Another day, another Schafer Mercury Report.
Lenny has a dig at the recently published Afzal et al paper ‘Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK’:
It is hard to understand why the authors claim that their study of MMR virus in the blood “failed to substantiate” the reports by Andrew Wakefield, and by now any other researchers — that they found the MMR virus in gut biopsy samples from autistic children.It is obviously far easier to collect blood samples than to collect biopsy samples from the GI tract, which is an invasive procedure with risks. If blood were a suitable source to look for the MMR virus, Wakefield would have used blood in his study
I have no doubt it _is_ hard for Mr Scahfer to understand. It was hard for me to understand too. So I asked someone.
…measles is a lymphotropic virus, even more so for the vaccine strain which has been selected to exploit the CD46 cellular receptor. If there is a persistent MV infection the most logical place to detect it is in cells that it is most adept at infecting. Lymphocytes
Lymphocytes are a type of blood cell. Of course, given that, Lenny’s question re: Wakefield becomes unintentionally hilarious:
If blood were a suitable source to look for the MMR virus, Wakefield would have used blood in his study
Only if it occurred to him Lenny, only if it occurred to him.
Simple translation: Yes, this new study does not replicate Wakefield examining the gut. This is because there’s no need to. Blood cells are more likely to show infection than the gut. If Wakefield or Bradstreet wanted to make a special case for the gut then they failed to do so.
Interestingly, Afzal et al approached both Wakefield and Bradstreet to collect samples of the tissue they collected but they never responded to the request:
The groups of investigators that either had access to original autism specimens or investigated them later for measles virus detection were invited to take part in the study but failed to respond. Similarly, it was not possible to obtain clinical specimens of autism cases from these investigators for independent investigations.
Cynic that I am, I have to wonder why. Too busy to ask a research assistant to locate, package up and send off some samples? Or maybe too worried about what a decent scientist would reveal.
Amusingly, Lenny next attacks Parental Perspectives on the Causes of an Autism Spectrum Disorder in their
Children which recently reported that a low percentage of parents blamed their childs autism on vaccines:
This immense undertaking involved collecting questionnaires from a grand total of 41 parents! It is remarkable that as many as 16 of the respondents said vaccines are a cause of autism. How many questionnaires were given to parents who simply discarded them, knowing that a survey conducted by a University Department of Medical Genetics has little interest in learning what parents think about the role of vaccines in causing autism?
Can anyone remind me again how many kids were involved in the original Wakefield paper? Was it 41? No? 20? No?
Twelve?
Twelve.
Lets also not forget that another recent study looked at what treatment options parents were pursuing. Only 7% were pursuing detoxification (chelation etc). That was from a total of 552 returns.
Lenny seems disturbed that he is part of a minority. I’d advise him to get used to that feeling. As decent science like Afzal et al continues to refute the poor science that precedes it, people like Lenny will become more and more isolated.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Kev,
“I have no doubt it is hard for Mr Scahfer to understand. It was hard for me to understand too. So I asked someone.”
You’re portraying this person as an expert. Who is this person? What credentials do they have?
If you search around for “biopsy vs blood test” you’ll see references that a biopsy is the gold standard to make a diagnosis. The downside of a biopsy is that it’s invasive. The patients that come to Dr. Wakefield or Dr. Krigsman are there due to severe conditions such as chronic stomach pain, chronic diarrhea and/or constipation that is not getting better with standard treatments. These patients
may decide to get scoped to help determine the cause of their stomach problems. As part of a research project, Dr. Krigsman has also been performing a biopsy during this procedure to test for the presence of the measles virus. Before he performs this procedure, he requires a great deal of testing. He may actually be ordering the blood test that the study you reference was doing. I can’t speak for the early Wakefield study, but I highly doubt the IRB would allow tissue samples from Krigsman’s current study to be used in the study you reference. In fact, Krigsman’s IRB won’t even allow parents to see the results of their own children. Hopefully that ridiculous policy will end once the study is published.
