I recently had a scare where a person appeared to be saving my comments from other websites to disk and then using them out of context in unrelated conversations several months after.

Needless to say, not only did this person ‘somehow’ fail to refer to my comments in context, they also indicated a total lack of understanding of both the initial conversation and the one they brought the comments up in.

People have shown willingness to trawl through years of comments to get little titbits, and others have shown willingness to collate and mass-distribute personally identifying information.

Absolutely… all the more reason to use pseudonyms or noms de plume. What he’s doing by insisting on visiting people at their work to demand access to information when he has no court order or other warrant is basically harrassment. Glad that he doesn’t know where I work. Mind you … we have a psychiatrist who would trust my judgement if he turned up there; where I live, things are more – er – serious if that should happen, since it would be a clear sign of mental disturbance… he’d be held in closed ward for assessment and observation for anything up to a month.

Tony, now I can tell that you’re a lying arse. Because I don’t know of a neurologist that would say the brain was that crudely ‘assembled’. Certainly not a good one. As for the comment on LBRB from someone who’s supposed to be such a highly respected neurologist… fuck off. I don’t buy that at all.

Computer science, well Ok that is not exactly research, it can be a multitude of things I am sure, but philosophy of science it is not it does not teach critical thinking so far as I am aware and what troubles me is that most current researchers have forgotten what they learnt when they started out, so I am as critical of the practice as you maybe are.

You can name drop all you like, two can play at that game. The last neurologist I consulted has recently retired, I am not surprised, he asked me if I remembered Muffin the Mule. I have to say that there were some areas of neurology where I nearly started lecturing him, especially regarding Marr’s thery of vision, because he seemed to be unaware of all that. I do indeed debate philosophy with neurologists they have only a clinical perspective and sometimes behave rather absurdly with regard to what they suppose the patient understands in a conventional sense of collective subjectivity. I love Dicken’s instance of Mr’s Gradgrind where she declares there is a pain in the room but she cannot be sure it is her own, a phenomenon of referred pain you can only understand if you have actually experienced that phenomenon, which leaves most neurologists up the creek without the proverbial paddle.

Don’t try pulling intellectual weight on me, it won’t work. Had dinner with Sir Brian Follet once, he did have a fair grasp of the statistics of risk, you don’t.

Mr. Bateson, repeating does not make it true. You haven’t even satisfied the requests for evidence to show that there are 3 million completely unvaccinated in the UK, let alone that you have conducted the requisite data collection and analyses to claim that not a single one, oh whoops, 3 now, has an ASD.

I can’t imagine why a legitimate researcher would want to participate in the amateurish, agendised endeavours of a crank. This should come as no surprise to you and is certainly not out of fear of losing funding, but rather being associated with the likes of you.

Given that you’ve freely made wide sweeping accusations, and that you’ve shown willingness to ‘insist’ on visiting people in their place of work to demand access to information, I for one am glad that I am anonymous.

If there’s anything the opening post has shown (assuming you’ve actually read it) is that being known to the vacc-skeptic community carries risks that extends to family members and associates both present and former.

However, you have failed – on all levels and at all attempts – to justify your methodology, the reliability of your data, and the conclusions you have drawn from your data.

You can dodge the question and harp on about not being able to prove a negative, but if you can’t even justify that your methods – much less the reliability of the data, much less your conclusions drawn from the data – are sound, then there really is no reason for anyone to trust your conclusion.

You have given enough information for it to be firmly concluded that your data was limited, yet you’ve drawn a firm conclusion anyway.

Please take your accusations of personal and professional misconduct and misbehaviour elsewhere.

Tony Bateson, Oxford, UK.

About my time with the NAS I did not volunteer such information and I make no claims other than what was known to all involved. However if you had witnessed the hostility of that time when I and a small group including Tony Kay (whom I knew for over thirty years, we brought about the Linden Bridge School project at Worcester Park) dragged the NAS into a modern role you would know that it was no bun-fight.

Lastly you know to your satisfaction, no doubt, that is not possible to prove that something doesn’t exist but on my wholly inadequate but nevertheless substantial observations I am satisfied that autism does not exist amongst unvaccinated individuals. Responses to these postings have suggested there are three! Three! There are I believe thrre millions unvaccinated! But the commonality of responses leads me to conclusions, researchers never reply at all to these questions I mean by the hundreds they don’t reply. They are terrified that their name might appear on the same sheet as ‘unvaccinated’ and they would lose their 80% funders the pharmaceutical industry.
Also the tendency of vaccine advocates to describe me and other people like me who question the staus quo as being ‘anti-vackers’. Preposterous, I have never advocated ceasing to vaccinate, I just believe parents should be offered informed consent and that the Yellow Card system should be properly implemented. It would be reassuring too if medical research was not subject to gross abuse. Starting with ‘lab rats’ and their completely unreliable activities and running right through to the m isrepresentation of research findings (EU and US authorities have threatened the industry with severe sanctions if this is not improved. Finally why do doctors have to be bribed to vaccinate their patients’ children. The whole system is rotten and a massive contradiction to the pristine white coat image and high standing of the medical profession.

Tony Bateson, Oxford, UK.

That wasn’t the observation, and as the person who made that observation, I must take issue with your attempt to depict it as being more extreme than it was. You will not be asked to apologise, as it is doubtful that you are capable of perceiving your error.

However, I do thank you for confirming that very few people took you seriously, despite your best efforts.

By your own admission, you know of several unvaccinated people with autism. Somehow, you dismiss them on the grounds of irrelevant data. I think we all know now, thanks to your own words, exactly how you’d react if you were given data on unvaccinated people with autism.

‘Insisting’ on turning up at peoples clinics, implying fraud or outright lying in others on the basis of not being provided with data you have no right to, and looking for reasons – any at all – to disqualify the ones you have met. If you behave towards everyone like you do here, it’s no wonder even a significatn minority of parents refuse to respond.

You certainly haven’t painted a very good picture of yourself. You’ve been ignored and brushed aside despite your best efforts, YET you still attempt to gain some cachet through having undergone this process, even though you’ve had little academic feedback and are self-admittedly basing your conclusion on a very limited data collection method.

This is not the Tony Bateson Show, and it’s time for you to stop treating it like it is. Provide your evidence or kindly leave.