence, welfare.......I could go on and on. Evil is on the loose the vaccine business is just another cog in the machine that is driving us over the cliff. We will be going over the cliff, soon!

Our forefathers who framed the Constitution knew this was always possible
that is why the little pocket Constitution I have is only 14 pages
long. They had no idea the people of this country would ever be so stupid, low and weak as to ask the govt. would be involved in every tiny aspect of your life from sex, health, life to death!!"

By Kelly M Bray (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

How did I ever miss this memorable prior post from John Fryer, one of Andy Wakefield's fanbois?

"This issue is personal and nothing to do with science. The article was by the Royal Free Hospital in 1998 and to be going on today is an absolute farce. The paper has been scrapped for several years now. Of more than a dozen co-authors, Andrew alone rests castigated for what is a personal account of clinical findings that are the collective work of the hospital and at times different from those of the doctors locally around the country.....blah blah blah...."

Here's one of John Fryer's many posts supporting Andy:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/02/dr-halvorsen-on-wakefield-witch-hunt…

"I fully support Andrew Wakefield and his work which over the years is getting nearer to the truth.

Quite why a 12 year study by more than a dozen people still attracts criminal style debates over honesty et al almost invites a police investigation into vaccines rather as the UK police investigation into organophosphates.

Harry Clark was well and just 8 weeks and within hours dead after his several vaccines. The police were those responsible for getting the mother a double life term on no proper evidence.

They owe a duty to follow through on their tardy release with no apology for the family and Sally.

Even the two hundred fold toxicity of the vaccine used on Harry and the testimony (false) that after such a vaccine Harry would be less likely to die is for me perjury.

No tests for safety look at the toxicity of the mix that is injected into little babies and for me this is crime on the grand scale.

We should judge EVERY research article to the same degree of compliance as this retracted paper.

I can see fatal flaws in this paper but even worse in those of papers claiming no evidence of harm and yet in the detail the harm has been covered up.

Verstraeten for example shows that the link of thimerosal to autism is undeniable but the world seems to think it says the very opposite.

Only fools deny vaccines save lives but only fools inject toxic matter into babies when their response is so weak it needs to be injected 5 times over and denying known science that anaphylaxis and possible death is certain for some.

Posted by: John Fryer Chemist | February 09, 2011 at 04:38 AM"

Want me to post some more of your posts from AoA, John?

@ Visitor: I concur that Jake is an a$$hole. Prior to mommy Nicole picking the "disorder de jour" and having Jake reclassified as having Asperger Syndrome, Jake was on Ritalin...the usual medicine prescribe for ADD or ADHD.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/10/olmsted-on-autism-crimson-at-harvard…
"I haven't been on Ritalin for decades. When I was first put on it which had been around the time I was in Kindergarten, it gave me full-body tics. They were so bad the teacher even complained about it to my mother. The shrink who prescribed it to me insisted that I stay on it, citing some improvement in my attention as a benefit that supposedly outweighed the tics, but they were so awful.

Luckily, a father of one of my friends was a child psychologist and gave my mother an article about how Ritalin can cause children to develop chronic tics who would otherwise not have them. Only then did my mom take me off of it. She then gave a copy to the shrink who prescribed me the drug in the first place, who then "lost" the article. After being taken off Ritalin, my tics continued to persist for another six months.

Posted by: Jake Crosby | October 02, 2009 at 03:25 AM

(Jake hasn't been on Ritalin *FOR DECADES* (since kindergarden when he was five years of age???)

I could think of a few medicines that Jake should be on right now.

LOL @Lowell spouting off his usual gibberish

"Andrew Wakefield appeals?"

Not to me he doesn't! Boom! Roasted! Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week, try the shrimp.

I really just need to set a cookie, but there was a single "document returned" added to the case history, attributed to neither appellant nor appellee.

Chris: That song is terrific. :-)

Is it on YouTube? If "The Refusers" can put their atonal performance on the 'Tube, why isn't the Vaccine Song on YouTube?

If “The Refusers” can put their atonal performance on the ‘Tube, why isn’t the Vaccine Song on YouTube?

It is; that's just an embedded viewer.

Thanks Narad...and it has more than 58,000 views.

Ed Arranga, presumable check-casher for the "Andrew Wakefield Justice Fund" is thoroughly unhinged over at AoA today, by the way (yes, he writes "reptilian").

@ Narad: I saw Arranga's screed earlier today. The Carney Barker will be in Wisconsin that day to hold another of his *press conferences*. One poster ponders "will they let Jake in?" (to Brian Deer's seminars).

Hey, Jake can multitask...trying to stalk Brian Deer while lapping at the Andy's heels.

This is an odd one. The case record has been updated with a call from the court reporter on the 28th, and now the reporter's record is back on the due calendar despite seemingly already having been filed. (It had previously been deleted, leaving only the clerk's record as due.)

