TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Advanced search  

News:

.
3 - 2 - 1 COUNTDOWN!

######################################## ### ########################################



Generalstreik!
Drosten for Kanzler!
SOFORT!
######################################## ### ########################################

Würden Sie von diesem Mann eine Maske kaufen?



######################################## ### ########################################
HANNOVER:
Impfstoff ist in riesigen Mengen vorhanden.
Mehr als 1000 Ärzte WOLLEN impfen.
ABER MAN LÄSST SIE NICHT!

######################################## ### ########################################

Thalia-Chef Michael Busch will eins auf die Schnauze
TOTALBOYKOTT BEI THALIA!
######################################## ### ########################################

Manfred Doepp: im Fernsehen.
Seine Patienten: im Grab.
######################################## ### ########################################
Männer sind blöde.
Hier ist der Beweis.
######################################## ### ########################################

Geisteskranke Homöopathie-Anhänger sind eine ernste Gefahr für die Allgemeinheit
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=11953.0
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Das Innenministerium muß handeln:
Homöopathische 'Ärzte' als organisierte Kriminalität
Beweisstücke für die Staatsanwaltschaft
######################################## ### ########################################

Krieg! Krieg!

Homöopathen im Krieg!
Binnenkonsens ermordet!

Kriegsbericht von der Postfront:
Ab 6.2.2021 wird zurückstudiert!

######################################## ### ########################################

Was Einem die Vollidioten ohne Masken ins Gesicht pusten:



######################################## ### ########################################

Mindestens jeder siebente Pfaffe im Erzbistum Köln ist ein Täter



Vorsicht vor Pfaffen!
######################################## ### ########################################

Karma bit them in the ass:
Rogue Hoster OVH on fire
IT IS MUCH WORSE THAN EVER THOUGHT

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Fight against Jeni Barnett !  (Read 9971 times)

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« on: February 08, 2009, 09:53:34 PM »

Hi, folks,

here we got a handle for the infamous radio affair of Jeni Barnett:

http://www.oust-jeni-barnett.com

It points to this very web-page.


Here we have a COMPLETE transcript, collected from the various pieces in several web-logs:

http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/showtopic.php?threadid=5162




Before going into the details of Ben Goldacre's new bloggonia let me tell you some new background information: A 12 year old French girl died in Geneva recently (January 29th.) of measles encephalitis. She was not vaccinated. She had previously been in good health.

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Une jeune fille de 12 ans, jusqu’alors en bonne santé, est décédée le 29 janvier dernier aux Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève d’une encéphalite due à la rougeole. La jeune fille habitait en France, à proximité de la frontière Suisse. Elle n’était pas vaccinée. Ce cas tragique confirme que la rougeole est une maladie dangereuse, souligne l’OFSP.

Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | February 8, 2009 12:29 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

more:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/why_am_i_not_surprised_it_looks_as_thoug.php

more in Orac's blog:
http://www.orac.me


Sorry, there is no translation yet:  (help needed!)


http://www.lenouvelliste.ch/fr/news/flash_info/index.php?idIndex=468&idContent=129815

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flash info
     
La rougeole tue à Genève
Suisse
04 février 2009 - 17:36


De nouvelles flambées de rougeole ravivent l’épidémie qui sévit depuis novembre 2006 en Suisse, pays européen le plus touché ces dernières années par cette maladie. Une jeune fille française est décédée en fin de semaine dernière à l’hôpital cantonal de Genève des suites d’une complication aiguë de la rougeole. La vaccination est le seul moyen de se protéger, a rappelé mercredi l’Office fédéral de la santé publique (OFSP).

Une jeune fille de 12 ans, jusqu’alors en bonne santé, est décédée le 29 janvier dernier aux Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève d’une encéphalite due à la rougeole. La jeune fille habitait en France, à proximité de la frontière Suisse. Elle n’était pas vaccinée. Ce cas tragique confirme que la rougeole est une maladie dangereuse, souligne l’OFSP.

En Europe, au moins sept personnes ont succombé à la rougeole au cours de ces dernières années. Alors que l’importante épidémie qui sévit en Suisse depuis deux ans semblait s’essouffler, de nouvelles flambées sont apparues. A ce jour, près de 3.400 cas ont été déclarés aux autorités de santé, dont une cinquantaine depuis le début de cette année, soit autant que durant une année complète sans épidémie. Ils ont entraîné plus de 250 hospitalisations et 500 complications, dont 143 pneumonies et 8 encéphalites. La maladie a touché presque exclusivement (93%) des personnes non vaccinées.

La vaccination est la seule protection efficace contre la rougeole et ses complications. L’OFSP invite les parents à suivre ses recommandations de vaccination, à savoir deux doses d’un vaccin ROR (rougeole-oreillons-rubéole) à l’âge de 12 mois et de 15-24 mois. De plus, les médecins devraient saisir toute occasion pour compléter les vaccinations manquantes. Un rattrapage est possible en tout temps, il est recommandé à toute personne née après 1963, qui n’a pas eu la rougeole. Pour éliminer la rougeole en Suisse, comme c’est déjà le cas notamment en Amérique du Nord et du Sud et en Finlande, il est impératif d’augmenter à 95% la couverture vaccinale des jeunes enfants, qui est actuellement de 86% pour l’ensemble du pays. C’est le seul moyen d’éviter les épidémies de rougeole et leurs conséquences parfois mortelles. (ap)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Sorry, there is no translation yet:  (help needed!)

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
03.02.2009
Masern-Epidemie: Schweiz beklagt erstes Todesopfer

Die noch immer anhaltende Masern-Epidemie in der Schweiz hat ihr erstes Todesopfer gefordert. Ende Januar starb im Genfer Universitätsspital eine 12-jährige Französin an einer akuten Masern-Enzephalitis, einer durch Masern-Viren ausgelösten Hirnentzündung. Laut dem Schweizer Gesundheitsamt wies das Mädchen keine Vorerkrankungen auf, sie war bis zur Ansteckung mit den Masern-Viren völlig gesund. Das Mädchen, das aus dem französisch-schweizerischen Grenzgebiet stammt, war nicht geimpft. Die genaue Ansteckungskette ist noch nicht bekannt. Die Schweizer Behörden vermuten die Infektionsquelle in der katholischen Schule in Genf, die auch von vielen französischen Schülern besucht wird.

In der Schweiz sind im Jahr 2008 insgesamt 2.216 Masern-Fälle gemeldet worden, Schwerpunkt war der Kanton Luzern. Bei insgesamt acht Kindern führte die Masern-Erkrankung zur gefürchteten Masern-Enzephalitis, die in etwa 30% der Fälle tödlich verläuft. Seit Anfang des Jahres 2009 sind bereits wieder mehr als 40 Menschen an Masern erkrankt, viele wieder aus dem Kanton Luzern. Die Durchimpfungsraten des Kantons Luzern und des benachbarten Kantons Schwyz gehören zu den niedrigsten der gesamten Schweiz. Laut Angaben der Behörden können nur etwas mehr als 60% der zweijährigen Kinder die zwei empfohlenen Impfungen gegen Masern vorweisen. Die Behörden rechnen daher mit einer weiteren Ausbreitung der Masern.

Erneute Ausbrüche auch in Deutschland - Kinder- und Jugendärzte fordern Impfnachweis in Gemeinschaftseinrichtungen
Auch in Deutschland grassieren die Masern. In Hamburg sind seit Anfang 2009 mehr als 30 Masern-Fälle gemeldet worden, aus Rheinland-Pfalz und Bayern wurden vom Berliner Robert Koch-Institut (RKI) für 2009 bereits Einzelfälle registriert. In Gelsenkirchen wurden aufgrund mehrerer an Masern erkrankter Schüler drei Schulen vorübergehend geschlossen.

Der Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärzte (BVKJ) fordert einen Impfnachweis für alle Kinder, die städtische Gemeinschaftseinrichtungen besuchen – nach dem amerikanischen Vorbild „no vaccination - no school“. „Es kann nicht sein, dass in unserem hochentwickelten Land heute noch Kinder an Masern sterben. Die Ausrottung der Masern liegt in der sozialen Verantwortung jedes Einzelnen. Durch einen  Impfnachweis in öffentlichen Gemeinschaftseinrichtungen könnten wir dieses  gesellschaftliche Problem in den Griff bekommen und alle Kinder vor der vermeidbaren, lebensgefährlichen Infektionskrankheit schützen – vor allem auch die Kinder und Säuglinge, die aufgrund eines Immundefekts nicht bzw. aufgrund ihres Alters noch nicht geimpft werden können“, kritisiert Dr. Ursel Lindlbauer-Eisenach, Kinder- und Jugendärztin aus München und Mitglied der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO) am RKI.

Die STIKO empfiehlt zwei Impfungen gegen Masern, Röteln und Windpocken . Die erste Impfung kann ab dem vollendeten 11. Lebensmonat erfolgen, die zweite Impfung vier Wochen danach. Um die Masern in Deutschland zu eliminieren, sind Durchimpfungsraten von 95% für beide Impfungen nötig.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

http://www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/bvkj/aktuelles1/show.php3?id=3081&nodeid=26


In Switzerland was an outbreak of measles, and as times and times again, this too was fired by anti-vaccinationists. And behind the anti-vaccinationists are the insane and hatred-seeding crazes of Rudolf Steiner and the anthroposophs.

There is a real big web-site dedicated to the analysis of the anti-vaccinationists' warfare:
http://www.pharmamafia.de


Now to the latest developments in the UK: Ben Goldacre wrote a blog note about Jeni Barnett and her incredibly mad and criminal radio show about not to vaccinate children.

 

I heard the mp3 (see the following links) of her radio broadcast: She made one of the most dumb, shitty, and criminal radios shows I ever heard. She can be god-damned happy that I do not live in the UK.

Jeni Barnett must be ousted immediately. Someone who - despite advice even during the radio broadcast - manipulates parents into endangering the lives of their own and other children is a danger to the public.




http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/legal-chill-from-lbc-973-over-jeni-barnetts-mmr-scaremongering/#more-862

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad Science

Er, “help”. Legal Chill from LBC 97.3 and “Global Radio” over Jeni Barnett’s MMR scaremongering

February 5th, 2009 by Ben Goldacre in Global Radio, MMR, jeni barnett, legal chill, stifling criticism |

[Update: links to transcripts and audio hosted elsewhere at bottom of post]

LBC have instructed their lawyers to contact me.

Two days ago I posted about a 7th Jan 2009 broadcast in which their presenter Jeni Barnett exemplified some of the most irresponsible, ill-informed, and ignorant anti-vaccination campaigning that I have ever heard on the public airwaves. This is important because it can cost lives, and you can read about the media’s MMR hoax here.

To illustrate my grave concerns, I posted the relevant segment about MMR from her show, 44 minutes, which a reader kindly excerpted for me from the rest of the three hour programme. It is my view that Jeni Barnett torpedoes her reputation in that audio excerpt so effectively that little explanation is needed.

LBC’s lawyers say that the clip I posted is a clear infringement of their copyright, that I must take it down immediately, that I must inform them when I have done so, and that they “reserve their rights”.

To me this raises several problems:


Firstly, I don’t even know what “reserving your rights” means. They are a large corporation worth around a billion pounds (genuinely), I am some bloke, they have a legal team, I have no money, they are making threats using technical terminology and I actually don’t understand what those words mean.

Secondly, more importantly, as I have written at length, the media have systematically and irresponsibly misrepresented the evidence on MMR. It is my view that individuals like Jeni Barnett  - but more importantly, organisations like LBC and Global Radio who give them a mouthpiece and a platform - pose a serious danger to public health, with their ignorant outbursts, disseminated to the nation. This clip was extremely instructive as an example of that recurring theme, and it deserves to be freely accessible and widely discussed.

MMR vaccine uptake has dropped from 93% to around 75%, and to below 50% in London. Furthermore, the media have shown no sign of recognising and acknolwedging their role, and so it seems likely that they will go on to cause further harm on this but also, more importantly, on many other issues. I write about all this because I think it is interesting, and extremely important.

But thirdly, there is a question of the basic tools you need to illustrate a point. The clip I posted was, to my mind, hideous and unremitting: it went on for so long.

In fact it was so long, so unrelenting, and so misinformed that I really couldn’t express to you how hideous it was. If I tried, without the audio, you might think I was exaggerating. You might think that I was biased, that I was misrepresenting Jeni’s demeanour and views in this broadcast, that LBC and their parent company Global Audio are living up to the standards of basic responsibility which we might reasonably hold them to, as they shepherd Jeni’s views and explanations into our cars and kitchens. You might think that I was quoting Jeni out of context, cherrypicking only the ridiculous moments from an otherwise sensible, proportionate and responsible piece of public rhetoric.

Many of the specifics are discussed in the other post and associated comments (of varying sobriety as ever), but as a further brief illustration which has come to light today, on her website, Jeni Barnett is angry at the response to her broadcase being brought to a wider audience, and she is describing a nurse who rang in to disagree with her as “vicious”. Now, parenthetically, this strikes me as a slightly unkind and inappropriate thing to do as a wealthy public figure, a television and radio presenter, with an industry and (today we see them) lawyers behind you, to an individual working in the NHS for the good of the public on a low wage, with no such outlets, and no such resources. But more than that, I thought the nurse was actually very polite, despite Jeni talking over her, cutting her off, and expressing, as we have already discussed, unhelpful and ignorant views in a rather shrill and irresponsible fashion.

How can I convince you of this, if not with the audio recording?

You may wonder whether this legal move from LBC and Global Audio was solely about concerns over lost revenue, and infringement of copyright. That may well be the case. To be clear: if a listener is very motivated, the whole Jeni Barnett show, like all LBC shows, can be purchased from the company online, if you go through a registration process, give your credit card, and pay £4. I do not wish to deprive them of money, although I don’t think I’m realistically your first port of call if you are a regular LBC listener.

Ultimately it seems to me that the most important outcome of LBC’s actions will be to prevent an embarrassing, irresponsible and, more than anything, instructive piece of broadcasting from being more widely heard and discussed. That is a great shame, because episodes like this, and discussions around them, are important for the wider questions of the responsibility of the media, the misrepresentations and misunderstandings of evidence in science and health that they promote, and the impact that has on public health.

It is also concerning to think that it might join that long list of situations where lawyers have been used in a way that has retarded debate on important health issues (such as, in extremis, this memorable episode when a High Court judge criticised Andrew Wakefield for trying to use libel law to silence his critics).

So. If anybody is a proper media lawyer and is able to offer their services for free, do please contact me.

Without a formal opinion and a guarantee of legal backup that would last for the duration of a case, and financial resources to cover the cost of losing, it seems to me that the only safe way to keep this sorry piece of audio in the public domain is by large numbers of bloggers posting individual brief chunks, and blogging critically about them, using “fair use dealing” uncontroversially for brief slices, with me perhaps keeping tabs here of where people have posted these discussions and excerpts, in one reference post. Now there’s an idea. It might also be a useful project for media students as well as bloggers, and will bring google juice and visitors.

If you felt that this was an irresponsible piece of broadcasting, and an inappropriate use of the public bandwidth - which is licensed to companies such as Global Audio as a privilege by the nation - you may wish to complain about Jeni Barnett’s MMR show of 7th January 2009 to OFCOM.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/

Lastly, if they genuinely wish to “start a debate” - as the phrase is so commonly used - then I would invite LBC, Jeni Barnett, Global Audio, and their legal team to reconsider, and simply give permission for this clip to be made freely available, in the public domain, in full, as it was broadcast, so that it can be widely heard, understood, and discussed. The debate here is not about the dangers of MMR, but the dangers of the media.
Update and transcripts +/- audio

14:00 6th Feb.

Running to get on with other stuff (grrr) but here is audio, transcripts, and a couple of quick points.

 

This is not about LBC or Jeni Barnett in general, this is about one perfect, instructive, illustrative example of a whole genre of irresponsible journalism that drove the media’s anti-vaccine campaign for ten solid years, with serious consequences for public health.

 

Because of that, I think it is important that this piece of audio can be heard freely, discussed openly, understood, and learnt from. I genuinely cannot understand the impulse to restrict that.

 

The audio is being hosted by various places below, and transcripts of the show are available spread around the following sites for the moment. Let me know if it is legal to post one transcript all in one place and I will do so, clearly I have no idea about copyright. Thanks to HolfordWatch for gathering these links.

