Dr Ben Goldacre’s Internet Bullies Given OK To Launch Attacks On Their Own Blogs – And Told To Shut Up On His BadScience Forum

Here you can watch in real time as some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Internet forum members agree together to engage across the internet in what will likely be their usual formula of personal abuse, disparagement, harassment and defamation.

They have been told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum about this CHS article posted three days ago:

Patient Committed Suicide After His Doctor Was Hounded By Dr Ben Goldacre’s Badscience Forum Internet Bullies

So having been told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum, they are being told it is OK to go onto their own blogs where they will no doubt engage in Google bombing the internet about this.

Here you can see it being discussed on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience forum, [subject of course to postings being deleted or posting terminated once this CHS article is posted]:

Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum Comment Thread: ”Patient Commits Suicide After His Doctor Hounded By..”

The CHS article above is about just one suicide linked to the internet activities of some of the members of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum.  It is not the only suicide of an individual subjected to years of relentless internet attacks by some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members.

The article exposes what Dr Ben Goldacre has been allowing on his BadScience internet forum for years – very serious organised orchestrated internet bullying, abuse, disparagement, harassment and defamation on an internet wide scale against individuals who have differing perspectives from his members and associates.

Additionally, it is clear from this and other evidence that Dr Ben Goldacre is allowing his BadScience forum to be used in this manner.  He has had previous warnings which are documented.

Harassment whether on the internet or elsewhere is apparently illegal and can attract stiff penalties following laws introduced to the UK to counter serious problems of stalking and harassment of celebrities and private individuals.  And this clearly has the look of the usual orchestrated harassment by agreement which under wholly separate legal provisions CHS understands can also be unlawful and attract stiff penalties.

Or should Dr Goldacre be exempt from acting responsibly or above the law?

The BadScience Forum webpage linked to above keeps changing and some comments have been removed already and some are still being added.

In case of further deletions here is an exchange showing they have been told to shut up:

Post#9 by sTeamTraen » Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:46 pm

jdc wrote:

soveda wrote:Moderator note:
Please be very careful in discussing this not to stray into anything that will be problematic, thank you.

Further to this: I was a bit worried we hadn’t been quite careful enough, so I’ve quarantined a couple of posts. I might be being overcautious. I’ll ask the other mods to take a look at teh quarantined posts.


I apologise for inadvertently posting about this. I didn’t realise what was going on (but I have since received PMs from three people explaining the situation).

And here is why they are being told to shut up on Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum:

Post#19 by teacake » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:34 pm

andysnat wrote:It has nothing to do with legal, and plenty to do with keeping the forum.Thanks.

This. Anybody feel free to PM me for discussion of the background to this situation.

Here is a post encouraging Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members to blog about these matters on their own blogs across the internet instead of on Dr Goldacre’s BadScience forum:

Post#14 by duck » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:25 pm

As ever, we thoroughly encourage people to write about this on their own blogs.

And another here:

Post#16 by ThermalTurnip » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:46 pm

Backstep wrote:Dear mods, I love you all dearly, but hows about you don’t encourage us to p.ssy foot around this topic? As long as comments are legal is there any thing else we need to take into account?


And here:

Post#17 by teacake » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:04 pm

Backstep wrote:As long as comments are legal is there any thing else we need to take into account?

Yes, there is. The last time this came up it was almost the end of this forum. Personally, I like it here, and I don’t want it to become more trouble to the curly-haired one than it’s worth.

I think we should take the advice previously given, and repeated by duck, that if we want to address the issues raised we should take it to our own blogs.

Nutters And Journalists Who Support Ben Goldacre

Journalist Jim Edwards blogging on the CBS network Bnet issued a warning to Dr Ben Goldacre to respond to the claims that he [Goldacre] had failed to disclose that his father Michael J. Goldacre is a researcher responsible for the publication of medical papers claiming a lack of a causal association between vaccines and autistic conditions in children: Attack on Autism Critic’s “Secret” Father Doesn’t Stand Up to Scrutiny.

Goldacre is notorious for his defence of the MMR vaccine against claims it causes autism and for his public attacks as a national newspaper column writer on those he does not agree with.