Kev, Regardless of what your unnamed expert has to say, to properly disprove something one needs to first replicate it.
David H. Dr. Krigsman has also been performing a biopsy during this procedure to test for the presence of the measles virus.
So where are Krigsman’s results published? You said he tests for MV, has he found any?
A few snips form the paper:
It was, therefore, necessary to examine
leukocytes in this study in contrast to previous published
work where gut biopsies [Uhlmann et al., 2002]
and CSF preparations [Bradstreet et al., 2004] had been
the main tissue examined. Measles virus was, however
reported in one of two blood samples of autistic
regression cases that were examined by Bradstreet
et al. [2004]. The authors have also had sight of
unpublished assay results from the same groups in
which measles sequences were claimed to be detected at
high frequency in blood samples. Therefore it is reasonable
to believe that the substrate used was an appropriate
material for measles virus detection by the assays
applied, although it is regrettable that much of the
background data remains outside the public domain.
Measles virus genome sequences have been successfully
detected in blood of patients with certain diseases and
experimental measles infections [Andjaparidze et al.,
1989; Kawashima et al., 1996; Katz et al., 2002].
[…]While it is impossible to prove a
negative, it is clear that this figure is not consistent
with zero positive from 15 as here. In fact if the
null hypothesis is that 82% of patients have measles
sequences, it would be inconsistent with fewer than
6 positives from 15 samples at the 95% confidence level.
The failure to find any positives means that the
incidence is far lower than this, and possibly zero
David, do you think it’s possible to have persistent measles in the guts and brains of a significant percent of children with autism and still be undetectable in the blood?
To properly prove something one needs to first replicate it.
_”You’re portraying this person as an expert. Who is this person? What credentials do they have?”_
I’m not presenting them at all – the question/answer session was done via email so I can’t link to it. What I’m presenting is this persons opinion that the obvious place to look for MV is in the place that it usually attacks – thats verifiable by asking your own GP if you want to.
_”If you search around for “biopsy vs blood test†you’ll see references that a biopsy is the gold standard to make a diagnosis.”_
I googled for that exact phrase and found nothing that covers what you refer to so if you could point me straight to the relevant authority that’d be appreciated.
_”The downside of a biopsy is that it’s invasive.”_
Thats why Afzal requested biopsy from Wakefields original sample – he asked but failed to recieve ethical permission to perform biopsies. I know you don’t know but I’d be interested in hearing your speculation about why you think Wakefield refused to either participate or even send samples from hs Lancet group.
_”The patients that come to Dr. Wakefield or Dr. Krigsman are there due to severe conditions such as chronic stomach pain, chronic diarrhea and/or constipation that is not getting better with standard treatments.”_
And I’m not being glib when I say that thats a bad thing and I hope Wakefield and Krigsman can help them but it has no bearing on autism.
_”Kev, Regardless of what your unnamed expert has to say, to properly disprove something one needs to first replicate it.”_
I would take that a step further back and say that in order to first establish something one needs to prove why there is a special case to be made for MV being detectable in gut but not in blood.
Kev and Clone
Are you interested on the discussion of some manuscripts about MV and about the possibility of finding in gut and not in blood? Please let me know
MarÃa Luján
I’ve read some awful accounts of parents’ experiences with the drugs Krigsman has prescribed, and these parents are still fans even though they pay $415 an hour for a consultation.
One boy had a bloated belly and that was his only digestive problem until Krigsman presecribed prednisone and sulfasalazine. His mom wrote- “Now my son has diarrhea 4 times a day with large chunks of undigested food. He is crying and whining. I called Dr Krigsman’s office today but did not get a call back.” another fan of Krigsman’s answered, “My son did not tolerate the meds either. He just got worse and worse.” she notes that she’s been trying to wean her son of of prednisone for a year and they haven’t been successful.