 

Part 1. Frank. Jeni Barnett MMR show - full transcript

http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2009/02/jeni_barnett_mmr_show_-_full_t.php

Part 2. Martin of The Lay Scientist. The Barnett Transcript -

http://www.layscience.net/node/485

Part 3 Podblack Jeni Barnett On LBC 97.3FM UK Radio - vs John From Epsom

http://podblack.com/?p=1222

Part 4 Rachel Dunlop of Sceptics’ Book

This section covers ~ 19 to 24 mins . To see the preceding section
head topodblack.com. For the audio head to my YouTube channel.

http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/06/further-to-the-transcript-of-jeni-barnetts-diatribe-on-lbc-937fm/

Part 5 Quackometer
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/jeni-barnett-mmr-rant-transcript-with.html

 

Part 6 Holfordwatch Jeni Barnett and the Phone Call with Yasmin on the LBC MMR Segment

http://holfordwatch.info/2009/02/06/jeni-barnett-and-the-phone-call-with-yasmin-on-the-lbc-mmr-segment/

 

 

I can’t listen from this ancient PC in the bush but I’m told that the original joyous audio clip is available in the following locations:

http://www.layscience.net/node/484

 

http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/06/damage-control-for-lbcs-jeni-barnett-mmr-rant-backfires-globally-and-on-a-massive-scale/

 

http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/02/06/ben-goldacre-of-bad-science-threatened-by-lawyers-for-lbc-and-jeni-barnett/

 

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bad_Science:_Jeni_Barnett_MMR_and_vaccination_slot_on_LBC_radio%2C_2009

 

http://www.thatsfuckingstupid.com/index.php/2009/02/dont-tell-anyone/

 

Lastly, I write for a hobby, I can honestly say it never occurred to me when I took an excerpt of audio, broadcast on the airwaves into kitchens and cars, and made a brief blog post about it, that this could be considered “theft”. I welcome people lifting my output, I expect them to link back to me so people can find more of the same, and I am glad when people use my ideas and analyses, even (with a fleeting grudge) unattributed: that is what they are there for.

 

To me, these people with their lawyers, and their millions, are from another world. The fact that this has gone from a small blog post about a stupid radio clip to a blogstorm is a bit weird too, but excellent for getting a wider discussion going about the way that the media misrepresent health risks, and create scares.
Update - links

Amazing. Holfordwatch have kept track of the speed with which this story has spread overnight. I’m so pleased to see this dismal scaremongering, and LBC’s intemperate response, getting wide coverage.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/05/scientist-who-critic.html

 

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43020&c=1

 

http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/02/06/bad-science-v-bad-lawyers/

 

http://blog.dave.org.uk/2009/02/the-controversy-that-wont-die.html

 

http://theplummetonions.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/extremely-bad-science/

 

http://teekblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/goldacre-threatened-with-legal-action.html

 

http://scatter-gum.blogspot.com/2009/02/jeni-barnett-is-fucking-idiot.html

 

http://mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2009/02/06/401.aspx

 

http://plashingvole.blogspot.com/2009/02/jeni-barnett-is-ill-informed-loon-and.html

 

http://xrrf.blogspot.com/2009/02/global-radio-menaces-ben-goldacre.html

 

http://www.adambowie.com/weblog/archive/002659.html

 

http://retiredrambler.typepad.com/tonys_ramblings/2009/02/ben-goldacrejeni-barnett-mmr-and-lbcs-heavy-legal-hand.html

Dr Crippen of NHS BlogDoc: Jeni Barnett and LBC start the clean-up operation

Frank Swain of Science Punk: LBC sic lawyers on Ben Goldacre over criticism of MMR show

SJ Cockell of Fuzzier Logic: MMR scaremongerer sicks the legal dogs on Ben Goldacre

Podblack of Podblack Cat: Ben Goldacre - Will Not, Should Not, Be Silenced On Jeni Barnett.

jdc of jdc325: MMR Scaremongering From Jeni Barnett: LBC Use Legal Chill Tactics. Ugh.

Political Scientist: URGENT: The Joy of Law

Martin of The Lay Scientist: Jeni Barnett on MMR - The Complete Show.

Jason Brown of A Drunken Madman: More medical mendacity.

ES Armstrong of Scattergum: Jeni Barnett is an idiot.

Dr*T of Thinking is Dangerous: Is there a proper media lawyer in the house? Your country needs YOU.

Common Sense has updated the Measles graph for England and Wales.

Dr Rachie of The Sceptics’ Book: What are LBC and Jeni Barnett afraid of?

Press Gazette: LBC in legal warning to Ben Goldacre over MMR blog post

Anthony Cox of Black Triangle: MMR and legal threats and http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=1894″>The Today Programme’s irresponsible MMR interview

Quackometer: Jeni Barnett and Irresponsible Broadcasting

MacSpider of Spider Comment: Jeni Barnett, LBC, stupidity and threats

Londonist: MMR, For Some Reason, Still Controversial

Michael Grayer of Non-Toxic: Many Many Rants… and not much evidence.
BPSDB
It’s also had about a million tweets, including this from Phil Plait (yay), and the audio has appeared on wikileaks, but for how long I don’t know (millionaires take note: I am not responsible for the content of external websites).

I’ve also had emails saying that various people are working on transcripts, they’ve coordinated now and they’re almost complete. I’ve been sent a bit of one and I can only say, in black and white text this content is exceptionally informative reading. As I said at the outset, this is one of the finest exemplars I have seen of the antivaccination genre and I look forward to having it in a form where its strengths can be discussed again.

This was a broadcast on the public airwaves, it was widely felt to be irresponsible and misleading, and a review of it, and discussion about it, was important and informative. If Jeni, LBC, and Global Radio really felt that access to information was important, and that debates were worth having, I think they would encourage their legal team to reconsider, and simply give permission for this clip to be made freely available, in the public domain, in full, as it was broadcast, so that it can be widely heard, understood, and discussed.

Anooooother update:I have just had an off the record conversation with a senior person at LBC. I don’t understand why it has to be off the record, again, instead of a normal discussion about the issues, podcasted, whatever, but there you go.

I’m not allowed to tell you what we talked about (ricockulously…) but the bottom line is, I made the arguments, and they are adamant they will not allow this audio to be posted freely. Without details, I’m a nice guy, I wanted to like him, I wanted him to like me, I couldn’t believe we could disagree, but it was like communicating with someone from another universe.
 
del.icio.us Digg it reddit Google StumbleUpon Slashdot It!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 08:55:26 PM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2009, 09:59:38 PM »

http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2009/02/jeni_barnett_mmr_show_-_full_t.php

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Swain is a science writer and blogger. He is based in the UK.

Recent Posts

Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript
LBC sic lawyers on Ben Goldacre over criticism of MMR show
HP are awesome
Lord Winston: "science is just one of many truths"
Woman passes her own kidney
Ferrous Wheel
Reiki One-Liners: a daily dose of healing via Twitter
Stupidity caught on celluloid: The Beautiful Truth
My sweet-ass new business cards have arrived
Damien Hirst paints cover for Origin of Species
Recent Comments
alison on Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript
Pseudomonas on Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript
John Phillips, FCD on HP are awesome
Damian on Lord Winston: "science is just one of many truths"
stopjenny.com on Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript
LSF on Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript
elaine ellerton on Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript
RobertM on Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript
UKdietitian on Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript
Podblack on Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript
Archives
February 2009
January 2009
Blogroll
SciencePunk Central
Apathy Sketchpad
Bad Science
DC's Improbable Science
Gimpy's Blog
Guardian Science Blog
the Quackometer

« LBC sic lawyers on Ben Goldacre over criticism of MMR show | Main
Jeni Barnett MMR show on LBC - full transcript

Category: Fisking Absurdity • Law • bad science
Posted on: February 6, 2009 12:01 PM, by SciencePunk

Thanks to a sterling effort by a group of dedicated science bloggers and blog-readers, the whole Jeni Barnett MMR radio show has been transcribed for your reading pleasure.

Browse it, read it, blog it, be shocked, be amazed, tell your friends, etc etc.

OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER: This is a transcript pulled together by lots of people working late into the night. There will be mistakes, I'm sure, so use it as a tool to skim the show before listening to the bits that interest you. A recording of the show is available on Wikileaks, see here. You can also listen to each part via YouTube here.

The timestamps demarcated are relative to individual clips the transcribers worked off (six in total), not the whole show or the YouTube clips. Use them for rough navigation within a particular clip, I've tried my best to make it easy to navigate between text and tape. Everything below the fold...

CLIP ONE, 0.00 - 7.00 minutes. Roughly equivalent to this segment on YouTube.

JB: Now, it's cold, it's miserable, lots of us are snuffling, lots of us have got viruses, some of us will be affected by it, some of us won't. Every single time we come round again to 'measles epidemic' or 'infection rates rise in Europe" my first thought is: I'm an independent, individual human being, I have raised a biological child and two logical children. Sometimes their responses to things were worse than others, sometimes children around them had a response that was worse than mine, than my kids. The fact is, the notion that we're all the same, that you have to be inoculating children with this MMR jab, this debate is going to go on for ever and ever and always at the back of it, in my head is 'hold on a minute, there's a drug company that's making lots of money out of it'. And I always get really anxious when I hear the you know now that we've got 'Banishing measles

TIMESTAMP: 1.00

from Europe in 2010 may have been dashed by poor vaccinations rates in a handful of countries'. you cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot be putting rubbish and carp in food endlessly and looking at the rise of asthma and obesity and then turn round and not say look what's happening with measles. You have to approach the whole thing at the health of our children and the health of our society. Now back in the day (and that's an expression I've learned from my [unclear] son), back in the day, children got measles, children got mumps. I'm not suggesting - I am not suggesting - that we got backwards where some children, where we have one in fifteen children die of it. And that one person in fifteen is the one we have to be looking at and wondering why and dealing with it. But if, as a human being, you decide you do not want to give your child a vaccination, you should, in a democracy, have that right to day no.

TIMESTAMP: 2.00

There are some children - whether you like it or whether you do not - that have a response to that triple jabbing that is not good for them. We have evidence, however much people say we don't, we have evidence that if a child's immune system is weak; my daughter was one of them, she was very asthmatic as a child, she could not have received that triple vaccine, she couldn't have done it so I made a calculated decision that I didn't want to go there. and it isn't a decision that's made easily, it's a lonely decision, if you're not part of the herd, if your' not mooing with the other cows or baaing with the other sheep, if you wanting to stand alone, it's a very lonely business standing under a tree in a field all on your own saying 'I don't want to do that'. So I want you to phone me and tell me why you decided against the vaccine and how you're coping with people saying 'See! You're the reason, you are the reason we haven't banished measles'. I had that said to me by doctor in Canada: 'You haven't had your child vaccinated?

TIMESTAMP: 3.00

You're-' he left me in the kitchen! He blamed me for the whole measles epidemic. 0-8-4-5-6-0-6-0-9-7-3 Why didn't you have your child vaccinated, how are you coping with the fact that people don't like you for it, how do you like it when you are, when the study is documenting that 12,000 cases of European measles in the two years spanning 2006 and 2007 means that we are one of the handful of countries in Britain that are not doing it right. Well maybe, maybe there are all sorts of other figures that have been withheld from us, and I don't know what they are because they've been withheld! Measles is a contagious infection caused by a virus. Measles was once common but because of immunisation it's now fortunately becoming very rare. I want to know from some kind of expert

TIMESTAMP: 4.00

what measles is and what is in the vaccine, and why people have a reaction to it, and really my question is: what is wrong with childhood illnesses? Is it - to hark back to the first hour - because we don't have parents at home looking after the children? What's going on? Is there something wrong with having mumps, is there something - you know is it - most people aren't that one in fifteen. So if you did not have your child vaccinated, why? 0-8-4-5-6-0-6-0-9-7-3 Text me if you decided against having that triple M, and are now dealing with people saying 'you are responsible for the rise in measles'. Text me on 8-4-8-5-0. We are living in the 21st century, we have running water, most of us have running water, most of us live in better situations than we did when I grew up - I grew up in two rooms with rats and mice in the

TIMESTAMP: 5.00

east end of London. I can remember it. And DON'T email me in - there's a guy who emails me in to say 'Oh you just want to be part of the east end' no, I grew up in St Marks St, thank you very much, born in Mile End Road, and when I go there now I look at it and think blimey that's my birthright and thank God for that I like it. my feet are rooted in the east end even though my parents were rehoused - rehoused - in council housing, social housing, [go to Youtube Clip 2] that welfare state looked after us poor little immigrant Jews. And we were sent to this lovely house and there we have it. Asthma runs in my family, asthma runs in my husband's family so my daughter was not inoculated. I, however, have talked to many people over the years - 22 years I've lived with my daughter - and over the years many many people have said the same thing, that when we were little, chicken pox, you took your kid to get the chickenpox, you made sure your child was near somebody who had it. My brother got mumps,

TIMESTAMP: 6.00

he lived to tell the tale. I don't know if we had measles. I was sitting next to Nick Owen on the settee at TV AM when his children were incubating rubella which is measles, and I was pregnant! Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be using science and medicine to make everybody healthy, but there's an obsession now with trying to sanitise absolutely everything, and if your child's immune system is strong enough it will fight and it will grow and it will be strong. Too many antibiotics and now we have MRSA and superbugs. I'm not an expert, this is what I have observed, phone me: 0-8-4-5-6-0-6-0-9-7-3. If you chose to stand under the tree in the field outside the herd. Tracey in Olympia talk to me...


CLIP TWO
This segment is hosted at The Lay Scientist


CLIP THREE, starts 6.43 into this clip
This segment is hosted at PodBlack Cat


CLIP FOUR, roughly equivalent to the second half of this segment
The segment is hosted at The Sceptics' Book.


CLIP FIVE, 0.00 - 11.00 minutes. Starts 30 seconds into this segment
JB: -little band that didn't do anything. Now they've just been signed by FM records - Mazel-tov! - fantastic and their debut EP is going to be released on the 26th of January. Well done Nylonski, fantastic. So the 31st of January if you want to go to the BreastFest it should be really really good. Now, that's my little announcement - we'll come back to the discussion. Geraldine in Hampstead, thank you very much for holding the line, you are absolutely pro the jabs, are you?


GH: I'm not absolutely pro or anti anything, but before I talk about that can I say I think you radio show is wonderful but isn't it a little irresponsible to read out a text from somebody you don't know at all?

JB: I keep saying! You know-

GH: Let me finish.

JB: Go on.

GH: - to say that the vaccinations have cancer-causing substances. Because you will scare new mothers.

JB: Well no no listen-

GH: You don't know who wrote it-

JB: I don't, well absolutely not, but it's an articulate email and I do - you're absolutely right Geraldine and I think people have to give their names,

TIMESTAMP 01.00

but she was - whoever has written it was the second person to say it. You heard a homeopath saying, if you go to the same, if you go to a website you will find exactly what this email has been written. But I take your point, I don't know that it's irresponsible but I take your point. Anyway please continue.

GH: OK the only other thing I wanted to say I think it's a luxury, it is a luxury that people can not vaccinate their children because the majority do.

JB: Absolutely, I'll give you that.

GH: I have friends who've had polio, because they weren't vaccinated, I have friends who's children died of whooping cough, in Eastern Europe, because there were no vaccinations, these are very nasty illnesses.

JB: Are you a medic, Geraldine?

GH: My husband's a medic, my daughter's a medic and my grandfather was a medic. And the only other thing I wanted to say was it's not the drug companies, of course the drugs companies are pushing it, it's the doctors, it's the GPs, who see the children that aren't vaccinated, that do catch the illnesses.

JB: Do you see - I find this fascinating -

TIMESTAMP 02.00

is this a mindset? I don't come from medicine, you do, I don't like anything to do with allopathic medicine, and you don't have an issue with it. Now do you think it's a mindset that cannot be changed?

GH: I think that science has proved more children survive childhood since the vaccinations have been enforced. Strongly. I'm sorry for the children that do get whooping cough because they were vaccinated and the seventh one that wasn't vaccinated didn't get whooping cough. But I do think that modern medicine saves lives. And I repeat what I said: I think it is a luxury of the few, the middle class few - and I couldn't be more middle class if I tried - it's a luxury of the middle class few to enjoy homeopathy and all the other things that are wonderful!

JB: Yes but why-

GH: - but alongside regular medicine. And it-

JB: Yes that's right and I think that it has to be complementary, and I think that debate has to continue,

TIMESTAMP 03.00

because if we're looking at countries that aren't as luxurious as ours - what do we do with them?

GH: But children are dying! From whooping cough and measles, or going blind-

JB: But that's actually Geraldine, my problem, with the hypocrisy of it. If [feedback] - ooh, are you there?

GH: Yeah, I'm here.

JB: If the medical profession absolutely cared, it would be sending drugs freely to countries where they need it. If we're having to pay for these drugs, it's not an altruistic thing that's happening.

GH: No, it's not, I'm talking about this country.

JB: Yeah but I'm talking about the notion of a drug-fuelled world, where if we're going to be using drugs, and if some of them are better than others, and some are beneficial and some aren't, why isn't it free?

GH: Because big business isn't free. Because that's the real world. Sadly, it's wrong, I think 100% it's wrong; but it's not free.

JB: OK, thank you very much, and I'm taking Geraldine's point,

TIMESTAMP 04.00

do you know what I might not read out your emails ever again unless you give me your name. I think she's made an absolutely important point and I don't want to scaremonger. Just give me an initial, say who you are, and then Geraldine, she's put her finger on it, she's absolutely right. Rob in Bermondsey, please speak to me.

The rest of this segment is hosted at The Quackometer Blog



CLIP SIX, 37.00 - 44.00 minutes. Starts 2.43 minutes into this segment Note: it's difficult in this section to discern between Jeni's comments and points when she is reading other's letters, exercise caution.
JB: It's 10 to 3. The body is a really delicate organism. The tiniest bit of something can make you go weird. A little tiny bit of caffeine and you can be running up and down the stairs. A little bit of potassium sor...I don't know-whatever they put in these drinks-can make you itch. The body is a finely-tuned animal. We are animals. Obi in Richmond was looking at his sister's London County Council Public Health Department Immunisation Record Card from 1966. Between 2 and 4 months of age, she was injected for diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough. 2 to 4 months of age. 8 weeks. That little, tiny body was injected for diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough. Between 6 and 8 months, she was injected for poliomyelitis.