Oh, wait... I wonder if the "document returned" mentioned above actually refers to the reporter's record. (Texas has also had some issues in this regard.)

The court reporter has apparently received an extension to November 1 to deliver the record. And, for some reason, the clerk's record still isn't in either.

need a cookie, but Narad's question has got me wondering how this affects mr. wakefield's appeal.

It just affects the clock for when his brief is due, which is 30 days from when these two records are properly filed. In other news, AoA reports that Arranga has posted Wakefield's documents to date. These I haven't looked at; there may be some humor value.

Oh, dear, I just now realized that Clifford "me try make graph" Miller is Wakefield's UK counsel.

And... apparently they're now uncertain as to just who the court reporters were.

Trial Court Reporter: Alicia Racanelli; LaDelle Abilez (& Patricia Day??)

Having these be the property of the reporter continues to fail to strike me as a bright idea.

Narad, I appreciate these updates now could you explain in plain English what all this means. Remember, me scientist, not lawyer type.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 09 Oct 2012 #permalink

now could you explain in plain English what all this means.

The short answer is "not much." All the fact-finding of the original court is going to be taken as correct, so the appeals court is simply going to look for errors of law. There aren't really any to be had -- BMJ doesn't have the needed minimum contacts to establish jurisdiction on that basis, so all Wakefield has to go on is that the alleged libel was specifically directed at Texas, even though it's about events that occurred a long time ago in a land far away. This is just about how long he's going to be able to maintain the delaying action.

And the clerk's record is finally in.

Very informative; thank you Narad.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 15 Oct 2012 #permalink

i would just like to see the numbers - cdc says there is no co-relation btwn mmr and autism many hundreds (thousands) of parents say their child became autistic after receivinhg the shot - why not do a study to find out how many can be affected while there is 'no corelation

one thing for sure - when money is involved I don't trust anybody

i would just like to see the numbers – cdc says there is no co-relation btwn mmr and autism many hundreds (thousands) of parents say their child became autistic after receivinhg the shot – why not do a study to find out how many can be affected while there is ‘no corelation

How many do you want?

It has no bearing on the lawsuit.

i would just like to see the numbers – cdc says there is no co-relation btwn mmr and autism many hundreds (thousands) of parents say their child became autistic after receivinhg the shot – why not do a study to find out how many can be affected while there is ‘no corelation

Steve, that's not a correlation. It's missing a key element to be a correlation.

Suppose I told you that I had amassed over 100,000 cases of left-handed children that had gone on to lives of crime.

Would that constitute a correlation between "left-handedness" and "lives of crime"?

No. Because:

a) we have no idea how that figure of 100,000 left-handed children relates to the total number of left-handed children, and even if we had a percentage indicating "how many of all our society's left-handed children go on to lives of crime"...

b) it's meaningless without a similar percentage indicating "how many of all our society's right-handed children go on to lives of crime." and even then...

c) those percentages have to be significantly different or else there's simply no correlation. You can say "Factor X is correlated with an increase (or decrease) in Factor Y"; you can't say "Factor X is correlated with no difference at all in Factor Y" because that's not a correlation.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 15 Oct 2012 #permalink

Oh steve, your inability to think clearly does all of Canada a disservice. Most cases of autism are noticed between 1 and 2 years of age. There's one MMR shot in there. There are 52 weeks per year. Odds of a diagnosis of autism within a week of a MMR shot by random chance? about one in 50, hey let's just widen the diagnosis age range and say the chance is one in a hundred. There are essentially 4 million births a year in the USA and about 10 out of every thousand will be diagnosed as autistic... 43,000 for this past year's birth cohort. 43,000 X 1 per 100 = 430 for that year alone just by random chance. 845 if we bother to do the numbers right and not fudge in your favor. No matter how you run the numbers steve, that's a lot of kids getting a diagnosis within a week of immunization just by random chance. There is no correlation here, just numbers you don't want to look at.

By Jay Chaplin (not verified) on 15 Oct 2012 #permalink

Just noticed Narad @ 10:49 PM on 10-15; let's see, that's 324 studies cited out of Pubmed. Good. Thanks.

many hundreds (thousands) of parents say their child became autistic after receivinhg the shot

If you don't know or care whether the number is in the hundreds or the thousands, why stop there? Why not ONE MILLION parents?

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 15 Oct 2012 #permalink

@ THS: And, you didn't bookmark Narad's link! It is a great reference when I post on other blogs.

Oh, for crying out loud, Wakefield moved for an extension of time to file the appellant's brief and got it. January 4 is the new deadline. What on earth they could have needed more time for thoroughly eludes me.

Maybe Wakefield needs more money from his groupies, Narad.

I presume that a single 30-day extension is routine, although I'd still be curious to see how they framed it. I mean, they've already had one in the form of the delay in procuring the reporters' record, and this isn't going to turn on fact-finding.

I'm assuming that any extensions is just Wakefield attempting to twist the knife in more by keeping the whole thing going for longer...