“My son (just about to turn 3) was scoped by Dr. Krigsman last month. He was put on sulfasalazine for inflamed colon/ileum and LNH. Since he’s only slightly verbal it took us two weeks to realize he was having a bad reaction. I spoke to Dr. K on Wednesday and we took him off it. Today it seemed like he was in more abdominal pain than ever, hunching over, clawing at his stomach, extremely irritable, pressure on belly, etc. I paged Dr. K and he put him on Zantac 75 and Mylanta. We went to a birthday party and I look over and he’s standing there with yellow diarrea running down his legs, I had to run with him out to the car, wipe him down, it was all over both of us. So now we’re home and bathed, but I just want to know if this is common from the Sulfasalazine or if there is something else going on?”
Dr. Krigsman meets kids with intestinal problems but the children who don’t have them don’t go to GI doctors. That’s why Wakefield only knows about chidren with autism who have gut disorders. And eye doctor will only know children with eye disorders.
I’ve never read about Krigsman trying to do anything with residual measles virus, he prescribes prednisone and sulfasalazine. http://www.sulfasalazine.com/
http://www.drugs.com/prednisone.html
Prednisone weakens the ability to fight infections.
Good post Kevin.
Where did you read about the IRB that keeps Krigsman from telling parents the results? I suspect that you are mistaken, David H.
“So where are Krigsman’s results published? You said he tests for MV, has he found any?”
His results are not yet published. Hopefully they will be published this summer.
“David, do you think it’s possible to have persistent measles in the guts and brains of a significant percent of children with autism and still be undetectable in the blood?”
There are other conditions that require a biopsy to definitively make a diagnosis. So yes, I do think it’s possible.
His results are not yet published. Hopefully they will be published this summer
Great! I look forward to reading about how he detected measles virus in the biopsied samples. How long should it take?
http://www.crohns.net/Miva/education/articles/autism_mmr.shtml
26/06/2002
Dr Krigsman, an experienced consultant paediatric gastroenterologist and an assistant professor at the university, told the committee that he did not know whether his patients’ illnesses were linked to MMR. However, he now plans to have the biopsies he took during the examinations tested independently to check for evidence of measles virus infection.
So Lenny now thinks MMR is *one virus*?
Does it stand for “Mothers Missing Reason”? That’s rather unfair, since clearly fathers can be affected as well…
Smartalecky as ever,
Kassiane
“I’ve read some awful accounts of parents’ experiences with the drugs Krigsman has prescribed, and these parents are still fans even though they pay $415 an hour for a consultation.”
I’ve heard about adverse reactions as well. Some have good reactions but it is most definitely a mixed bag.
“Dr. Krigsman meets kids with intestinal problems but the children who don’t have them don’t go to GI doctors. That’s why Wakefield only knows about chidren with autism who have gut disorders. And eye doctor will only know children with eye disorders.”
That’s a very good point. They have a narrow view of the world although it may be widening some at Thoughtful House since I believe they have at least one DAN doctor who is not a GI doctor. So they should be getting data on children who do not need special GI docs.
“Where did you read about the IRB that keeps Krigsman from telling parents the results? I suspect that you are mistaken, David H.”
Heard it right from Dr. Krigsman. My son is a patient, has been biopsied and I’m not allowed to see the results.
DH: “Heard it right from Dr. Krigsman. My son is a patient, has been biopsied and I’m not allowed to see the results.”
That is very poor practce. When I do anything (assessments/dx/etc), people get to see the results. Anything else is totally unethical.
David H,
You don’t find it suspicious in the least that a doctor does an invasive biopsy on your child and then doesn’t tell you what the results of that biopsy were?
Are you taking Dr. Krigsman’s word for it or something?
David wrote:
“That is very poor practce. When I do anything (assessments/dx/etc), people get to see the results. Anything else is totally unethical”.
– I can see that with your work David. However, it actually seems logical to me that the results in a research study such as this wouldn’t be made available until after they are published (although I could definately see why this would be frustrating to parents). I mean imagine if David found out that his sons biopsy showed evidence of the measles virus? What’s to stop him from coming on here and talking about those results. I imagine you guys would have a problem with that, wouldn’t you?