TIMESTAMP 38:00

15 months, diphtheria again. 16 months, the smallpox test. 5 years, diphtheria, tetanus and poliomyelitis. "So, my question is", says Obi, "When did the immunisation for the measles and mumps start? I know that I had an allergic reaction to whooping cough as a baby, so I had no further jabs, not even the BCG at Secondary School. It's all government spin", says Obi. "Children don't need the triple jab."

And Helen says, "If there's such a fear of measles epidemic because of lack of take-up of the MMR, why don't they make it easier to have the jabs individually? That way surely more children would be vaccinated. There seems to be an agenda for reaching a target to wipe out measles
by a certain date but at what cost to individuals?". She concludes, "It's so difficult for young mums now. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. It's such a minefield and you have to live with the consequences of your decision whichever way you vote".

TIMESTAMP 39:00

And I think that the reason you fill up my telephone-there are no calls being able to come in at the minute- is because you're phoning is because there isn't a definitive answer. There is no absolute answer.

As a parent, whether you are male or female, you have to make a decision based on your family history. I took my daughter who kept getting ear infections when she was a kid and one of the doctors said to me, "If you do not give her an asthma spray, and do not do this, that and the other, she will die within a week". You don't say that to a young mum, well, I was an old mum but she was only a little person.

Since I had asthma and my mother in law died of asthma and I've told you this before, that doctor didn't take into account where I was coming from. I required him to look in my child's ear and give me some indication of what was going on so I could make an informed decision.

I, however, am not like Yasmin in Chelsea. You would - what would you have done in that situation?

The rest of this segment is hosted at Holford Watch



ShareThis
Comments

If only I didn't know about herd immunity, and the fact that MMR isn't 100% effective therefore putting innocent, vaccinated people at risk as well as those who can't have the vaccine for some (valid) reason...

Damn knowing too much. If I was less informed, I could say "Let the idiots not vaccinate their offspring. Let natural selection do what it does best."

hurmphf.

Posted by: Nichole | February 6, 2009 3:15 PM

I don't know how to make a short clip, but I've transcribed a couple of minutes (20-22) and posted about it here.

Posted by: MissPrism | February 6, 2009 6:36 PM

Is it ok if I translate your transcript to Spanish? I think it's importan to let everyone know about this nonsense and I want to contribute with the Spanish speaker public

Greetings from Mexico City

Posted by: Hypatia | February 6, 2009 7:11 PM

There's a FaceBook group you can join to show support for Ben.

Let's remind these corporate bullies how many people care about the issues of MMR, science, and suppression of criticism.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=47955872103

Posted by: Felix | February 6, 2009 7:45 PM

@Hypatia: it's not mine, it's a combined work by lots of different people, and I think they would be very happy to see it reach more people.

Posted by: Frank the SciencePunk | February 6, 2009 7:55 PM

Jenni Bonds comments are far far worse than I would have expected - she has out-Felzed even Vanessa which takes some doing. This is appalling judgement by a supposedly veteran talk show host.
In a week when other BBC interviewers have been sacked for inflammatory comment, one wonders how 'Jenni' manages not only to be exempt from internal criticism, but has been granted use of some of my license fee to pay for legal threats to those performing a scientific equivalent of the 'Emperors New Clothes' - instead of being well and truly warned about what I consider an abuse of her (tedious)verbal power.

Shame on the BBC for pandering to the bruised egos of their drivel-spouting presenters - so many to choose from

Great response by adopting the fragmented approach to guarantee more coverage than this silly woman could ever have achieved by herself!

Posted by: UKdietitian | February 6, 2009 8:45 PM

Well, Ben Goldacre's site appears to be down at the moment - but all the links are available for the respective blogs and the transcripts. Hope people are also checking out some of the discussions on Facebook and also - listening to the latest Skeptic Zone podcast, which features one of the bloggers, Dr Dunlop, talking to Ben himself!!

That's at www.skepticzone.tv. Enjoy. :)

Posted by: Podblack | February 6, 2009 8:45 PM

Crikey|! i thought she broadcast on the beeb. now even commercial radio is aping our national broadcaster in the worst possible way...

Posted by: UKdietitian | February 6, 2009 8:49 PM

re:"I could say "Let the idiots not vaccinate their offspring. Let natural selection do what it does best."

I hate to be so cold but I agree. A large percentage of the masses can't see the outcome of the exponential function as it relates to population growth. We can slow growth now or face the terrible consequences later. Sadly, it's better to let 'the stoopid' die now versus aggravating the problem.

Posted by: RobertM | February 6, 2009 8:54 PM

My favourite line is the "most people aren't that one in fifteen." True, that's only 7% of us, which is, oh what, roughly 450,000,000 of us?

Posted by: elaine ellerton | February 7, 2009 12:10 AM

Thank you for putting this transcript online. It has become apparent to me that Barnett isn't the villain here. Most of the comment Goldacre must have a problem with seems to have come from listeners, and not from Jeni herself. Yes, she has a opinion on the matter - which she made clear - but, despite her tendency to interrupt everyone, she did give both sides a forum to speak. But, one of the dangers of a phone-in program is that the content is dictated by the calls and emails you receive. If 80% of the calls/emails received talk about the apparent dangers of MMR then that is what the show will illustrate. It's a shame that the nurse who called began her call by accusing Barnett of being irresponsible - it's not normally the best way to start a persuasive conversation.

Posted by: LSF | February 7, 2009 12:30 AM

She is being hugely irresponsible. She is convinced by that ol' alti/homeopathy myth that you can survive ANYTHING if you're immune system is "strong" enough. This is NOT true. Depending on so many variables and what stresses are also in your life at any given time, even young strong healthy kids who have never had a vaccine can die if they get the flu and then pneumonia. Meningitis is a huge killer, since it is the meninges around the brain that can get infected.

Also, get a triple "jab" still introduces less antigens into the body than the diseases do, therefore it is impossible to "overwhelm" the immune system with it.

Gads, the ignorance is a mighty stenchful one, but too bad most people can't tell why.

Posted by: stopjenny.com | February 7, 2009 2:26 AM

RobertM, Nichole: the children are the innocent victims here. These people aren't taking risks with their own health but with that of their sprogs. I know it's hyperbole; I'm sure you don't really believe in having kids suffer to teach the parents a lesson, but, y'know, restraint is good.

Posted by: Pseudomonas | February 7, 2009 6:55 PM

Barnett is the villain here - she was asking people who hadn't vaccinated to ring up & tell their stories - which were given a warm, supportive reception. Plus those who were pro-vaccine (Yasmin & Rob(?) got the rough end of the stick. Hardly balanced.

Blogged about it myself here: http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2009/02/the-plural-of-anecdote-is-not.shtml

Posted by: alison | February 8, 2009 1:17 AM
Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 11:43:57 PM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2009, 10:01:56 PM »

http://www.layscience.net/node/484

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------
The LayScience Blog


You are hereBlogs / Martin's blog / Jeni Barnett on MMR - The Complete Show
Jeni Barnett on MMR - The Complete Show

By Martin - Posted on 06 February 2009, 00:24 (GMT)

[bpsdb] This is hosted on Wikileaks, so if I'm asked to take this link down, you can find it there (I am not hosting it on layscience.net). This forty-odd minute mp3 was originally hosted on Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, but has since been removed due to "issues". The show is a radio show on LBC hosted by Jeni Barnett, concerning the MMR vaccine. Every ignorant canard about vaccination is repeated, from the nonsense about Measles not being dangerous, to allegations about some sort of giant conspiracy by pharmaceutical firms. She comes across as rude, arrogant and ill-informed, especially when ranting against a nurse and a GP who dare to phone in. I don't have time to blog this properly now, but you can read more on Bad Science, and over at JDC's blog.

 

Jeni Barnett MMR
Martin's blog
Thanks for posting the mp3.
Submitted by al_capone_junior on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 17:11.

Thanks for posting the mp3. Yes there jeni, it's being heard in the USA too... the "shot" heard round the world. Oooo... that's bad, Al!

Anyway, kudos to everyone who's put forth the effort to make sure jeni's rabid lawyers don't succeed in suppressing this abominable piece of trash from being heard by all for what it is. And direct from the mouth of jeni.

BTW, I agree with Jim, she's unbelievably obnoxious, ain't she?

badscience.net/forums was running very slow today but it was still running, at least for me. It seems to have gotten back to its usual fast speed tho in the last couple hours.

And thanks to Ben and all the bloggers, transcribers, and anyone else who has kept this matter in the public eye, where it belongs.

al
reply
Jesus, I just tried listening
Submitted by Jim (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 10:33.

Jesus, I just tried listening and had to give up after 20 seconds. Her tone and manner of speaking are remarkably obnoxious, hectoring and self-aggrandizing from the get-go. I already want her run out of the country and I don't even know what she said yet.
reply
Wasn't it just. What got me
Submitted by Martin on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 11:25.

Wasn't it just. What got me was that she was even arrogant and patronizing in tone towards the first caller, who supported her - a real "I know best" attitude, telling the mother what to do with her kid and so on. It's horrible to listen to.
reply
As I'm snowed in today, I
Submitted by Neuroskeptic (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 09:46.

As I'm snowed in today, I thought I might put the time to good use and make a transcript.

I'm starting at the start. If anyone wants to help, start at the half-way point so we don't overlap...

P.S Although it makes listening to Judi an even more mind-melting experience than it was, listening to it on 50% playback speed using Windows Media Player makes it a lot easier to transcribe.
reply
Before you do, send me your
Submitted by Martin on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 09:50.

Before you do, send me your e-mail - someone's already done some of it, so no need to replicate the work...
reply
Indeed - it all seems to be
Submitted by Dr*T (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 09:27.

Indeed - it all seems to be down. I downloaded this as a podcast and tried to listen to it, but after about 5 mins ended throwing petrol over the mp3 player and setting it alight.

(Well, not quite, but you understand the point).
reply
I know what you mean. She
Submitted by Martin on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 09:48.

I know what you mean. She sounds as if she's not even really interested in actually finding things out, or helping her audience, just in making some sort of bizarre screeching rant. It's ridiculous to listen to - kind of like if JABS did podcasts :S
reply
What's happened to Ben's
Submitted by Jonno (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 09:21.

What's happened to Ben's website this morning? I hope it's just a glitch and nothing as sinister as a DNS attack.
reply
Not sure.. it does go down
Submitted by Martin on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 09:49.

Not sure.. it does go down from time to time, so I suspect their lacking of a bit of power over there, and maybe it's just had a lot of hits today and toppled over....? I'll keep an eye out.
reply
I think it was BoingBoinged.
Submitted by Andrew (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 10:51.

I think it was BoingBoinged. It's back though.
------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 11:45:37 PM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2009, 10:03:14 PM »

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Bad_Science:_Jeni_Barnett_MMR_and_vaccination_slot_on_LBC_radio%2C_2009

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad Science: Jeni Barnett MMR and vaccination slot on LBC radio, 2009

Unless otherwise specified the document described here:
Was first publicly revealed by Wikileaks working with our source.
At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.
Is of political, diplomatic, ethical or historical significance.
Any questions about this document's veracity are noted.
The summary is approved by the editorial board.

Talk to others about this document, join our chat.

To sponsor reportage of this document by mainstream journalists submit a targeted donation.

For press enquiries, see our media kit.

If you have similar or updated material ACT NOW.

For an explanation of the page you are looking at please look here.
February 5, 2009
File

jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
Download from: Sweden, US, Sweden2, Latvia, Slovakia, UK, Finland, Netherlands, Poland, Tonga, Europe, SSL, Tor
Summary

Ben Goldacre is a Guardian columnist who runs the site Bad Science, which exposes poor science journalism and science-related frauds. According to our source, Mr. Goldacre has received legal threats to remove a radio broadcast from LBC radio station, which he used as evidence in his latest article. Some excerpts from the article, titled "Bad Science Bingo, with Jeni Barnett", appear below:
Sorry I had no column in the paper this week, there's some very good fun stuff coming in the next month if I can pull it together safely. Meanwhile, in case any of you are feeling complacent, I offer you this truly magnificent performance on MMR by Jeni Barnett from LBC Radio. I hope you enjoy this clip as much as I do.
It is my view that in this extended broadcast Jeni exemplifies every single canard ever uttered by the antivaccination movement. "It's a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical industry." "Science always changes so you can believe what you like." "It's a debate and a controversy." "Measles was never that bad anyway." "Immune systems are damaged by being understimulated." "Immune systems are damaged by being overstimulated." And so on.
I invite you to document the rest below (the bit about empirical experience is particularly enjoyable) and maybe we can get the full list of canards together for the definitive numbers set of Bad Science Bingo. In fact, if there is an anti-vaxxer canard in existence which is not in this broadcast, I want to know about it, signed copy of some book for the best one.
This scare, as you can see, will never end. Bravo Jeni.
http://twitter.com/bengoldacre

Contact Ben Goldacre via: ben@badscience.net
Context
United Kingdom
Company
LBC radio
Primary language
English
File size in bytes
42358491
File type information
MPEG ADTS, layer III, v1, 128 kBits, 44.1 kHz, Monaural
Cryptographic identity
SHA256 634d9fda029474232c4e94c971a65bca672fc8f3e9101e550e0344432a71bebb



Know something about this material? Have your say!(see other comments first)

Categories: Leaked files | 2009 | 2009-02 | Analysis requested | United Kingdom | Company | LBC radio | English
------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]



http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3

Download from:

http://wikileaks.se/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3

http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://file.sunshinepress.org:54445/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://riga.ax.lt/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://bratislava.iypt.sk/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://wikileaks.org.uk/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://wikileaks.fi/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://wikileaks.nl/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://wikileaks.pl/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://wikileaks.to/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://wikileaks.eu/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3
http://gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion/leak/jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3

.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 11:46:19 PM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2009, 06:54:33 AM »

Jeni Barnett has a domain of her own.

There I added this comment;

http://www.jenibarnett.com/2009/02/mmr_and_me.php

[*QUOTE*]
--------------------------------------------------------------
A 12 year old French girl died in Geneva recently (January 29th.) of measles encephalitis. She was not vaccinated. She had previously been in good health.

[*QUOTE*]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Une jeune fille de 12 ans, jusqu’alors en bonne santé, est décédée le 29 janvier dernier aux Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève d’une encéphalite due à la rougeole. La jeune fille habitait en France, à proximité de la frontière Suisse. Elle n’était pas vaccinée. Ce cas tragique confirme que la rougeole est une maladie dangereuse, souligne l’OFSP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

more in Orac's blog:
http://www.orac.me


more background material about vaccination:
http://www.pharmamafia.com

and here we have the full story about radio amateurs:
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/showtopic.php?threadid=5147

Please, help spread the news!
ama
--------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


I got the reply:


[*QUOTE*]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for commenting

Your comment has been received and should be approved for publication shortly.

Return to the original entry
--------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]



I really would like to see her face.




.
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2009, 07:09:03 AM »

Comments on  

http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/legal-chill-from-lbc-973-over-jeni-barnetts-mmr-scaremongering/#more-862

[*QUOTE*]
--------------------------------------------------------------
191 Responses


Jut said,

February 5, 2009 at 10:50 pm

After reading some of her blog I have came to the conclusion that she is just as batshit insane as the JABS lot. Some of her arguments don’t even make sense “if you had the flu vaccine then how come you caught a cold! HA!”
How can you debate against that?
botherer said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:01 pm

I’m not the prime minister of a jam jar, and I might not have any facts, but I’m aware that being run over by a bus is dangerous, and so I think it’s a little rich to suggest I should not be allowed to voice my opinion on [dies].
DrRachie said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:04 pm

Ben,

I have a copy of the audio and so does Richard Saunders. I also have two blogs, two YouTube channels and a podcast that goes out to 5,500 people every week. I will post this offensive crap everywhere I can think of and talk about it on the Skeptic Zone this week. I am appalled by this woman. I couldn’t listen to the entire broadcast, however I did hear the end where she yells over Jasmin with unintelligible jibberish. I was VERY ANGRY. I was driven to yell dirty words at the car stereo.

More than happy to help put a stop to these morons who shoot their moths off without considering the consequences.

PS part one of of your interview with the Skeptic Zone is up on iTunes now.
Suw said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:04 pm

IANAL, but I think your reuse of a portion of the programme would come under fair dealing (not fair use - that’s the American version).

From the Wikipedia entry:

“The CDPA [Copyright, Designs and Patents Act] permits individuals to make a single copy of a “reasonable proportion” of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works for “research and private study” and “criticism, review and news reporting” ( s. 29, 30) under the terms of “fair dealing”. The extent of “reasonable proportion” is not defined in the act.”

But I will ask around to see if I can get more info for you from people who know.
DrBob said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:05 pm

Where would I get an excerpt for fair use purposes? Failing that popping the .mp3 up on a foreign server might work. Who knows how many people might have the same idea?  
La G said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:11 pm

No legal expertise here but doesn’t the Guardian Internet Site routinely carry stuff like this? I recall an audio clip of a dreadful Alan Partridge - like Midlands DJ recently, and of course there’s the clip up of the ITV footage during the Everton - Liverpool match today. I can’t imagine they routinely go begging for permission. Though I don’t imagine LBC would go intimidating a large media organisation with relatively deep pockets either.