Edwards’ warning should be the least of Ben Goldacre’s concerns.  Goldacre encourages a “posse” on his Badscience.net blog including some notorious nutters and bullies who roam the internet ridiculing, abusing and bullying those whom Goldacre and his acolytes choose not to agree with. Targets include parents of vaccine damaged children and those concerned for the health and safety of children threatened by serious adverse vaccine reactions.  Now we see journalists running to Ben’s defence, like Jim Edwards, [albeit seemingly obscure in the UK] as if Goldacre did not have the means to defend himself.

Edwards reworks the criticism of Goldacre, saying that Goldacre’s father, Michael, authored a study claiming that the MMR vaccine containing the Urabe mumps strain had a higher risk for meningitis than other MMR vaccines.  However, Edwards goes on to say that:-

the offending vaccine was removed from the market based in part on such studies, and thus counts as a contribution to vaccine safety and not ….. as evidence that proves Goldacre’s dad is in league with Big Pharma’s vaccine makers.

And at this point Edwards loses journalistic credibility. [And not just for citing Wikipedia as a reliable source.  It is not, and Edwards ought to know that (as is indicated by his boasts of being a former managing editor of Adweek, of spending 4 years at Brandweek and being a “former Knight-Bagehot fellow” at Columbia University’s business and journalism schools.)]

Edwards has no clue what he is writing about.

And there is also a problem with the story that this was simply to do with mumps viral meningitis (which Ben Goldacre’s father Michael J Goldacre wrote about in 1993, after the event).

Urabe mumps virus containing Pluserix MMR was not withdrawn from the UK because of Michael J Goldacre’s work.  It was a known dangerous vaccine introduced irresponsibly into the UK by UK health officials. The Canadians withdrew Pluserix in November 1987 because it was dangerous. Pluserix MMR vaccine should never have been introduced into the UK but it was in October 1988, a year after withdrawal in Canada. It was 1) the identical vaccine as, 2) with identical constituents to, 3) manufactured in the identical SmithKline factory in Belgium as, and 4) was supplied to Canada as: “Trivirix” MMR vaccine.

The UK authorities must have had full disclosure of the problems with the vaccine from the suppliers Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd (a Glaxo company) so it beggars belief they unleashed it on the children of their own country.

Jack Ashley MP, now Lord Ashley, had obtained information that Pluserix MMR vaccine was dangerous, caused high levels of serious adverse reactions and that this was known by the UK DoH in 1990 and not two years later in September 1992.  Lord Ashley also discovered that there was no surveillance being carried out, only spontaneous adverse reaction reports under the UK’s “Yellow Card” system.

The vaccine was withdrawn from the market worldwide by Smith Kline Beecham on one week’s notice to the UK Department of Health on 11th September 1992 leaving the UK DoH publicly embarrassed as they were intending continuing  putting further British children at risk of the vaccine until they had got their story straight for an announcement to the medical professions.

Lord Ashley found that during 1990 there were 748 adverse vaccine reactions reports to the UK’s Committee on Safety of Medicines, as Ministerial correspondence showed. On a conservative scale these represented 7,480 adverse reactions. Adverse reactions to any drug are under reported by a minimum of 9 of every 10 cases.  Formally published papers show serious adverse reactions can be under reported by 99 in every 100 cases.

Of these reactions 199 were classified by the CSM as “serious” – 45 involving MMR vaccines and 74 DTP.  There were 7 deaths.

Including unreported serious reactions, conservatively, this represented in just one year 1,990 serious reactions, 450 involving MMR and 70 deaths.  On a less conservative assessment there could have been up to 19,900 serious reactions, 4,500 involving MMR and 700 deaths.

The question is therefore, if Ben Goldacre’s father, Michael J Goldacre, as an Oxford University expert in health-care epidemiology was writing up papers about a relatively mild condition of mumps viral meningitis, why was he not also writing up papers about these other serious adverse vaccine reactions?

Was he wholly unaware of them?  What was and is the position?  Was he hired by the UK Department of Health and kept in ignorance of the other more serious problems?  And if so why?

One thing is certain and documented, there were many many more reasons for the withdrawal of the Pluserix MMR vaccine from the market than the relatively innocuous issue of mumps viral meningitis.  Bacterial meningitis is of serious concern, not viral meningitis, from which the majority of children would have recovered rapidly without permanent harm.  And why, therefore, did Ben Goldacre’s father and co-authors make such a meal of viral meningitis.  These are among many questions which deserve answers.