Sue M.
I thought that it was part of the rules of research, by international law, that all participants had to be able to get the results. There’s more on this page:
http://www.ahrp.org/InformedConsent/InformedConsent.php
“18. If there are therapeutic benefits from the study will my medical record indicate these findings? Will my record be sent to my doctor to help guide his decisions about my follow-up care? Will I (and my family) be informed about these findings in writing?”
I really can’t understand why he would not tell you the results. It’s not like a double blind. It’s not like he’s placing measles there in half the kids and placing sterile saline in half and so he can’t tell you if he put measles into your child.
There’s no reason not to tell you the results, is there? Isn’t it your right to know?
Once my kid was part of a genetics study and the doctor was ignoring my emails (this was several years ago) asking for the results (she said I could know in 6 weeks and something like 4 months had passed). Then I contacted the hospital ombudsperson and waved the international rights thing at them. Bingo. I found out the results.
Sue, if the kid has measles in his intestines, shouldn’t he get some treatment for that? Should all kids get the same treatment? Put them all on an antiviral? Dr. McCandless says all autistic kids need them, the kids get sick, but that’s good, in McCandless world.
I’m listening to Dr. Grandin on autismlink. She says she thinks much of the intestinal problems could be from stress. She had colitis when she had panic attacks, when she took meds for the panic attacks the colitis disappeared. Do we just not care about the effect of stress on guts?
No way, keep the stress up and throw dangerous drugs at the inflammation.
I posted before about being lactose intolerant.
Well, I eat barely anything with lactose in it now (I even buy milk-free margarine). But when I’m really stressed, my digestive tract reacts as if I’d just eaten a bowl of ice cream. With chocolate sauce on it.
Funny, that.
David Andrews, Anonimouse,
I’m not at all happy with the policy of the IRB. I didn’t take my son to Krigsman specifically for the measles biopsy. He had lots of GI issues and I decided to have him scoped. Since he was already to be scoped, I didn’t object to the measles biopsy and in fact I was curious to see the results.
From what I understand, the IRB is taking this position for a couple of reasons. One is that there is no known treatment for this condition so withholding the information is not preventing a child from getting care. The other reason is to prevent parents from taking the results and using them to do things like sue vaccine manufacturers, which the IRB would view as inappropriate. Even if the measles virus is present in the gut, it doesn’t mean that the measles virus caused autism.
David H.
That doesn’t make sense to me. I can see in the most extreme case them making you wait a few months until all the biopsies have been done in a group, then telling everyone. Even I think you should be able to sue if there was a reason to based on the biopsy even if it was gained from a study. That doesn’t make sense to me. If I were you I’d appeal to the IRB. Seriously. Information about your son should belong to you.
If there’s no treatment then what’s all this overdosing with vitamin A (please don’t do that) what’s with “low dose Naltrexone” and “encyclovir” and whatever they are pushing these days for “antivirals”, there’s olive leaf extract, isn’t there?
I’m not recommending it, but isn’t this what lots of parents are doing? It just seems strange that they’d say there is no treatment for measles in the gut. Rollens is or was giving his son powerful antibiotics long-term (not antivirals) for his supposedly measles damaged intestines that made him autistic (supposedly). I think that’s horrific, but that’s just me.
Ms. Clark,
I’m willing to wait it out just a little longer. Hopefully the study gets published this summer and then results are provided to parents. If not, I will definitely investigate the appeal process.
Dr. Krigsman does not advocate the vitamin A treatment. I know some DAN docs do but it’s not something I would ever consider for my son. Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN) is supposed to help with overall immunity. Some are using it to treat auto-immune disorders such as HIV & MS. I’ve heard of encyclovir but I’m not familiar with it. I had good results with those natural antiviral/antifungals like Olive leaf extract, grapefruit seed extract and others to treat yeast overgrowth in my son. Even a Quest Lab test found yeast overgrowth (Dr. Krigsman requires this test).