In any case they can’t shut down criticism, with quotes, so I suppose the best bet is to write copious amounts about what we thought and link it widely.
garpal gumnut said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Jeni’s rant does not surprise me. In bad weather fairies are particularly prone to bottom of the garden fever. When they cannot get a mixture of half a teaspoon of turmeric powder, mixed with the juice of bitter gourd leaves and some honey due to deep snow they need to escape from the bottom of the garden. For this I have no proof, although it is well known. When the weather improves Jeni and the fairies will return to the bottom of the garden and only special people with powers will know of their existence.

gg

p.s. Fairies are not immunised, otherwise they would lose their powers.For this I have no proof. It is well known however.
Synchronium said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Oh my god, you know about Google juice?!

Brilliant!
Lave said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:18 pm

As a concerned and independent person with no connection to this Goldacre fellow (whoever *he* is) I shall be complaining to OFCOM post haste,
Lave said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:18 pm

As a concerned and independent person with no connection to this Goldacre fellow (whoever *he* is) I shall be complaining to OFCOM post haste.
huey said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:23 pm

“reserve their rights”

this is like ‘without prejudice’, i.e. they reserve the right to sue you regardless of any offer they have made.

I think its largely meaningless in this context, as it is not genuinely aimed at ’settling’ a case. I.e. they’re just trying to scare you.

I think you did the right thing in taking it down, however, to be on the safe side!
zeno said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:24 pm

My complaint to OfCom will be winging its way to them tomorrow (after my blood pressure has eased a bit).
adamwilcox said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:29 pm

I’ve not done media law in a while, despite having studied it but yes- Under UK law, the inclusion of short excerpts from copyrighted works on this site adhere to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 under the terms of fair dealing as long as you attributed to both the originating author and publication- which you did. Fair use doesn’t actually have a restriction on time, it is only defined as a “reasonable proportion”- and 20 mins from a 3 hours show could feasibly be a “reasonable proportion”.

That said, because it was a live program and you were putting it online for the benefit of those who had not been able to hear it- you could also use the argument of ‘time-shifting’, although I’m less certain that one will fly.
huey said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:41 pm

To add to what adamwilcox said above, although this is arguably a ‘reasonable proportion’ its far from certain, and could be argued either way. Getting involved in such an argument could be expensive, even if you can get free advice from a media lawyer!

Dont mean to put a damper on things, this willful ignorance makes my blood boil.
simont said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:48 pm

ffs. seen so much woo sh*te and/or poorly presented medical research today that I can’t believe they still feel the need to bully you like this. Keep up the good work.

And now I’ve registered the Guardian’s piece on food and productivity today? Sometimes feel like some kind of approval scheme would be helpful. Something that can assure the reader that the “scientific correspondent has vetted this to ensure it isn’t dangerously misleading, a blatant advertising gimmick or otherwise an over exaggeration”… because I’m really reaching a point of such scepticism that when the wolf does show up I’ll ignore that too.
leguape said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:49 pm

As others have said, if you choose a representative section of a reasonable length then you are covered under fair dealing and the right to use it as part of criticism, review and news reporting.

Alternatively I would find someone to transcribe some of it as a way around the issue.
used to be jdc said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:52 pm

Probably not worth risking the wrath (pun intended) of the LBC lawyers by leaving the full clip up. I’d love to post a short segment on my blog though - examples of stupidity on such a scale are hard to come by.

Hope it works out OK,
jdc
aa said,

February 5, 2009 at 11:54 pm

I wrote to LCB complaining about the programme, and got a terse one-liner of a reply saying: “The programme was not recent and the matter is closed.”

Nice.
thepoisongarden said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:01 am

Is LBC completely ignorant of how the internet works?

Left alone this would have quite quickly become last week’s story.

Trying the use big legal muscle to stop the dissemination of this ridiculous broadcast is the perfect way to guarantee it spreads further and faster than it would have done.

It is also a good way to up the count of official complaints to Ofcom.
used to be jdc said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:03 am

I’ve dashed off a quick blog post on this - is it ironic that Jeni urges us to continue the debate while LBC and their team of hotshot lawyers try to deprive us of the source material for said debate?
liquidcow said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:08 am

Might it be an idea to ask them what they mean by things like “reserve their rights”? I have a feeling that they may just be using a certain style of language in order to sound official and intimidating. I imagine this works a lot of the time as people get an email from some lawyers, panic, and do as they ask. Asking them to clarify what they mean might show that you’re not that gullible and that you’re aware they might not actually have a case.
Doire said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:12 am

The electronic freedom foundation help with cases like this.
Chilling effects keep track of attempts to use legal threats to silence comment.

HTH
wolfkeeper said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:14 am

You could definitely get away with short excerpts, but I’ve a suspicion that including a whole section of a program is probably over some line somewhere.

The ‘all rights reserved’ pretty much just means they’re claiming they own copyright on this stuff, as well as in Europe, moral rights.
drunkenoaf said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:15 am

Ben, you’re famous now. FP Guardian articles on the Rath case and an Amazon top 10 selling book has raised your profile.

I fear that you can’t get away with posting copyrighted materials without someone taking a legal pop at you these days. Worse, if it went to court, I doubt the merits of your argument on media responsibility in science and society would ever be heard. Who wins all depends on who gets to purchase the services of today’s Carter-Ruck.

Your fair use blogger solution– or something like that– will need to be used in the future.

Still. If of does go to court… Set up a paypal donation thing for that. I’m sure we’d all contribute.
Paul said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:23 am

Ben,

One option is for someone (i.e. probably not you) to put the recording up on Wikileaks (www.wikileaks.org). They will happily host anything of journalistic merit in such a way that it becomes very difficult to take down (they have servers all over the world).

Oh, and also, everyone should report this on every high profile site they can find, that way any time people look for this woman, they find this article. Personally I’m going to submit it to BoingBoing and Slashdot, both of which frequently cover this kind of thing.

Paul
Andrej Bauer said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:25 am

I would say the lawyers just handed you a free story for your column. Change the game: they know how to play the courts, you know how to play the media. Become a victim of an evil pack of rabid lawyers from a large corporation and tell everyone your story. The result will be that many more people will end up listening to the “forbidden” audio clip (which by now is probably available in many places). Corporations have not yet learnt that the worse thing they can do on the internet is to try to prevent information dispersal with lawyers. You don’t need legal advice, you just need bloggers and other media to report on how they tried to shut you up. Good luck!
censored said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:32 am

Sorry, Ben. You did a naughty. Fair comment allows you to quote or take bits to make your point. But you used too much: the whole segment on MMR. That’s like quoting an entire chapter of someone else’s book. It just doesn’t wash with the copyright lawyers.

A transcript is a better bet in future. I’m sure people will help transcribe the programme, then get the transcript copied all over the internets.
warhelmet said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:45 am

Did that reader happen to be an LBC employee? If so, Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides a framework of legal protection for individuals who disclose information so as to expose malpractice and matters of similar concern. In the vernacular, it protects whistleblowers.

But extends to external whistleblower too.
pseudomonas said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:51 am

What’d be the copyright status of a transcript?
biggerpills said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:07 am

I have only ever made one complaint about a broadcast before, but having found Jeni Barnett even more offensive than Sarah Beeny I am making my second today. I’d love to see what responses people get.

Good call on the PayPal donation thing, drunkenoaf. I have a feeling this won’t go to court as Barnett would just make a fool of herself, so getting the clip taken down is probably just damage limitation. Good luck to you Ben, whatever happens.
mrmuz said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:12 am

If you look on her site she’s playing the wounded “don’t be mean/I’m a mother” card now. With a bit of ‘Bad Science is just a clique who beats up on people, so you can safely ignore their arguments’ in there as well

And yes, I think the only legal recourse they have is under media copyright law on the audio itself. An accurate transcript should be immune. If it does go to court even the audio would be something arguble as in the public interest I’m sure. But I’m not a lawyer.
Give Geoffrey Robertson a call if it goes any further. He loves this sort of thing.
zeno said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:13 am

I’ve posted on her blog at http://www.jenibarnett.com/2009/02/mmr_and_me.php.

There seems to be a lot of comments supporting science and only a few anti-science ones. However, there is one from an certain Andy Wakefield, saying he wants to send Jeni a document and gives his website as Thoughtful House which is where Wakefield is currently working.

Predictably, there is a poster (john) who gives whale.to as their website.
nmg20 said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:17 am

Well, the wikileaks thing didn’t take long:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bad_Science:_Jeni_Barnett_MMR_and_vaccination_slot_on_LBC_radio%2C_2009

M’learned friends: it wasn’t me, but I probably know better lawyers than you anyway.
Jenfa said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:19 am

I’ve been a lurker here for quite a while, and am usually too nervous to comment for fear of spelling something wrong and looking like a wazzock in an attempt to appear knowledgeable. Now, though, overwhelmingly compelled to. I was so angry at Barnett’s broadcast I was almost hopping up and down. It’s about bleedin’ time such irresponsible (and devastatingly) influential people were brought to account. Even if, somewhere along the way, someone has to break a few rules.

Keep up the good work. Though, less of the rule breaking, if it’s going to get you sued  
The Biologista said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:22 am

Yes, yes- transcripts. I’ll put it up on my blog. Frankly this stuff always look stupider in print anyway.
wiz5 said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:27 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Things are appearing on youtube too.
RTomsett said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:28 am

How can you copyright conversation? Do LBC own the bits of audio contributed by the callers? If so, do they make as much clear during the show, or when they call in? Or anywhere? I’m asking mainly because this seems so patently ludicrous, but partly because I don’t actually know and it’d be good to find out…

I still have the audio from two shows hosted on my site from when I edited them. Ben - if you feel you need to remove the audio from your site then I’m happy to keep it hosted on mine (you can then put a link with the disclaimer of you not being responsible for the content of external sites. See them get round THAT. Yeah.). I would love to have fun and games with some lawyers, they’re a right hoot, so it’d be a pleasure to help.

Alternatively, that wikileaks.org site sounds interesting (and possibly a better bet at keeping the stuff online reliably…)
garpal gumnut said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:28 am

The legal position is unclear, it depends primarily on testing it at trial, and on whether the radio station feels it can make a quid out of mounting a case.

It would have to weigh up the cost, chance of winning, and more importantly any good or bad publicity it would generate, and the effect on its bottom line.

I take it that its advertisers are not fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Fairies tend to retreat in recessions, there are just so many provable threats to ones existence about when the economy tanks.

It is highly unlikely they will pursue you, the court of human opinion does influence judges.

If they do may I buy a share in your defence?

gg
RTomsett said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:30 am

Oh cool, someone’s already put it on wikileaks. I suppose “someone” had better put the other one on there, too.
RTomsett said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:37 am

Hey look at this reply on her blog, it’s great:

“Goldacre (Bad Science) is an Allopath masquerading as a journalist, and Allopathy is a testament to ‘bad science’, and only keeps going due to medical politics, eg the antics of Ben. His 2005 ‘writing’ award was given to him a Glaxo man, the maker of MMR. Go figure!

It is so easy to prove all vaccination is useless (and dangerous, just look at smallpox vaccination) and that MMR is killing way more kids than measles would be doing with or without vaccination (deaths declined by 99.4% before vaccination, so it didn’t do anything, end of story).

“Are you singularly responsible for the measels ‘epidemic’?”

I wish. But we all know who is responsible for the autism epidemic don’t we. Far worse than measles side effects that the Allopaths could prevent with Vitamin C therapy, or just good practice.

Wise choice not vaccinating.

NB. Bad Science don’t do ‘debate’, rabble rousing maybe. Allopaths are hardly likely to admit MMR is dangerous and useless, as one vax down the rest could follow, and Allopathy sits upon vaccination. When Hell freezes over maybe, or every other kid has a vaccine injury.”

I honestly can’t tell if it’s serious or not…
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 07:12:18 AM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2009, 07:09:21 AM »

Filias Cupio said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:49 am

I am not a lawyer, but I follow geek discussions about such things.

I can’t see this as being fair use - it is the entirety of the interview.

You could excerpt small bits of it. I can’t think of an easy way to avoid cherry-picking accusation. You could pick some 30 second segments at random, but I can’t see how anyone without a copy of the whole interview could confirm you hadn’t cheated on the random selection. (You could use a public random number generator, such as the weekly lottery draw, but the translation of that random number to the presented clip is not transparent.)
daedalus2u said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:04 am

There might be another approach. A few years back, Oprah said some irresponsible things about US beef regarding mad cow. That caused an immediate drop in beef prices and many millions were lost as a result. She was sued but ultimately prevailed because it was “opinion”.

Libeling the MMR vaccine has certainly caused economic losses to MMR manufacturers. Presumably they could sue over that using the same legal theory that was used to sue Oprah.

When a corporation says false and libelous things about a product and prevents those false statements to be explained and corrected, it would seem to me that they bear liability.
zeno said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:08 am

The full WikiLeaks URL for that page is:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bad_Science:_Jeni_Barnett_MMR_and_vaccination_slot_on_LBC_radio,_2009
Dr Aust said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:08 am

Perhaps some sympathetic MP could be induced to raise the matter in the House as an example of how debate on matters of legitimate public importance, relating to the nation’s health, etc etc is effectively suppressed by repeated recourse to M’Learned Friends? (see also Ann Walker vs Colquhoun, Simon Singh vs the Chiropractors, Goldacre & Guardian vs Rath etc etc).

Evan Harris MP springs immediately to mind, but there must be others, like the guy whose name I’ve forgotten who took an interest in the Dore lot.

What I find so particularly annoying is the double standard that the media are effectively applying here: they can run any old shit, again and again, no matter how stupid and irresponsible (see MMR stories passim ad nauseam)…

…but if anyone calls them on their nonsense they reach for the lawyers.

I only hope that the reason that LBC are trying to apply the Legal Chill is that they know they look like idiots here and are worried about losing credibility, and hence advertisers, and hence revenue. In which case the “Streisand / Spartacus Effect” will mean that this will now get far, far more attention than it ever would have done before - thus hopefully achieving exactly the opposite effect of what LBC desire.
marcdraco said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:11 am

The trouble with “fair use” is that you can still get in trouble if you post a clinching argument - perhaps only 20-30 words from a 20,000+ word document. You’ll find an example of this if you Google for it; there’s a famous case but it’s late and I need some shuteye.

You probably are breaking copyright: it’s a very difficult area of law and the one with the most money usually wins the case.

Got to go, wife moaning she needs sleep.
zeno said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:12 am

RThomsett: That post is from John at whale.to - an infamous anti-science and conspiracy website. If you ever suffer from low blood pressure, just have a browse of his website!
RTomsett said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:25 am

@zeno: Ah thanks. Initially I thought it was a joke post, but the tone rather threw me. Sounds like a fun site, I’ll give it a visit some time.
mq said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:34 am

As censored points out, you used too much of the recording to come within the fair dealing defence. If you’re interested, certain organisations (including The Publishers Association) issue guidelines which can help you determine whether the use you have made is fair before you publish. Generally speaking, wholesale copying is out. Transcription of a sound recording does not infringe the copyright in it, so next time transcribe it and then post the transcription.

Re legal advice: if you’re going to pursue this or the next time this happens, go and see a decent copyright lawyer and get some proper advice. If you only have a limited amount of money, you can limit your spend upfront and doing some proper prep beforehand will mean that you get more out of your time. You can find recommendations for copyright lawyers in The Legal 500 and Chambers Directory, both of which are available online.

You should expect to pay in some way though. I don’t quite understand why you expect to get this advice for free when your actions are basically undertaken for profit. Lots of law firms do work for charities, social firms and not-for-profit organisations for no charge out of a sense of social responsibility and obviously for the PR. But if you’re making a profit, why shouldn’t you pay? Anyway, someone may one day rip off your copyright work, so you should consider it an investment. (Your laudable and, in this context, irrelevant aims in wishing to prevent Ms Barnett from misleading the public notwithstanding, this is exactly what you did).

Huey and liquidcow, both the phrases “reserving your rights” and “without prejudice” carry specific meanings. The statement about “reserving your rights” is made to ensure that nothing said in the letter could later be used in court to imply that any of the remedies available to the copyright owner, including for example an injunction, were ruled out by the writer. A typical cease and desist letter will usually make this statement.

“Without prejudice” is a type of legal privilege which prevents statements covered by it from being forced to be disclosed in court. (Never say or write anything in any kind of legal dispute, even if you think it’s really clever, that you would not be happy to hear read out in court by the supercilious barrister on the other side). Statements have to meet certain conditions for the privilege to apply, but it is aimed at allowing parties to discuss matters openly so that they can reach settlement on all the issues in dispute.

On using bloggers to get the word out: I suppose you can all mither on about how unfair the world and LBC’s lawyers are, but it strikes me as rather pointless. You’re preaching to the converted. You need to learn how to play the media’s game. Why didn’t you offer to go on Ms Barnett’s show so that you could rebut her claims and debate the issues with her? LBC would have made money from it so would probably have said yes, you could have educated the public and maybe even convinced one or two people to get their kids immunised and if she turned you down (which was probably likely because she’s not exactly in your weight division) you get to call her a scaredy-cat who can’t justify her position. Win-win all round.

Finally, I see all kinds of novel ideas have been mooted about how the infringing copy could be hosted on another site elsewhere in the world and how you can get round the copyright issue, all because no one really minds if you rip off someone’s copyright.