With the exception of vitamin A, I don’t think many parents are trying to treat measles in the gut. Of course I could be wrong. But if they were it wouldn’t make all that much sense since they can’t possibly have a test result to show that their child even has measles virus in their gut. I’m making that assumption based on my experience in getting the biopsy test results. Some could be relying on measles titre blood tests as many children seem to have very high titre counts.
SueM: “I can see that with your work David. However, it actually seems logical to me that the results in a research study such as this wouldn’t be made available until after they are published (although I could definately see why this would be frustrating to parents).”
From what I gather above, Krigman has failed to publish for the past two or three years. This is not, from what I learned at University, the way research is done… one submits at the first opportunity, once the final draft has been completed to the satisfaction of all involved. The review part of the process then is undergone and the work is either approved or referred or rejected.
Why are Krigman’s results still being waited for? Could it be he’s found himself a file-drawer-bottom paper? Because had he done anything other than demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the veracity of the null hypothesis, he would have been a lot more eager to publish… wouldn’t he?!
If he is not going to publish (and he’s getting way to late to publish those results now), he should be releasing the results to the participants and/or their representatives.
SueM: “I mean imagine if David found out that his sons biopsy showed evidence of the measles virus? What’s to stop him from coming on here and talking about those results. I imagine you guys would have a problem with that, wouldn’t you?”
I’d welcome a paper stating whatever he could demonstrate, in a form which would allow others to faithfully replicate the study in order to determine the accuracy of the results. That is all any of us want, and we’re not getting that from the autism=Hg-poisoning side of this thing.
David,
Why don’t you do some research into Krigsman’s research? That way maybe you can actually be talking about something that you have knowledge on. Speculating at this point does not seem very wise.
David wrote:
“I’d welcome a paper stating whatever he could demonstrate”.
– At the conclusion of the research, right?
Sue M.
_”That way maybe you can actually be talking about something that you have knowledge on. Speculating at this point does not seem very wise.”_
More comedy gold from Sue :o)
Kev wrote:
“More comedy gold from Sue :o)”
-The real comedy gold is going to be watching you over the course of the next 1-2 years as you try to figure out how to justify your pro-poison position here. That will be funny.
David N
“Why are Krigman’s results still being waited for? Could it be he’s found himself a file-drawer-bottom paper? Because had he done anything other than demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the veracity of the null hypothesis, he would have been a lot more eager to publish… wouldn’t he?!”
I have no idea why it is taking so long. Speculating may make for interesting gossip but that’s all it is at this point.
“I’d welcome a paper stating whatever he could demonstrate, in a form which would allow others to faithfully replicate the study in order to determine the accuracy of the results. That is all any of us want, and we’re not getting that from the autism=Hg-poisoning side of this thing.”
To be even-sided, how long did it take for the VSD study to be published? Around 4 years? And certainly not in a form that would allow others to faithfully replicate the study.
Someone quoting a post about Krigman: “However, he now plans to have the biopsies he took during the examinations tested independently to check for evidence of measles virus infection.”
So, these results were obtained during regular clinical examination, which he then intends to use in research.
Therefore he has a duty of care to the patients (who were not at the time of examination – as far as I can tell – *participants* in research but *patients*) and to give the results of examinations.
SueM… what’s your problem? The guy has been acting in an unethical manner.
Whether I am doing educational practice or research, I have a duty to inform on the results of examinations. I may request the participants in research to consent to a delay in being told their results, but I cannot make that decision, and this isn’t just in psychology, it’s in medicine too.
David wrote:
“SueM… what’s your problem? The guy has been acting in an unethical manner”.
-Is Krigsman acting unethically or do you take issue with the IRB and their decision about what he can/cannot do. It is typical of your side to already jump on the bandwagon of screaming “unethical” while having not a clue. Do some research on his research to see if he is acting unethically. Then get back to us with solid evidence of his unethical behaviour, I’ll be waiting.
p.s. are you comparing the work that you do for your special ed pending degree with Krigsman’s work?
She had colitis when she had panic attacks, when she took meds for the panic attacks the colitis disappeared. Do we just not care about the effect of stress on guts?
The problem is that we’re conditioned to treat symptoms rather than causes. It’s why aspirin and paracetamol are at the top of the money making pharmaceutical tree.
Sue wrote:
“The real comedy gold is going to be watching you over the course of the next 12 years as you try to figure out how to justify your pro-poison position here. That will be funny.”
So, stating that autism doesn’t equal mercury poisoning is the same as being pro-poison?
No points Sue, try again next round.
Also, to assume that Kev will have to justify his position (on any autism matter) assumes that there will be better evidence for autism=mercury by that time, or that the matter will still be in play by then. This is called “begging the question”.
The problem is that we’re conditioned to treat symptoms rather than causes.
Yawn. If I had a dollar…
_”The real comedy gold is going to be watching you over the course of the next 12 years as you try to figure out how to justify your pro-poison position here”_
What pro-posion positions that Sue?
Never mind, I won’t hold you to an answer. I know you’re just going for effect.
Works for trolls too
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=mg19025456.500&feedId=being-human_rss20
On the blood thing, naturally our Lenny is wrong. Dr Wakefield did indeed claim to find measles virus in blood. Well, at least for a while, or, alternatively even now, depending on where you look. If you look at the first page of his expert report in the MMR litigation, you see him retracting this claim, which was set out in a once-famous, but now ignored paper, Kawashima… Wakefield et al, published in 2000, which purported to find vaccine strain measles virus in blood. Here’s the retraction:
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/hisashi-kawashima.htm
However, Dr Wakefield has never declared outside the litigation that he no longer relies on this paper. He even posts it on his Thoughtful House website, which one may think could have the effect of misleading the parents of autistic children who visit.
But, whatever our Lenny may say, it’s blood alright.
Yawn. If I had a dollar…
If you had a dollar what? Say what you want to say, it’s the grown up way of doing things.
SueM: “p.s. are you comparing the work that you do for your special ed pending degree with Krigsman’s work?”
No.
I’m comparing it to what I do for my MEd in psychology. You really are a nasty piece of work, Sue. You and JBJr between you could raise a family of idiots like yourselves. I do psychological science for my degree… *science* (in both theory and application). Krigman is a medic, yes? If so, then his job is to do *science* (yes, in both theory and application). So, basically, yes… I can make that comparison. What’s your problem with that, SueM?
SueM: “Is Krigsman acting unethically or do you take issue with the IRB and their decision about what he can/cannot do.”
If (as I have already stated) he has conducted examinations in clinical practice and only *after* that has decided to conduct research using those examination results (which is how it comes across in at least two things I have seen, and which you have yet to refute!), then the people upon whom he conducted those examinations were not *research participants, but were in fact *patients*. In which case, the man has a duty to provide the results so that the *patients* know what is going on. If he conducts research on human subjects, he cannot (IRBs notwithstanding) deny people their results… it isn’t ethical. He can ask them to wait, but the decision is theirs.
This is the second time I have tried to spell it out clearly to you SueM, and I have the feeling that you will *still* not have understood what I am saying.
Odd thing is this: I teach this sort of thing *in English* to people *whose first language is Finnish*, and they understand very well what I am saying. Your first language is English, and therefore I can reasonably assume that you (with your professed education) should be able to understand this topic (ethics in the sciences) at first pass, rather than need someone to spell it out for you.
But then, you’re a “mercury mum”, and so your education seems to have played very little role in your life. (‘Scuse me using the sort of logic that you use continuously here… see how it feels!).