Let’s get this straight: infringing someone’s copyright is immoral. Really, it’s a form of theft. You’re reducing the owner’s ability to profit from that copyright work and also making a profit from it yourself without reimbursing him, so it doesn’t stop being immoral because you have sound motives or because you don’t like the copyright owner.

Copyright is in many ways the most egalitarian of intellectual property rights. It arises automatically by operation of law once a work is created and it protects the fruit of someone’s creative endeavour so that the owner can profit from it, whoever that might be and irrespective of the worth or merit of the copyright work.

In other words, this affects every single one of us. We have all created copyright works and the law says that no one can steal the right to make a profit from the distribution of those works from you. I think that’s rather splendid and that it should be respected, particularly by those who in part make their living from it.
digitaltoast said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:48 am

Just finished reading your (excellent) book and this pops up!

LBC used to be fun - Clive Bull and nutters on the phone, but then it went all wrong. I stopped listening when they started doing the friday night crystal healing/beyond the grave crap. Do they still do that?

Anyway, thanks to you for brining it to our attention, and thanks to Wikileaks for allowing me to listen again  
Daniel Rutter said,

February 6, 2009 at 3:26 am

I Am Not A Lawyer, but I get the occasional Scary Legal Letter myself, and wrote a piece about them a while ago:

http://dansdata.blogsome.com/2008/08/05/holy-crap-a-legal-letter/

There are some good comments from people with legal qualifications.

The take-home message is that anybody can pay a lawyer to send you a legal letter saying pretty much anything. You will always receive one or more such letters before someone actually sues you (unless the complainant and/or his lawyer are completely nuts), but legal letters are only weakly _predictive_ of real legal action. For every complainant that actually sues someone, there are scores (maybe hundreds, or thousands…) who only ever send nastygrams.
notzed said,

February 6, 2009 at 4:38 am

Of course, being morally right and just has no bearing on the law. I hope things don’t get out of hand for you.

Copyrights, like other ‘intellectual property’ laws a pretty suspect. Apart from being used to chill public discourse, they have been extended so far as to be practically perpetual, robbing society of a rich source of cultural progress. Merely for the financial benefit of a few - often with no connection to the creator. Their justification as ‘incentive to create’ is demonstrably false.

I must make the observation that at least you were technically able to do this. If the content providers and microsoft had their way, the audio would have been protected by technical and legal barriers which would have prevented you from exposing this dangerous material to the public.

Freedom and control of digital data is vitally important. It will save lives. Remember that next time someone calls children violent criminals (pirates) for sharing their culture. Or wants to censor the internet to ‘protect the children’ like they intend to here in Australia.
kerledan said,

February 6, 2009 at 5:25 am

I posted that I thought everyone should be gentle and not too shouty about this with Jeni (in that if you want to persuade someone it’s usually worth taking it gently IMO, especially if you have the strength, in this case, of hard science and evidence in your favour).

I think I’d add ‘firm’. People should be gentle but *firm* with Jeni.

And with LBC and their lawyers? Robust. Extremely. lol.

Ben, surely the good old Grauniad would be willing to lend you a lawyer or six? They would surely step up to the plate to defend truthful reporting and honest debate for one of their writers, even if it’s on the writer’s blog, not theirs or in the actual paper? (I’m not being sarcastic here.)

If MMR were polio vaccine, I wonder how things would go. In the case of MMR, parents’ decisions not to have it do have repercussions, but not with the harrowing evidence in front of your eyes of polio. I wonder what opponents to vaccination have to say about this, for example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15005238/

I’ll bet Jeni agreed with her children having the polio vaccine. I don’t think she’d agree with the opponents to this one.

I *hope* Jeni agreed.
Pro-reason said,

February 6, 2009 at 5:39 am

We here think that the excerpt is reasonable, but their lawyers could very easily argue that it is too long.

Play safe, and remove it from your server. Instead, post a link to a file hosted elsewhere, or tell people to Google for it (after making sure that Google has it).
biggerpills said,

February 6, 2009 at 5:40 am

used_to_be_jdc, I just felt compelled to blog about this too, and kerledan, I *think* I was fairly gentle on Jeni.

Bloody hell, it’s past 4am, I’ve clearly been too Daily-Mailed up to sleep.
nickyb said,

February 6, 2009 at 5:59 am

Disclaimer: although legally educated, and to a certain extent, qualified, I am technically non-practising and also living and working outside the jurisdiction. I give this opinion purely as a lay person.

Ultimately, LBC would need to consider whether the publicity that would be generated by a court case would really be in their commercial best interests. A victory would be at best pyrrhic if they were to be sanctioned by Ofcom for this odorous outburst by this vile woman.

They would also have to prove loss or damage, and Ben or his webhost, would only be liable to the extent of that loss or damage. I would find it hard to believe that a phone-in radio show on a somewhat parochial local radio station would generate any revenue at all in the normal course of events. Indeed, the extra publicity Ben’s exposure has generated is quite likely to have actually resulted in an increase in LBC’s audience and its revenue. There could, therefore, be no actual damages that could be claimed.

Then there would be the need to argue for costs. Costs normally “follow the cause” - i.e., he who loses foots the bill for all parties, but this is not necessarily so. If no damages were to be awarded, however, a judge could well take the view that the case should never have been brought and disallow any costs. Ben’s exposure could also be argued to have been so manifestly in the public good, that this consideration would outweigh a technical, and even a substantive, victory.

All in all, I would suggest that this case would be far too risky for LBC to bring to court.
Grumpy Bob said,

February 6, 2009 at 6:07 am

At the wikileaks page, it says the following under discussion:

“The problem with vaccination was the use of trace mercury as a preservative in the vials. It damaged the brain of some kids, making them autists. The use of mercury was discontinued several years ago, so the debate became meaningless. ”

That is probably incorrect, no? Never edited a wiki myself.
Martin said,

February 6, 2009 at 6:26 am

Just a thought about transcribing the broadcast; is voice-recognition software good enough for this?

I don’t want to sit in front of a computer for the entire weekend transcribing the show by hand (although I’m furious enough to do it!) if someone can do it more easily.
Quivered said,

February 6, 2009 at 6:34 am

Reading her rebuttal - my nomination for best sentence:
“I find it interesting that the vitriol that comes out of the pro MMR lobby is precisely why Allopathic medicine is struggling.”

It’s sad but hilarious at the same time.

PS WTF is “Allopathic medicine”?
mrmuz said,

February 6, 2009 at 7:09 am

I had to look that one up too.
Apparently it’s a term used by homeopathy fans to describe all medicine not homeopathy(or probably naturopathy as well).
Allopathy is basically a derogatory term for mainstream scientific medicine. Its usuage pegs her as devout alt-ie, I think (although it could be more common and generic in the UK?)
Jut said,

February 6, 2009 at 7:38 am

heh I had a comment deleted regarding john’s
“It is so easy to prove all vaccination is useless (and dangerous, just look at smallpox vaccination)”
All I did was point out that smallpox is extinct in the wild :s
Is that guy for real?
DrRachie said,

February 6, 2009 at 7:51 am

I have blogged it here:

http://tinyurl.com/cawygd

and posted the entire clip (in 10 min sections) on YouTube here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/rachiesyd

Let’s see how long it stays up shall we.
DrRachie said,

February 6, 2009 at 7:54 am

Oh, and also you can Digg Ben’s blog here:

http://tinyurl.com/d9fpz4
Dr* T said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:09 am

Hi Ben,

Added my own here:

Is there a proper media lawyer in the house? Your country needs YOU

T
Dr* T said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:12 am

Damn linky

Is there a proper media lawyer in the house? Your country needs YOU
crowcroft said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:26 am

get some nice pro bono lawyer to
take her/them to court for endangering public health - even if you lose, the programme will have to be played in court as evidence, and will then be in the public domain. who knows, you might even win.
Steve Page said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:28 am

Hey Ben, what is with you and lawyers?!

I hope that this blows over, and, as one other reader said, if you should need a fighting fund, set up a paypal account and I’m sure that there are plenty of us that would be happy to chip in. The service that you provide is too valuable to be silenced by cheap threats of this nature.
chatsubo said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:30 am

This is the complaint I sent to Ofcom, other folk may wish to send variations on this line

‘I am seriously concerned that Ms Barnett’s irresponsible, misguided and totally unfounded views on the supposed danger of MMR, and her corresponding views that measles was a relatively harmless childhood disease was in clear breach of Section 2 (Harm and Offence) and Section 5 (Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions ) of the Broadcasting Code. ‘
sensecommon said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:32 am

I updated the graph of measles cases in England and Wales:
http://www.thatsfuckingstupid.com/index.php/2009/02/just-a-quickie-update/

And you’ll find some links on that site to the mp3!
amalthea said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:47 am

Hi Ben,
Looks like the Alties are at it again huh? Keep up the good work, I don’t think you’ll have much to worry about with the legal stuff (I’m hoping, I’m not a lawyer)

Oh, and you got picked up by boing Boing too!!!
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/05/scientist-who-critic.html

Allopathic… love it. Do these people have to check in their sense of humour when they have their intellect stripped out? Just wondering.

All the best,

+A+
michael said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:49 am

OFCOM complaint lodged
Jack of Kent said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:54 am

“So. If anybody is a proper media lawyer and is able to offer their services for free, do please contact me.”

The LBC position appears to be potentially legally misconceived.

Ben - give me a shout when you can. You know where to find me.
buserian said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:59 am

I am not a lawyer, but I do work in publishing.

Unless there is more to the letter you received than you’ve said, this seems a bit of a storm in a teacup. Posting a 44 minute broadcast is clearly a breach of copyright, and they are entitled to tell you to take it down. This is clearly more than is needed to illustrate your critique, which is about the only defense allowed under UK law.

As for “reserve the rights” that’s a very reasonable phrase. It roughly means that by contacting you they are not giving you permission to use any of their material. For example, if you had posted two clips from their broadcasts, by contacting you about one of them, they aren’t giving you permission to use the other one.

Why not just take down the clip, put up a text summary, and move on…

Cheers,
Graham
Neil said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:04 pm

What really amazes me is that anyone could possibly listen to that uninterrupted shite (Barnett’s original broadcast, that is). I lasted a few minutes, but my stomach was churning.
Psychedelia Smith said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Hmm - with a clip that length, you can’t get away with ‘fair use for the purposes of comment or review’ ::reaches for copy of McNae’s Law for Journalists::

The only way around is indeed to transcribe the whole thing, and take it down in the meantime. Annoyed now because I’ve not had time to listen to it >:-(

Maybe you should talk to LBC and ask if you can have a head-to-head debate with the daft bat on air? Now that WOULD be fun.

Yeah, and get a copy of McNae’s in if you don’t have one. It’s bloody useful.
pv said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Quivered said,
February 6, 2009 at 6:34 am

Reading her rebuttal - my nomination for best sentence:
“I find it interesting that the vitriol that comes out of the pro MMR lobby is precisely why Allopathic medicine is struggling.”

It’s sad but hilarious at the same time.

PS WTF is “Allopathic medicine”?

“Allopathy” is a word invented by Samuel Hahnemann, the inventor of homeopathy, to describe what might loosely be called the established medicine of 200 years ago. There is in reality no such thing as allopathy but that doesn’t stop misguided and ignorant twats such as Jenni Barnett (an unimpeachable example of the arrogance of ignorance) from using the word.
I sincerely hope that both she and her employer are taken to the cleaners over this episode.
DrRachie said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:32 pm

more blogginess here

http://scepticsbook.com/

I will keep updating this as I find new things to point out.

Further, the hits on the youtube channel are slowly increasing.

http://www.youtube.com/user/rachiesyd
dclark78 said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Sorry I haven’t read all the comments but there is a torrent of the audio available on this link

http://rapidshare.com/files/194639999/Bad_Science_Bingo__with_Jeni_Barnett.mp3.torrent.html

Ben, if this is a no no please delete this post.
James H said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:47 pm

I’ve started a ‘Defend Ben Goldacre from LBC’ group on facebook. If you’re on facebook, please join and tell all your friends.
mjrobbins said,

February 6, 2009 at 12:59 pm

A transcript is in progress:

Part 2 is up on my blog. The other parts will appear on other blogs imminently.

Part 2:
http://www.layscience.net/node/485
Professor_Yaffel said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:01 pm

I’m not a media lawyer, and I don’t have any connections at all with the people involved in this broadcast, but I wonder if there isn’t a slight over-reaction here. I think most broadcasters would object to anyone putting 45 minutes of their content on the internet. For one thing, as I understand it there can be issues about content being accessed outside the UK. For example, the BBC can’t make certain sports coverage available on its i player, and the podcasts for its classical cd programme “Building a Library” have to be edited to reduce the extracts played to demonstrate the reviewer’s comments.

Obviously a polite request and an explanation for it would be a far better way to proceed, and the fact that they chose to react in a heavy-handed fashion points to a lack of judgment. All that this sort of behaviour achieves is to guarantee wider coverage, and to make the broadcaster look intellectually weak.
cavoab said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:15 pm

I am a lawyer. I give this information for entertainment purposes only (ie you should get real advice from someone who works for a firm which is willing to do this pro bono, this is for interest only and I haven’t checked it thoroughly):

Firstly, ‘all our client’s rights against you are reserved’, or similar, just means that they’re saying that you don’t kill any rights they might have to claim damages against you simply by removing the clip - they’re saying “remove the clip, and, by the way, we could still sue you after that”. It’s not necessary, but pretty standard language for a litigator just to avoid any doubt and keep all options open.

Secondly, lots of speculation on the fair dealing argument (which is obviously the right defence to run), including the classic law student’s exam answer from garpal gumnut:

“The legal position is unclear, it depends primarily on testing it at trial”

When I was a student it was usually written as “It’s for the court to decide” (which gained no marks at all).

How about some law:

In determining whether, in preparing one publication, an unfair use has been made of another, the nature of the two publications, and the likelihood or unlikelihood of their entering into competition with each other is not only a relevant factor but may be the determining factor in the case: Weatherby & Sons v International Horse Agency and Exchange Ltd [1910] 2 Ch 297 at 305 per Parker J.

It strikes me that this is pretty straightforward - Ben’s use was obviously for criticism (and the blog post above is a decent draft defence); there is absolutely no chance of him being in competition with the author; there is no realistic suggestion that his use of the work was anything more than necessary than required for the purposes of criticism; nor is there any suggestion of any improper gain that could have resulted from excessive use.

And, from the other angle, what could the author claim if fair dealing was not shown (ie if a claim was successful)? Injunction to prevent use, ok, same situation we are in now. Can’t see damages being more than nominal - again by virtue of the fact that Ben is not in competition with the author so the author doesn’t lose anything. Costs - this might hurt the wallet a bit.

So, pretty solid defence I would think - this is exactly the situation that is envisaged by the Act, where a work is necessarily copied for the purposes of criticizing it - but these things are never certain and there is some risk on costs (but not really any on damages).

I would tell them where to stick it. But I’m stubborn.
thekumquat said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:15 pm

Can anyone point me to a transcript please?
Too deaf to listen to radio for more than a few seconds.
Thanks.
DrRachie said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:20 pm

http://podblack.com/ is working on a transcript as I type. I’ll post a link here as soon as it becomes available.
mjrobbins said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Part 2 of a transcript is up at layscience.net. Others are working on the other parts as I speak.
A full time unpaid carer said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:34 pm

Just joined the facebook group…let’s get this all over the internetz.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 07:13:58 AM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2009, 07:14:45 AM »

Myryama said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:40 pm

I’ve lurked here for months with commenting, but this issue is too big to ignore.

A quick look at Wikipedia (not always the most reliable source, I admit, but handy for the layman) suggests that in 1999 measles killed 873,000 people worldwide. Five years later, an extensive vaccination programme had cut this figure to around 345,000. Why do people still dispute the efficacy of vaccinations? Whenever I hear these people state their “arguments” I want to ask them “When did Smallpox last claim a member of your family?” or “How many of your children have Polio?”.
gadgeezer said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:43 pm

HolfordWatch has posted a transcript of Jeni Barnett’s final caller, Yasmin (?) is the nurse/doctor in Primary Practice.

It is absolutely extraordinary. Possibly my favourite exchange:

Yasmin: Could you tell me what’s in the vaccine? What do you think is in the vaccine?

JB: No, I can’t.

Yasmin: Then how can you make a decision for your child?…

Yasmin: You don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t even tell me what’s in an MMR vaccine so you shouldn’t be talking about it.

JB: Well, I can get it…Shall I get it off the internet, Yasmin?

Yasmin: Yeah, get it off the internet, from a reliable source, the such as the Department of Health

JB: Really?

Yasmin: and then I might listen to you, yeah.

JB: The Department of Health frightens people.

But, when has ignorance of what you’re talking about ever stopped you having an opinion and passing it off as fact, eh? And Jeni Barnett didn’t frighten anyone away from MMR with all the talk of toxins and poisons?
RTomsett said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm

“It strikes me that this is pretty straightforward - Ben’s use was obviously for criticism (and the blog post above is a decent draft defence); there is absolutely no chance of him being in competition with the author; there is no realistic suggestion that his use of the work was anything more than necessary than required for the purposes of criticism; nor is there any suggestion of any improper gain that could have resulted from excessive use.” - cavoab

Nice.