David N,
In my case, when we saw Dr. Krigsman the research had already started. He specifically said he could not give me the results due to the IRB. That being said, there may be patients who saw him prior to the start of the research who have not been able to see their results but I don’t know that for sure.
Thanks DH for clearing that up.
It would be the pre-start stuff that is definitely unethical, plus, really, the research should be done using new cases.
Thanks again.
Brian,
I’ve always been a little confused regarding Wakefield and the whole MMR controversy. I know there is the issue of Wakefield supposedly being paid to study the original 12 children and that many of his colleagues apparently turned against that original study.
But Wakefield and others have examined many autistic children and a common thread I see is that these children really do have GI disease. Are people questioning Wakefield over that or do his critics agree that the autistic children he has examined really do have a common pathology?
David wrote:
“Thanks DH for clearing that up”.
– That was sort of my point when I wrote…”Do some research on his research to see if he is acting unethically. Then get back to us with solid evidence of his unethical behaviour, I’ll be waiting”. For you to talk about something of which you have no clue does not impress…
SueM: “For you to talk about something of which you have no clue does not impress… ”
Er… did either DH or I ask you to shove your nose in? Fight picking really is *all* you have going for you, isn’t it? You really have no life.
You still haven’t said anything that contributes to discussion yet. But then, we all know that you’re totally unable to do that, SueM… you are just a sad woman with no future.
SueM: “For you to talk about something of which you have no clue does not impress… ”
And another thing… I *do* indeed have a clue, which is why I commented. Until DH gave the specific information about the timing of his child’s examination by Krigman, the only possible thing I could know (from what has been mentioned previously here) was that Dr K had been denying information about results of tests to DH regarding his child.
SueM, I cannot for the life of me fathom what your purpose is in this life, but it certainly isn’t anything to do with providing sensible input here, because all you seem to be willing to do (or indeed *able* to do) is scream like a spoilt child who has learned nothing in life except that screaming gets him/her some attention.
My comments on Krigman’s practice still stand (since I cannot see why an IRB would insist on his not releasing results to the guardians of his patients), and my appreciation of DH’s further clarification stills stands (since this infirmation was not – to my knowledge – known to anyone else on the forum, let alone me!
SueM, you really *are* a pathetic person, aren’t you? Wade Rankin, MarÃa Lujan and DH here are much more sensible as people to talk to than you will ever be. Even if I find I have no option but to be in disagreement with them, at least it is quite possible to respect them as people despite the lack of agreement (because they are arguing on the issues themselves). You, on the other hand, have not contributed a single useful thing all the time you have been trying to bug the shit out of the rest of us who come here. How can someone like you ever get respect for being that sort of person? I once tried to give you the benefit of my expertise, and I did it very much with tact and quite some empathy. Your response: nothing. You *ignored* it Sue… you just didn’t bother to notice.
That is just pathetic.
David,
What a beautiful and entertaining post. Thank you for your kind words. You are a gem!
SueM: “What a beautiful and entertaining post. Thank you for your kind words. You are a gem!”
Every time you choose to insult me, you become worthy of every one of them.
David wrote:
“Every time you choose to insult me, you become worthy of every one of them”.
-You seem to go a bit overboard on your insults, David. That’s ok, though, obviously I can handle it. When you become a crazed man with your overboard rants, it is YOU who looks foolish.
SueM: “You seem to go a bit overboard on your insults, David. That’s ok, though, obviously I can handle it. When you become a crazed man with your overboard rants, it is YOU who looks foolish.”
JBJr has that silly blog of his, and you say *I’m* the one with the crazed rants? Sad woman. You really are.
I’m not saying I don’t use insults. You insult me, I’ll do it to you. That’s a fair exchange. When someone actually takes time to do something that might at least be helpful to you (as I did for you, elsewhere on this blog, so this is actually on archive!), and you just basically ignore it and carry on trying to make that person look small (which is your favourite way of making yourself feel good about yourself, and again there is a lot of evidence of that on this blog), then you are ripe for any insult I can throw at you. I do actually restrain myself when I deal with you now. You might not notice that, though, because even a disagreement with you is something you feel insulted by.
As for looking foolish…. again, plenty of evidence on this blog that you are the foolish one.
SueM: “You are a gem!”
Actually… the people I help out on a daily basis would say that I am. You see, they don’t ignore the help I give them. They don’t try to make me look stupid (e.g., if I make a typo, or if I spell something wrong in Finnish). They don’t go around tryiong to make themselves feel better by trying to make me feel worse about myself. They are civil people, SueM; pity you can’t be one. You might find that people respond to you in nicer fashion. Try it sometime.
David wrote:
“JBJr has that silly blog of his, and you say I’m the one with the crazed rants? Sad woman. You really are”.
-Oh no… he has crazed rants too! You are not alone.
SueM: “-Oh no… he has crazed rants too! You are not alone.”
Is that the best you can do? If so, you really are pathetic. Sure, I can easily let myself go on a rant. My point was that I am not the only one.
But then, as the Queen of Double Standards, your lack of serious ability to appreciate the reality of things is hardly surprising. It is clear that it is perfectly okay for JBJr to go on serious offensive rants about anyone and everyone, but that you’d only focus on the fact that I might have a rant about things once in a while.
And here’s the seriously disturbing point: *I*’m the autistic one, and JBJr is the person with the most rants between the pair of us…. and *that* hasn’t even occurred to you.
You’re a pretty sad woman to not notice that.
Shows exactly what kind of person you are….
Anymouse, quoting/paraphrasing JBJr: “He says: ‘I will give my child a chance to be normal and if he cannot manage it then I will institutionalize him.’
Thank you, Mr. Best, for being an example of what is wrong with the world.”
I agree with Any Mouse.
SueM calls me on crazed rants, but always manages to forget her friend JBJr’s crazed rants. She calls others on “twisting her words” when she’s shown herself to be a master of that art.
And JBJr – she probably sees him as loving his autistic son, but I cannot (speaking as a psychologist) see the attitude we know that JBJr has towards his son (paraphrased clearly by Any Mouse) as showing that JBJr loves his son. Being prepared to insitutionalise a kid because s/he isn’t quite what one can call “normal”… well, my daughter’s autistic and I would never even consider that fate for her. And many autistics who have survived institutions have gone on record has saying what happens in these institutions. Some very seriously barbaric practices, even in the so-call “better” ones. And JBJr is okay with that, as long as he can have a “normal” kid?
That isn’t love.
That’s abuse.
Appropos JBJr:
“Mouse;
I think it is your friend who wants to mail pictures of his groin to people who is dysfuntional.”
I don’t want to send pictres of my groin to fucking *any*body, let alone JBJr. He brought the subject up. He has the obsession (mentioned in way to many postings about whether I have the balls for anything). My first response when Any Mouse told me what was being said was, “Ewwwwww… is he wanting a fucking photo of them as proof I have them? The disgusting bastard!”
That is *still* my response.
And SueM never says a thing against that guy! She must be okay with his weird obsession with my bollocks, and how he treats people generally who disagree with him, or who do not want to send him proof that they have the requisite amount of testicular tissue to be called a man (as far as JBJr is concerned).
SueM’s as fucked up as him if she cannot turn round and say that JBJr does indeed go over the top.
“pictres”=>”pict*u*res”
Lest SueM decide to come in on me, behaving like a pisswittted school teacher with nothing better to do than spot typos and misdiagnose them as spelling errors.
Which is about all she learned to do at *her* university!
JBJr in denial: “Anon;
I haven’t been discussing Andrew’s groin, only his perversion of wanting to send people pictures of it.”
But I have stated categorically that I do not want to send pictures of my groin to anybody, let alone him.
His obsession, not mine.
He can’t even accept that.
Totally fucked up person, JBJr is.
I thought he was a sad, pathetic man; now I have to admit that I think he’s quite evil.