It’s funny how this threat of legal action has actually managed to spread the file far wider and probably made it reach a broader audience than it ever would have got had they not done anything. The more it spreads, the more work they’ve created for themselves if they want to stop people from hosting it.

FAIL

P.S. you can download the MMR excerpt from the show from 27-03-2008 (not the one that started all the fun and games) here:

http://indigent.co.uk/thisisdepressing/Jeni_Barnett_-_MMR_EDIT_27_Mar_08.mp3
Blue Eyes said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:45 pm

OK re the copyright: I have a small amount of knowledge in this regard. Apologies if the issue has already been covered. There is a defence to copyright infringement if you are using an extract for “academic” criticism. As long as the extract is as small as it can be to convey the point and acknowledges the source than I think you are OK. Also, copyright infringement is a civil “offence” so they can only sue you for the damage you have caused them. How much revenue will they have lost by your posting an excerpt of one programme? None I would hazard.

Usual disclaimers apply, but if you wanted to email me then feel free.

BE
Jack of Kent said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Cavoab, again just for entertainment purposes, even if it were an infringing act (which is denied), one would wonder in these circumstances whether LBC could gain injunctive relief (ie a court order) rather than a mere payment of licence fee for damages…
thepoisongarden said,

February 6, 2009 at 1:49 pm

Am I allowed to say ‘I told you so’ after posting, yesterday, that it was a stupid thing for LBC to do?

I think, perhaps, Ben is being too modest in not posting this link; http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43020&c=1

Let’s be realistic, no publicity is going to change the mind of Ms Barnett or those who share her distorted view of science but, if it increases the number of times people can say there is no evidence that MMR causes autism, http://londonist.com/2009/02/mmr_still_controversial.php it will have done some good.

That second link points out that half of all measles cases are now in London.
Geoffrey said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:00 pm

Definition of “Reserve our rights”

This is legalspeak for: “accede to our demands now. Even if you do, this is a continuing threat. We claim you broke the law and we are legally entitled to sue you for a remedy in court. We may file a law suit later anyway, even if you complied with our demand”.

The source of my knowledge is: I am an ex lawyer (I no longer practise)who qualified in England and New York. I practised litigation/arbitration in London at the biggest law firm in the world.
gadgeezer said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Martin has posted part of the show in transcript form: the call from Tracy the homeopath.

Too many, top-class comedy moments but I like this.

Tracy: It started off, I went on a short course about, it was a choice, making a choice about vaccination. And it was run by a homeopath.

JB: But why did you go on that course in the first place?

Tracy: Because I had a feeling inside, I inherently knew, that it must be wrong to be putting toxins and poisonous material into a young baby’s body.

JB: Right.

Tracy: It’s as simple as that. Mercury, formaldehyde, you know - live viruses that are cured (?) in monkeys’ kidneys. How can that be right for your child?

JB: Now, are you, by any stretch of the imagination, described as a crank by your friends?

Tracy: No. They all know me too well now.

Are those the sonorous notes of the toxins gambit I hear? Where is Orac, doesn’t he have a bat sense for this sort of thing?
porcospino said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:08 pm

Is it too cynical to suggest she knows she’s talking crap, and is only doing it for the ratings?

Meanwhile, I wonder if anyone is looking into a link between talk radio and the incidence of hypertension. I’m pretty sure talk radio is bad for your health, but have yet to see the evidence.

Just doing my bit.
mikewhit said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:11 pm

I like the way “allopath” is used in the same way you might hear, “xxx is a psychopath” !

NB. Chambers dictionary: http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=allopath

Incidentally, surely using a vaccine is literally, “homeo” (same) “pathos” (suffering) - ie. gaining immunity by exposure to the same thing that causes the illness …  
podblack said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Hey all!

I’ve got the following fascinating interchange, which I didn’t quite know whether to laugh or cry over:

Jeni Barnett On LBC 97.3FM UK Radio - Vs John From Epsom

http://podblack.com/?p=1221

It’s a transcript from about twelve minutes in. I quite liked John, he tried his very best.
gadgeezer said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:23 pm

They’re coming thick and fast. Podblack has put up a transcript of the call with John from Epsom: Jeni Barnett On LBC 97.3FM UK Radio - Vs John From Epsom.
But the fact is that the more we sanitise society and the more we become absolutely – what’s the word – hypocritical about stuff – you cannot support letting our children run riot and not converse with each other and not play and all the other stuff that we’re doing… and then get up in high dudgeon when we don’t put drugs into their body!


Stick the kids out running in air, ban cars on the road, make them have six hours a day PE at school give them an hour every single day where they’re running around playing rounders and walls and not just – a few!

When is Jeni going to talk to the Education Minister about her radical agenda for education built around 6 hrs PE a day?
MissPrism said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:29 pm

I listened to as much as I could stand - my word, she’s spectacularly ill-informed. If there’s anything else your loyal commentariat can do other than get the word out, let us know.
censored said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Fuck me. I’ve only listened as far as bonkers Tracy who thinks children’s diseases are only dangerous when their immune systems are suppressed by drugs.

I initially thought this was a bit of a storm in a teacup. Talk show host goes a bit over the top, that’s what they’re paid for.

I’m now heading straight over to OFCOM.
aram said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:36 pm

I think complaining to OFCOM sets a bad precedent, in which the government is involved in suppressing expressions of opinion.

Better, I think, would be an advertiser boycott. If LBC understood that promoting anti-MMR hysteria would hurt them financially, then they would be much more likely to reconsidering keeping Jeni Barnett.
cavoab said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Jack of Kent - fair question, but no, injunction is a normal remedy for copyright infringement. Still discretionary, but if infringement was shown then it would hard to argue that injunction wasn’t appropriate.

Availability of damages relevant for interim injunction of course.

And one for the pedants: injunctive relief =/= court order.
Dr* T said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:43 pm

I’ve done that too.
Michael Grayer said,

February 6, 2009 at 2:47 pm

I just started a new blog (inspired by the call to do so in the Bad Science book) and this awful situation is the subject of one of my first entries.

http://www.nontoxic.org.uk/?p=17

Glad to add my voice to the blogosphere!

podblack: I liked John too. Especially his opening lines and Jeni’s genuine surprise that someone actually drew a rational conclusion from sound evidence.
La G said,

February 6, 2009 at 3:27 pm

aram, I’m usually not a fan of complaining for OFCOM, particularly when I did not hear the original broadcast. However, in this case I feel it’s reasonable as I’m complaining not that Jeni has ‘offended’ me or shouldn’t be allowed her opinion, but that someone broadcasting for an hour on a scientific subject should make attempts to be unbiased, not shut down opposing opinions and have made an attempt to understand the basic facts in advance. It is her proud ignorance and irresponsibility I object to.
chatsubo said,

February 6, 2009 at 3:32 pm

“aram said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:36 pm

I think complaining to OFCOM sets a bad precedent, in which the government is involved in suppressing expressions of opinion.”

aram, I respectively disagree for two reasons.

Firstly, it is LBC who are trying to censor information with heavy handed legal threats.

Secondly, its not about censorship its about responsibility. Public broadcasters have a responsibility to the public not to broadcast information and advice that could potentially harm people, and not to release information that is full of bias; thus pretending to present fact, when it is actually comment.

If LBC allowed one of their presenters to spend a hour taking about how there was no connection between smoking and cancer was a myth there would be, quite rightly, an outrage.

So why should a person with similarly misinformed beliefs on MMR be allowed to get away with it.
julie oakley said,

February 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm

A picture tells a thousand words.
See http://julieoakley.blogspot.com/2009/02/ben-goldacre-my-hero.html
chatsubo said,

February 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm

“aram said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:36 pm

I think complaining to OFCOM sets a bad precedent, in which the government is involved in suppressing expressions of opinion.”

aram, I respectively disagree for two reasons.

Firstly, it is LBC who are trying to censor information with heavy handed legal threats.

Secondly, its not about censorship its about responsibility. Public broadcasters have a responsibility to the public not to broadcast information and advice that could potentially harm people, and not to release information that is full of bias; thus pretending to present fact, when it is actually comment.

If LBC allowed one of their presenters to spend a hour taking about how there was no connection between smoking and cancer there would be, quite rightly, an outrage.

So why should a person with similarly misinformed beliefs on MMR be allowed to get away with it.
censored said,

February 6, 2009 at 4:01 pm

What was the date of the live broadcast?
Simon_Bradshaw said,

February 6, 2009 at 4:06 pm

Ben,

You have email re an offer of paralegal support.

A lot of people here have rightly noted the limits on fair use. However, the Court of Appeal said in the 1971 case of Hubbard v Vosper that the limits of what could reasonably be quoted depended on such factors as public interest. A detailed analysis or rebuttal of a controversial work might, in Lord Denning’s (and his fellow judges’) view necessarily involve very extensive quotation from that work.
podblack said,

February 6, 2009 at 4:10 pm

SORRY!!

The link is actually:

Jeni Barnett On LBC 97.3FM UK Radio - Vs John From Epsom

http://podblack.com/?p=1222

Please change any bookmarks and thanks for the support - you should also check:

http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/06/further-to-the-transcript-of-jeni-barnetts-diatribe-on-lbc-937fm/
padster said,

February 6, 2009 at 4:41 pm

I tried to complain about the show on the Ofcom website, but I get to a form that tells me it has no listing for LBC. It’s a mainstream FM station, for god’s sake?! What am I doing wrong…

P.
michael said,

February 6, 2009 at 5:05 pm

Padster - made a similar mistake, that page is where you can find information about complaining directly to LBC - they don’t seem to have their details. If you click continue you get through to the OFCOM complaint form.
The Biologista said,

February 6, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Anyone else reckon this is going to turn into a media shitstorm rushing to Jeni’s defence?

I really hope there’s “balance”, but I can’t help but be cynical.
Psychedelia Smith said,

February 6, 2009 at 6:22 pm

Yasmin’s my heroine:

Yasmin: Could you tell me what’s in the vaccine? What do you think is in the vaccine?

JB: No, I can’t.

[...]

Yasmin: You don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t even tell me what’s in an MMR vaccine so you shouldn’t be talking about it.

Ker-plunk, checkmate, game, set and match. Go girl.
gadgeezer said,

February 6, 2009 at 6:42 pm

Quackometer has the missing part 5: Jeni Barnett MMR Rant Transcript with “Dr Rob”

You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you won’t know where to put your fact for the embarrassment as she snidely remarks that although Dr Rob has been immunised against flu, it hasn’t stopped him from getting a cold.
Kathleen Seidel said,

February 6, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Good Lord. After spewing histrionically for nearly an hour, bosom all aquiver with fear and ignorance, Barnett accuses the eminently restrained Yasmin of being “overdramatic,” then describes her as “vicious” on her blog. What a perfect example of projection.
padster said,

February 6, 2009 at 6:53 pm

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480

Give her hell.

P.
cxw1219 said,

February 6, 2009 at 7:04 pm

Dear Ben,

I was appalled by this broadcast.

I have even made a complaint to OFCOM.

The subsequent treatment of this site with regard to availability of the broadcast makes things even worse.

Clearly LBC have little pecuniary interest in this material, and the main reason for their ‘pulling the plug’ is to reduce the exposure of this incident.
MissPrism said,

February 6, 2009 at 7:15 pm

I’ve transcribed a couple of minutes, which is all I could stand, and blogged about it here.
cxw1219 said,

February 6, 2009 at 7:32 pm

I got it from wikileaks.

A copy may be available here as a torrent.

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:FY3Y7VKJVHMW7QDHH4PRLUWL6ILFBVK7
alextravellion said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:33 pm

I’m just a bloke too. Just a bloke with kids (3 actually - little sods mostly).

Coincidently, on the day that LBC briefs try it on with you we popped down to our GP and squirted our youngest little sod full of his final MMR vax.

This will protect him from Measles, Mumps and Rubella and, thankfully, he will be better for having these vax.

Get some advice from J of K and do what is necessary to keep your head above water but don’t give up the fight.

Alex
KatyNewton said,

February 6, 2009 at 11:48 pm

Sweet baby Jesus, I don’t know where to start. I’m on Clip 2 and I’m already feeling a bit light-headed.
kerledan said,

February 7, 2009 at 7:15 am

Over at podblack is a transcription of the bit with John. In the warm up, it seems Jeni says this:

“Do you want your kids to have an inoculation or don’t you? Don’t make people feel guilty if you make the decision that they don’t want to have drugs put into them; when I was out in American, eighteen months ago, the only cases of polio that were coming across were the ones where the children had the polio vaccine. And most doctors who were out in the States were not letting their children have it! What does that say to you?”

Has this woman ever seen someone with polio? Has she any clue of the level of suffering it causes?

This foolish, foolish woman.
podblack said,

February 7, 2009 at 7:41 am

Thanks for the mention, Kerledan! Head over to Skeptic’s Book and see the tale of a mother of eight kids… nasty stuff.  
kerledan said,

February 7, 2009 at 7:47 am

You’re welcome podblack.

The case at Skeptic’s Book is harrowing.

Back just 80 years, polio cut short of disabled the lives of a great many people in the UK. Now it doesn’t. It still does elsewhere where vaccination isn’t universal, there are also wild strains).

Human progress: let’s rid the world of this one. Like we’ve probably done with smallpox.
adamwilcox said,

February 7, 2009 at 9:40 am

Another blog + hosting of a clip: http://wilcosworld.co.uk/2009/lbc-vs-bad-science

Inoculation against such diseases is very important, eradication must be utter and complete. It takes only a few uninoculated people to allow a disease to survive and revive, and to spread back. To make claims like the ones in the LBC show was an irresponsible piece of broadcasting, and put the public at risk. People like Jeni Barnett pose a serious danger to public health by irresponsible journalism misappropriating the public’s trust in the media and eroding the understanding of science and medial health.
technollama said,

February 7, 2009 at 11:02 am

I have written a legal opinion:

http://technollama.blogspot.com/2009/02/bad-science-meets-bad-copyright.html
ajberrow said,

February 7, 2009 at 11:37 am

I’ve added the mp3 file (copied from wikileaks) here : jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3.
jodyaberdein said,

February 7, 2009 at 11:53 am

Regarding polio vaccination:

Indeed all cases in countries with effective, complte vaccination programmes are vaccine induced - a known, small, risk that is much below that of having epidemic polio.

The story of polio vaccination is fascinating, and I can highly recommend ‘Patenting the Sun’ by Jane S Smith.

History in many ways does repeat itself, and indeed before the Salk field trials no less that Walter Winchell broadcast a slur on the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis.

In stark contrast to our perhaps more cynical age there was public outrage at the mooted withdrawal of some states from the trial - people had lived with polio and they wanted a vaccine.

Jody
yasminpn said,

February 7, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Re my discussion with Jeni Barnett on LBC.

I work as a practice nurse for the NHS.

I was listening to LBC at the end of my shift.(incidently involved wading through the myths surrounding MMR with a parent).

I was shocked and alarmed to hear Jeni expressing such a dangerous unscientific view based entirely on unresearched personal opinion and expressed with such conviction undermining efforts to eradicate these (and other) serious diseases. These are serious issues which should not be so flippantly thrown into the public arena.

It is most surprising that Jeni Barnett is even considering action against those who try to point out the error of her ways.

If Jeni and others like her wish to withhold health-promoting vaccines from children, have they thought about all moving to an island where no-one has been vaccinated or ‘fiddled-with’ thereby not posing a risk to others? Just a thought.
becktimms said,

February 7, 2009 at 12:29 pm

I have posted this on my facebok - and i only hope that this helps get it out into the open.

I completely agree with what you are saying and I believe that whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinion she is undermining the Government Department of Health, the World Health Organisation and the vast training that all Dr.s and Medical/Heatlhcare staff receive.
Andrew86 said,

February 7, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Congrats for the fantastic phone-call, Yasmin.
chatsubo said,

February 7, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Yasmin - you are a star. Its people like you that make me proud to work for the NHS.
jodyaberdein said,

February 7, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Regarding polio vaccination:

It is indeed true that there are a handful of cases of vaccine induced polio, and in countries with an extensive vaccination program this is the only polio there is. Far far fewer cases than epidemic polio.

History in many ways repeats itself. No less than the broadcaster Walter Winchell accused the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis of stockpiling ‘little white coffins’ inpreparation for the Salk field trial.

Perhaps reflective of a less cynical age there was considerable public outrage at the suggestion some states would withdraw from the trial and thus deny those children the possibility of protection.

These people had experienced polio. They wanted a vaccine.

I can highly recommend ‘Patenting the Sun’, Jane S Smith, for those so interested. Or you could just wikipedia ‘March of the Dimes’ and start from there.

Jody
mikewhit said,

February 7, 2009 at 1:01 pm

Ahh well, come the H5N1 bird flu epidemic, I guess Jeni and her ilk won’t be needing _her_ jab.

It’s their children I feel sorry for …

Incidentally there was a bloke on Friday’s Today programme who didn’t let his kids have MMR but neither did he give them the single doses - again, “It makes you stronger doesn’t it ?” - Nietsche has a lot to answer for !

He also mentioned T Blair’s refusal to answer the question on his son’s MMR status, as helping to spread FUD.

I do think the Today items should have mentioned the word “unfounded” in its headline phrase of “vaccine safety scare”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/2_9_7276_7726/9player.swf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/2_9_7276_7726/9player.swf

(Grr - BBC used to give RealAudio links !)
Dan12345 said,

February 7, 2009 at 1:09 pm

I agree with Cavoab and technollama (and I am a lawyer).

The Court of Appeal has held that fair dealing for the purposes of criticising the original work is an expression of wide and indefinite scope which should be interpreted liberally, in light of both the exception in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act itself and the the right to free expression in the Human Rights Act.

This is a clear case of bona fide criticism in the context of a matter that lies in the public interest, and where you have no commercial motivation for your actions. The length of your excerpt does not seem excessive given the overall length of the programme.

LBC are pushing their luck on this one. I would respond to them saying that you have taken down the clip, but that you reserve your position. You consider that your actions amounted to fair dealing under the CDPA and are in any event protected by the Human Rights Act. You will rigorously defend your position if the matter is taken any further.

Dan
gadgeezer said,

February 7, 2009 at 1:11 pm

Yasmin, you showed grace under fire.
ACH said,

February 7, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Yasmin, congratulations on keeping so calm under pressure and managing to get the science across, despite Ms Barnett talking over you and showing the most amazing level of ignorance. Maybe LBC should consider giving you an hour of prime time to counter that mendacious load of bilge.
fiendishlyclever said,

February 7, 2009 at 1:34 pm

I was pleased to see quite a few people have joined the Facebook group (I have too now). Have also filed a complaint with Ofcom.

How anyone listens to this odious woman spout her ill informed drivel for a whole show is beyond me.

Yasmin - at least you tried to inform her  

Ben - keep posting about bad science. Too often BBC/Daily Mail style journalism is used as a substitute for hard facts. The public need to know!
kinginsan said,

February 7, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Yasmin, you did a great thing by calling into the show and standing up for evidence and rationality in the face of such blind and arrogant ignorance. Thank you so much. My hat’s off to you!
mrkaplan said,

February 7, 2009 at 1:59 pm

We gave our child the MMR and, despite knowing it was the right thing to do, I fretted for days before and after.

This kind of scaremongering needs to stop and Ben you’re right to take a stand.

I understand you have a PayPal donate button somewhere but can’t find it. Ben, put it at the top of the page or post a link please.

I’ll happily chip in £20 for a fighting fund - you only need nine others to do the same and you’ve got a couple of legal letters back to LBC telling them where to get off.

If you need more later I’m sure we’ll all chip in.
Honesty in Science said,

February 7, 2009 at 2:05 pm

So Ben you believe censorship will not backfire and will not lead to more people questioning of Honesty of the vaccine debate?

When it becomes common knowledge that all debate is being stifled and the reasons why parents do not vaccinate are taboo the shit will really hit the fan.
You will face charges of not being able to defend the science of vaccinations openly and honestly and not able to tpp publically refute the claims of the anti vaxxers.
The Biologista said,

February 7, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Honesty in Science,

The issue is not that the voices of parents are being stifled. And that’s certainly not what anyone’s calling for. On the contrary, the fears of parents have been the basis of pretty much every news story on the matter since Andrew Wakefield utterly failed to deliver the science.

Ten years of debate based primarily on fear and anecdote. The media are starting to listen to the science now. That’s not censorship, it’s winning the debate, at least in one arena.

Speaking of Wakefield, anyone else spot his message to Jeni on her first MMR blog?
Indy said,

February 7, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Just read the transcript. Sigh. Here in NZ the only thing I know about Jeni Barnett is that she is the little dark-haired and verbose woman from Great Food Live or whatever it’s called. Why on EARTH would she wade into the MMR debate? Surely half an ‘-ology’ can’t make her feel qualified…..

Does she think we, the scientific/medical community, just thought well shoot, we’ll just inject germs in the little babies, ’cause one of us has had an idea down the pub that might just work? Does she think she is the only person (aside from the homeopaths) that realised some serious thought should go into innoculation campaigns?

What a waste all those years at Uni were, I could become a ‘broadcaster’ instead, whereby the microphone immediatley imbues one with all earthly knowledge!
gimpyblog said,

February 7, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Blogged this myself now, with a bit of a homeopathic slant.
evidencebasedeating said,

February 7, 2009 at 3:09 pm

It seems Ms Barnett has ‘An Audience with’ session coming up in Croydon late March.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/blast-i-missed-that-3574.

Doesn’t seem to mention ‘Nasty Injections to Worry Misinformed Parents’as a health topic to cover but given the extensive list of therapies and approaches mentioned it wouldn’t be far for Epsom John or London Ben to engage in some social discourse at said event - unless of course it’s rebilled as a monologue…
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2009, 07:14:58 AM »

fontwell said,

February 7, 2009 at 3:14 pm

I’ve just made my complaint to LBC - not that I expect much back from them.

I rather enjoyed using the phrase “her fourth quartile opinions”. I think it still sounds insulting even if you don’t know what it means.
gadgeezer said,

February 7, 2009 at 3:17 pm

HolfordWatch has posted Some Rebuttals to Jeni Barnett’s Canards in Her LBC Radio MMR Segment.

Sketchy yet detailed in the way that HolfordWatch does…
Millie said,

February 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Isn’t the point that this controversy has NOT gone away - and that nothing you, Ben, or the DoH or all the experts who have rubbished Wakefield et al for over a decade can make it go - despite £millions on pro-vaccine PR. So why hasn’t it gone? It hasn’t gone because everyone knows someone who believes - for want to incontravertible evidence the other way - that their child has been damaged by the MMR. These tragic families and the desperately sick children have never been permitted a hearing nor are their children looked at dispassionately. Doctors dread their careers being damaged in the way the careers of the 3 docs who initially raised the question have been. It’s not good enough just to call those who question the safety of the MMR ‘bad scientists’ or the ‘anti-vaccine lobby’. If the parents of the damaged children had been anti-vaccine they wouldn’t have given their children the MMR in the first place and there wouldn’t be this terrible and dangerous controversy.
gadgeezer said,

February 7, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Millie,
Doctors dread their careers being damaged in the way the careers of the 3 docs who initially raised the question have been.


10/13 authors retracted their names from portions of the 1998 Wakefield study that allowed him to make that scare-mongering press conference. Those co-authors now state:
We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between the MMR vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient.


Dr Nicholas Chadwick had such grave reservations about the data and the interpretation of it in Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper that he refused to put his name on the paper (see above for links to his testimony).

Who can forget the suffering endured by the little boy whose colon was punctured in multiple places during the investigations for Wakefield’s study?

It might feel like there has not been a hearing but the Legal Aid case was discontinued for lack of credible evidence. In the US, the Autism Omnibus Hearings started last year and will probably continue for some years to come.
ekcol said,

February 7, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Some questions for the people who know about copyright:

Do Jeni Barnett’s ramblings really count as an original or creative work which is protected by copyright? Can I just slap a copyright symbol next to any old thing I say and it’s illegal for people to quote it in full? Furthermore, considering a lot of it consists of argument regurgitated from the internet, can LBC still claim ownership of it?

I expect the answers are all yes, tbh. I’m sure what Ben did technically is illegal, it just shouldn’t be. Intellectual property rights rarely seem to coincide with artist’s actual moral rights.
afterglow said,

February 7, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Finally starting to listen to the youtube postings of the broadcast. Finding it very hard to fight the urge to shout and throw things at the computer. WHAT a pile of rubbish. I cannot believe anyone would broadcast such uninformed nonsense.

Thanks Ben for bringing this to our attention and I hope you find a solution to this mess.
gadgeezer said,

February 7, 2009 at 4:28 pm

ekcol, Andres Guadamuz of Techno Llama gives a thoughtful and interesting legal opinion that comprehensively (to a lay person) covers fair dealing and other copyright issues: Bad Science meets bad copyright. He concludes thus:
Beyond the strict legalities of the case, one has to feel that Bad Science has done nothing ethically wrong, on the contrary, the reproduction of the clip serves the public interest. Those who espouse the blatantly damaging view that MMR should be trashed, and worse, use their public standing to further such myths, should be held accountable. It is typical of those with indefensible positions to use, misuse and abuse copyright law in order to stifle debate (Scientology anyone?) Copyright law serves a clear purpose to society, but when it is used to censor and remove contrary opinions then the public interest should prevail.


(via HolfordWatch collection of Jeni Barnett LBC Radio MMR links
JQH said,

February 7, 2009 at 4:46 pm

Christ almighty! Listening to the clips had me shouting at the computer.

Reading the transcript of her conversation with Yasmin was instructive. She was totally unable to hold her end up when debating with someone who actually knows what she is talking about.

Blogged and commented on the transcript:

http://jaycueaitch.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/jeni-barnett-antivaxxer/
Tomato Addict said,

February 7, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Spreading the word.
kerledan said,

February 7, 2009 at 7:04 pm

jodyaberdein, thanks for the book about polio recommendation

yes, I know there is a very small risk from polio vaccine but as adamwilcox says above, the only way to eradicate it is to vaccinate everybody. And this almost succeeded, almost.
Millie said,

February 7, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Gadgeezer - re “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between the MMR vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient.” Yes - they did say this and Dr Wakefield had and has never claimed that a causal link had been established. The Lancet paper said that work shd be done to investigate a possibe link. The doctors who published the ‘retraction’ did so as they had to counter the way the Lancet paper had been mis-represented by the media. It was this misrepresentation that caused the furore. Dr W had nothing to do with the boy you mention - he did not conduct the investigation. The fact that the boy poor was so ill had multiple causes - one of which was the botched colonoscopy. The scope was clinically indicated by his condition. The Legal Aid case was not concluded for lack of evidence. There is masses of evidence but the parents were threatened by one of the pharma cos with being sued for costs - essentially meaning they risked the loss of their homes - often the only security their children had - if they pursued the cases. The Legal Aid Appeal panel was so impressed by 11 of the parental cases that parents were granted up to £10,000 each to continue the cases. But, they had to buckle when bullied by the might of the pharma cos.
gadgeezer said,

February 7, 2009 at 8:37 pm

It was this misrepresentation that caused the furore. Dr W had nothing to do with the boy you mention - he did not conduct the investigation. The fact that the boy poor was so ill had multiple causes - one of which was the botched colonoscopy. The scope was clinically indicated by his condition.

The colonoscopy was conducted as part of the study - if you have a source for the claim that it was clinically indicated then I would be interested to see that.

It seems a tad disingenuous to claim that Andrew Wakefield had nothing to do with over-hyping the implications of his deeply-flawed study (again, see Chadwick and Bustin) given his performance at the press conference and subsequently.
EleanorC said,

February 7, 2009 at 8:41 pm

(I’ll post this on the correct thread this time.)

Millie, what’s your basis for saying “everyone knows someone who believes … that their child has been damaged by the MMR”? I know a *lot* of parents, including some who have children on the autistic spectrum - and not one of them believes that.
Circe said,

February 7, 2009 at 8:43 pm

This is an offensive attempt by the media to present a one-way monologue of uninformed lies while silencing debate over it. Good to see that corporate bullying is still alive and well.

SHAME ON YOU LBC.

I hope Jeni Barnet will attend the funerals of those future unvaccinated kids that will die from measles and give her apologies. Oops I was wrong, but at least I had my moment of fame. Sorry you kid died.
The Milligan said,

February 7, 2009 at 11:02 pm

For the sake of support for the amazing job you’ve been doing Dr. G., the full transcript plus links to the audio files are on yet another blog…

http://themilligan.wordpress.com

If it comes to a “war chest” for any kind of legal defense, you can count me in!
pv said,

February 7, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Millie said,
February 7, 2009 at 7:45 pm

…The doctors who published the ‘retraction’ did so as they had to counter the way the Lancet paper had been mis-represented by the media. It was this misrepresentation that caused the furore…

It was Wakefield’s own interpretation that his colleagues retracted.
According to Wikipedia:

The retraction stated:
“We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.”

There’s more here about Prof John O’Leary.
And since we are discussing Wakefield then I suggest a read of the MMR story so far, as of January 2009.
OBJohn said,

February 7, 2009 at 11:30 pm

I followed your link to complain to OFCOM - here’s what I got when I tried to register a complaint about a specific program and the form asked me to name the broadcaster.

LBC 97.6:

Sorry - we don’t have complaint contact details for the broadcaster you entered. You can view details of all licenced television and radio services at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/ and http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radio/ifi/rbl/formats/.

I also tried entering LBC and LBC News with the same result.

So the end result is that I can’t make an online complaint to OFCOM about LBC
thepoisongarden said,

February 8, 2009 at 12:21 am

I’ve just seen this in the Sunday Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

‘THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research’

I’m not sure if it’s old news but it’s good that the ST is carrying it.
CarlottaVance said,

February 8, 2009 at 12:43 am

Its probably old news to those in the know….but tomorrow’s Sunday Times has:

“MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism”

Interesting how the slant is on the role the Doctors played in the myth…..not the media….
henrywilton said,

February 8, 2009 at 1:59 am

Millie said:

There is masses of evidence but the parents were threatened by one of the pharma cos

Millie, I think everyone here would love to see these masses of evidence. Seriously, you might be surprised by how open-minded they are. Evidence is their favourite thing!
gadgeezer said,

February 8, 2009 at 2:23 am

THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition. [Brian Deer, Sunday Times, Feb 8, 2009]
quixote said,

February 8, 2009 at 3:18 am

gadgeezer: interesting about that research! Doesn’t surprise me.

However, I delurked to write my two cents’ worth. I’m an odd hybrid: Ph.D. biologist and Naturopathic Doctor, so I like to think I have a useful perspective on vaccination.

1) The scientists are 100% right on this one.

2)Any “homeopath” or “nutritionist” who argues otherwise is stupid, dishonest, or both.

I received the ND at a school in Munich, and just about the first thing they taught there was identifying appropriate treatment. You don’t cure a broken leg with acupuncture.

Considering how much fun it is to blame problems on weird people who know too much, I’m very afraid that it’s going to take a big epidemic and too many avoidable deaths before the media stop trying to make a buck on that crap.
SunnyH said,

February 8, 2009 at 4:33 am

Hi Ben,

Have blogged about it here too:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/02/08/ben-goldacre-legally-threatened-by-lbc/
mrs.webby said,

February 8, 2009 at 7:35 am

i’m a lawyer but not a media one so i will confine my comments on the legal side to the question of reserving of rights - which as you probably know by now is legal mumbo jumbo and means nothing at all.

i’m also the parent of an autistic teenager. the MMR debate is something i have followed since he was a baby. a lot of our friends have autistic kids and quite a few decided not to have the MMR because of the media hype (after reading everything we could find we decided to have our son vaccinated). i don’t know if anyone has done research on the number of kids on the autistic spectrum who were never vaccinated but it might be instructive.

the other thing that is horrible about this debate is that people talk of autism as though it was the worst thing that could happen to a family. if they found a ‘cure’ for autism tomorrow we wouldn’t want it. what we do want is a healthy child who is not unnecessarily exposed to dangerous illnesses that had all but been eradicated.
Indy said,

February 8, 2009 at 9:49 am

Mrs Webby - Great point you make. I have an autistic brother. It is certainly challenging, but as you say, NOT the worst thing in the world to happen.
adamcgf said,

February 8, 2009 at 10:37 am

Simon Bradshaw said… A lot of people here have rightly noted the limits on fair use. However, the Court of Appeal said in the 1971 case of Hubbard v Vosper that the limits of what could reasonably be quoted depended on such factors as public interest. A detailed analysis or rebuttal of a controversial work might, in Lord Denning’s (and his fellow judges’) view necessarily involve very extensive quotation from that work.”

A way of demonstrating fair dealing could be to snip the extract up, to post audio clips of each relevant point and to respond to that point - even if that meant posting the whole thing again piece by piece. It’s a bit of a time consuming job but it’s technically very straightforward - I could certainly do it, but so could anybody who’d done even the simplest digital audio editing.
Vaughan said,

February 8, 2009 at 4:09 pm

I noticed Jeni Barnett has deleted the posts from her own blog which contained a request for open debate, and hundreds of comments from open-debaters pointing out the flaws in her argument and how her irresponsible comments were.

Check those missing days:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/jeni-barnetts-blog-3484/recent/79
daniao said,

February 8, 2009 at 4:25 pm

I notice on the Barnett’s blog that a contribution (no32 - in shouty caps) is from an Ann Coulter. Is that THE Anne Coulter? If so it’s hardly surprising she supports La Barnett. They make a fine pair.
Ciaran said,

February 8, 2009 at 4:53 pm

Scary Scary stuff, was reading the comments on the youtube upload and 50% of them where like me too enraged to continue. Utterly dreadful.
EleanorC said,

February 8, 2009 at 5:04 pm

Vaughan, they’re still there: http://www.jenibarnett.com/index.php

She hasn’t posted my comment from two days ago though - and it was a polite one…
Ciaran said,

February 8, 2009 at 5:33 pm

I have to say we ‘bad scientists’ (a collective sobriquet not entirely objectionable) seem to have conduct the most comprehensive, logically and empirically deconstructive blitz of comments on her blog I’ve ever seen. Not to mention overwhelmingly polite, feels like we’ve gone for a picnic on her comments page with a G&T in one hand and a Cochrane review in the other.
michael said,

February 8, 2009 at 6:40 pm

having just re-listened to some of the segments on youtube I’m struck by how inconsistent and incoherent Jeni’s reasoning is on the show. It’s a testament to how far out of her depth she was that the goalposts are constantly shifting, making it impossible for any of the informed callers to make any real inroads when trying to reason with her. The biggest contradiction seems to be the changes in how she ‘frames’ children’s natural immunity - at one point they are robust, healthy beings who should be able to handle a mere virus like measles naturally. Later we are all delicate little animals, sensitive to the tiniest of changes and (apparently) forced to run up and down stairs following a cup of coffee! Even the status of her own child changes by the moment, at one point she has immunity issues leading to Jeni choosing not to immunise her, then when Yasmin pointed out that they would wait until she was well enough to be immunised, her child is suddenly completely healthy and does not need such trivial things as vaccinations. Similarly, at one point she asks why we don’t get single jabs, yet many of her arguments seem to be anti-vaccinations overall and not just MMR. The problem with all of this is that it makes her arguments unfalsifiable; we cannot demonstrate to Jeni that her theory is wrong because her theory is badly formed and incoherent. There are two causes of this: 1. she has not got a medical/scientific background, and 2. she has patently failed to research the topic thoroughly beforehand. This latter point to me was her chief failing and led to my Ofcom complaint, since I think as a broadcaster it is absolutely no excuse to air such unresearched theory simply because you are ‘a mother’.
stmonan said,

February 8, 2009 at 6:53 pm

I am a lawyer specialising in copyright but I just read this site as a hobby and please don’t take this as formal advice but rather some off-the-cuff thoughts.

What you are doing is something you could credibly argue is permissible under section 29 of the CDPA as fair dealing in material for the purpose of criticism and review. As others have observed. the one thing which is tricky here is the length of material you seem to have made available. If part of the criticism you were making related to the sheer length of the diatribe in question that may be a factor as it’s part of the nature of your criticism and review.

In order to avail yourself of this you would need to ensure that the source of material was clearly acknowledged - i.e. reference LBC as the source - which it sounds like you have done.

Here is a quote from Lord Denning explaining how ‘fair dealing’ works - interestingly, in the context of someone who had criticised L Ron Hubbard for some aspects of his teachings:

“It is impossible to define what is “fair dealing.” It must be a question of degree. You must consider first the number and extent of the quotations and extracts. Are they altogether too many and too long to be fair? Then you must consider the use made of them. If they are used as a basis for comment, criticism or review, that may be fair dealing. If they are used to convey the same information as the author, for a rival purpose, that may be unfair. Next, you must consider the proportions. To take long extracts and attach short comments may be unfair. But, short extracts and long comments may be fair. Other considerations may come to mind also. But, after all is said and done, it must be a matter of impression. As with fair comment in the law of libel, so with fair dealing in the law of copyright. The tribunal of fact must decide. In the present case, there is material on which the tribunal of fact could find this to be fair dealing.”

Hope this helps, happy to be emailed if that would be useful.
The Milligan said,

February 8, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Just as an afterthought Ben, what has all this done for the sales of your MMR T-shirts?

I know I bought one!!
The Milligan said,

February 8, 2009 at 8:51 pm

> EleanorC

Don’t feel bad, I’ve been cross-posting from my blog to hers ever since this hit the fan.

No sign of anything yet.

Mine probably isn’t as polite as yours though.

“The Barmy Broadcast” and “The LBC Idiot” probably got it spiked.
lightbulb said,

February 8, 2009 at 11:44 pm

I’m not a lawyer but I studied law (not copyright). Just to continue on the arguments about length of the extract (see stmonan above).
The problem that taking a small extract from the broadcast can be considered as biased: Jenni may have ranted about someone or may have been mistaken about one element in the broadcast in a broadcast fully in favour of the MMR. Taking just one sample (the wrong one) would therefore have been unfair towards Jenni and taking things out of context. The only way to prove that this was not a ‘one-off’ but a sustained and systematic problem would therefore have required several longer extracts. The argument that transcripts would have done the job is not valid. Transcripts can not convey the emotions, tonality and context that an audio extract offers. It can only be fair that audio extracts are used when audio is used as the initial medium.

Apart from this: for the e-mailing and writing public, you may want to follow the money. Write to the owners of LBC: http://www.thisisglobal.com/radio/contact-us/
I’m sure they are happy to hear from you.
bunky said,

February 9, 2009 at 3:04 am

Just a quick one to note that Ars Technica have frontpaged the story now: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/when-bad-science-meets-the-law.ars

I tried to listen to the audio but it was so rage inducing I had to turn it off ._.;;

Keep up the good work Ben and everyone - much appreciated.
placidw said,

February 9, 2009 at 6:28 am

I’ve just graduated from law school, and anything I could tell you about law has already been better explained by more experienced lawyer-commenters, but I do think it would be a good idea to go to an academic bookshop, get a decent intellectual property treatise and read the relevant parts on copyright infringement and defenses. They’re often pretty accessible and much more complete than the copyright books targeted at non-lawyers, especially when it comes to fair use defences (which are notoriously ambiguous). If nothing else, it’ll arm you with a little confidence and you’ll know if they’re trying to walk over you and what arguments they’ll have to pay attention to.

You’ll still come across legalese that you don’t understand, but it’ll almost always relate to procedural issues of litigation rather than substantive IP law. That’s not to say that it’s not important, but you can google it for a general idea of what it means as long as you’re just reading it.
cathyb said,

February 9, 2009 at 10:29 am

Following a link from this discussion, I see “LBC in legal warning to Ben Goldacre” is still prominent on the Press Gazette website, accompanied by seriously misinformed but unchallenged comments, eg from one long post:

“When we had measles vaccines alone there was no fuss.

When we had infants exposed to 3 live viruses at once there was a 50 fold rise in autism.”

If this is a site used by lots of media people, maybe a Bad-Sciencer with the facts at their fingertips could reply, rather than leaving it unchallenged? http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43020&c=1
Svetlana Pertsovich said,

February 9, 2009 at 11:48 am

The struggle with the epidemics of measles in the world and decuman protective role of vaccination.

http://dinoquest-3.blogspot.com/2009/02/epidemics-of-measles-in-world-great.html
Jessicathejourno said,

February 9, 2009 at 11:52 am

Yeah, she’s crazy, you should publish what you want.

Anyways, what’s wrong with single injections? Anytime I get any sort of immunization I feel like shit afterwards and I imagine kids do too, so perhaps if there’d be no significant problem with it I’d rather they got one at a time.

Oh, and pre-emptively: I’m allowed to not know if there is a significant problem with single shots because A) I want to know B) I don’t cover medical issues and hence am not yet criminally misleading the public C) I don’t have any children I’m not jabbing and hence helping out with the rebirth of epidemics. So please don’t get shirty.
emen said,

February 9, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Svetlana, thank you for this link.

A few months ago, when we were discussing the measles issue on another thread here, I found a very similar picture in Hungary. Hungary has the system of compulsury vaccination, and as a result they haven’t had a case of measles since 2002.

I have a feeling that the idea of compulsory vaccination and force-vaccinating will not be seriously considered in the UK, since it is all about informed choice here, but I think it is a good idea to at least mention it.
spk76 said,

February 9, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Jessicathejourno: single vaccinations have many problems:

1. the child is unprotected against the other 2 diseases after having the first jab

2. 6 jabs are required overall instead of just 2 (consider the time, cost and inconvenience of getting children to clinics for 3 times as many jabs)

3. the safety and efficacy of single jabs isnot proven, i.e. they do not have the decades of evidence and monitoring that the triple jab has had internationally

4. single jabs are more costly than the triple jab (good for Big Pharma, bad for the NHS)

5. the triple jab is free on the NHS, single jabs can only be obtained privately at a cost

Overall, the introduction of single jabs would be expensive, would not offer the same level of protection as MMR, and is simply an unjustified measure that panders only to the media hysteria and not to clinical evidence.

See, not shirty at all.
ama said,

February 9, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Hi, all, please let me tell you some new background information: A 12 year old French girl died in Geneva recently (January 29th.) of measles encephalitis. She was not vaccinated. She had previously been in good health.

[*QUOTE*]
————————————————————————
Une jeune fille de 12 ans, jusqu’alors en bonne santé, est décédée le 29 janvier dernier aux Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève d’une encéphalite due à la rougeole. La jeune fille habitait en France, à proximité de la frontière Suisse. Elle n’était pas vaccinée. Ce cas tragique confirme que la rougeole est une maladie dangereuse, souligne l’OFSP.

Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | February 8, 2009 12:29 PM
————————————————————————
[*/QUOTE*]

more:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/why_am_i_not_surprised_it_looks_as_thoug.php

more in Orac’s blog:
http://www.orac.me

To add more beef, we were donated a new domain:

http://www.oust-jeni-barnett.com

There we have A LOT of free space. Do come in and join us!

ama
emen said,

February 9, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Michael, I also noticed what you point out:

“at one point she asks why we don’t get single jabs, yet many of her arguments seem to be anti-vaccinations overall and not just MMR”

Jeni is clearly a homeopathy fan (”allopathic” is a word that homeopathy uses to describe ANYthing that is not homeopathic, so if anybody ever uses it, you can be quite certain where they are coming from).

A lot of homeopaths (although I guess not all of them and not just them) are against ALL vaccination, not just the MMR. Don’t underestimate the number of parents who choose not to allow their kids to have ANY of the jabs.

But my problem is: can homeopathy then cure or prevent measles? or diptheria? Because it is one thing to tell parents that “natural immunity is better than putting artificial substances into your baby’s body”, another one to then take responsibility for treating the disease if the child gets it.

I think it is tragic the way “MMR can cause autism” turned into “all jabs will cause some harm”. I’m personally very happy to live in the 21st century, vaccinated against measles and all, have access to antibiotics etc etc and have no desire to go back to the Middle Ages.
More importantly, I don’t think any parent should be allowed to put their children’s life at risk this way. Parents are not allowed to kill their children, even if they are of the opinion that being dead is not a problem, really.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
.
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2009, 10:12:10 PM »

After having erased the comments on her web-site Jeni Barnett spits again:

http://www.jenibarnett.com/2009/02/mmr_and_me.php

[*QUOTE*]
---------------------------------------------------
Posted by Jeni in | 5 February 2009

Dear All,

The reaction to the interview about the MMR jab is growing like a fungus.

I am not a scientist, I would not claim to be a scientist. When tested on the contents of the MMR vaccine I told the truth. I did not have the facts to hand. Was I ill informed? Yes.As a responsible broadcaster I should have been better prepared as a parent, however, I can fight my corner. I don't know everything that goes into cigarettes but I do know they are harmful.

As a professional should I have been better prepared - YES - but the discussion took off in a direction I hadn't expected when I received a vicious phone call from a Nurse I was utterly thrown. I won't get thrown again.

I find it interesting that the vitriol that comes out of the pro MMR lobby is precisely why Allopathic medicine is struggling. Most of us who seek alternatives allow others their position but often the 'others' have a real problem allowing us ours.

Doesn't change my mind though. The fact that I decided not to have my child jabbed was my decision alone. And it is a lonely decision. To be singled out and held totally responsible for a measles, mumps or rubella 'epidemic' is clearly ludicrous.

Single jabs on demand? Why is that a problem?

Injecting tiny babies with substances that may compromise their immune system needs to be looked at not shouted down.

And I do not accept that my position, as a radio broadcaster, is irresponsible if I should choose to share my own personal dilemma. I would like some of my critics to try and run a three hour programme.

I am interested in the debate not a witch hunt.

Should anybody from BAD SCIENCE read this I urge you to continue the debate, and if it gets too heated there is always the option of turning me off.
Post your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, there may be a delay before your comment is shown. Thanks for waiting.)
---------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Just look here:

[*QUOTE*]
---------------------------------------------------
As a professional should I have been better prepared - YES - but the discussion took off in a direction I hadn't expected when I received a vicious phone call from a Nurse I was utterly thrown.
---------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


WHO was that nurse? I listened to the record in full lenght and there was a nurse, yes, but vicious she was not!

Even after having been bombarded with tons of arguments, Jeni Barnett still dares do spit. In German there is the expression "Kodderschnauze". Sorry, I don't know how to translate that.

Ben Goldacre was right from the beginning. Things like these must be brought into public.
.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 10:13:13 PM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2009, 04:01:20 PM »

.


Jeni Barnett erased some stuff from her web-site.

But this does not help. The netizens are on her heels.

And so are we:





.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 04:03:40 PM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2009, 09:44:43 PM »

Oh,see,  Missis Bigmouth is back again:


http://www.jenibarnett.com/

[*QUOTE*]
---------------------------------------------------
Brits and me

Posted by Jeni in | 18 February 2009

i am writing this on my tiny little lap-top that the old man bought and set up for me.

I feel like I'm Japanese.

I'm sitting in the cottage kitchen, Jim's winding up his clockwork torch and I'm all yelled out from watching the BRITS.

Much too old for screaming youth, although I do like a lot of them young folk.

Today I talked to Tony Benn. If I can be as radical and cool as he is at 84 then I will be a very contented oap.

that's it I'm off to me bed and DEWEY, a fine autobiography about a librarian and her cat. It's purrfect reading.

Thank you all for welcoming me back.

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Neigh, neigh thrice neigh

Posted by Jeni in Ad Infinitum | 17 February 2009

Like the proverbial Phoenix I am crawling out of the ashes.

I have been battered, bruised, berated and bullied. But now, with the help of my friends and family I am ready to rock and roll.

I have a new hair cut.

I have my husband back for another few days.

I have a daughter who has finally decided to do some work.

I have a step-daughter-party-organiser whose doing my 60th.

I have a literary agent who believes in me.

I have a brand new tiny laptop which the old git is setting up for me.

I have a head full of stoires.

I have a head full of exhaustion,

The main thing is I am now back in the saddle.

Shall we have a little canter tomorrow?

I think so.

Hey up from the old nag.

cu2morrer
---------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Okay, folks, let the tides roll...
.
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1145
Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2009, 03:34:19 AM »

Oh, watta fun!

http://www.jenibarnett.com/2009/02/neigh_neigh_thrice_neigh.php#comments

[*QUOTE*]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neigh, neigh thrice neigh

Posted by Jeni in Ad Infinitum | 17 February 2009

Like the proverbial Phoenix I am crawling out of the ashes.

I have been battered, bruised, berated and bullied. But now, with the help of my friends and family I am ready to rock and roll.

I have a new hair cut.

I have my husband back for another few days.

I have a daughter who has finally decided to do some work.

I have a step-daughter-party-organiser whose doing my 60th.

I have a literary agent who believes in me.

I have a brand new tiny laptop which the old git is setting up for me.

I have a head full of stoires.

I have a head full of exhaustion,

The main thing is I am now back in the saddle.

Shall we have a little canter tomorrow?

I think so.

Hey up from the old nag.

cu2morrer
Comments

1. At February 18, 2009 12:15 AM Pauline Jones wrote:

Oh welcome back, we've worried about you and missed you. Looking forward to the canter....

2. At February 18, 2009 7:48 AM Karen wrote:

Good to see you back Jeni - missed you xx

3. At February 18, 2009 8:08 AM hymie wrote:

Hello Jeni,

You and me too!
Nice to have you back. I'm now able to tune into your radio show and I think's it's great, very interesting with many varied topics.

Kind regards,
Hymie x

4. At February 18, 2009 8:37 AM June wrote:

Welcome back Jeni

We missed you.

Love June xx

5. At February 18, 2009 8:41 AM Cathy wrote:

Welcome back :) thought we had lost you in the snow for a while there!

Don't let the b*stards get you down Jen we all still love you no matter what you do, say, wear etc etc

Big hugs to you and 'im indoors xx

6. At February 18, 2009 10:26 AM Lyn Misselbrook wrote:

Yey! Great to see you back in the saddle! Lots of love xxx

7. At February 18, 2009 10:34 AM chrissie wrote:

All better now.
cxx

8. At February 18, 2009 12:59 PM karen wrote:

Giddy up!!!!!!

9. At February 18, 2009 3:30 PM Chris C wrote:

Wonderful to have you back. I'm sure you have loads of ideas yourself, but if you need an idea for a discussion topic, some guys in Ireland (Steorn, of Dublin) have made exciting progress in developing a perpetual motion machine, which could have profound implications for our energy resources in coming years - might be worth looking into.

10. At February 18, 2009 4:09 PM carol wrote:

As you were talking about jam sandwiches today i was making one!
Now that's what i call a connection!!
Great to have you back!

11. At February 18, 2009 7:12 PM Marmite wrote:

Jeni, it's great to have you back my lovely, all your regular bloggers missed you loads.
Love ya
Marmite xx

12. At February 19, 2009 12:35 PM Buggy wrote:

I really feel sorry for you. First all the trouble about the MMR broadcast, and then that odd server hiccup that deleted several posts from your blog ... luckily some kind soul has archived them for you, so it shouldn't be too hard to restore.
[LINK: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/jeni-barnett-have-you-lost-something.html ]


13. At February 19, 2009 1:51 PM Vince wrote:

@ Chris, comment 9:

I think that's best saved for the April 1st show.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Ha, ha, what a reald good BLACK HUMOR!

[*QUOTE*]
--------------------------------------------------------------
12. At February 19, 2009 12:35 PM Buggy wrote:

I really feel sorry for you. First all the trouble about the MMR broadcast, and then that odd server hiccup that deleted several posts from your blog ... luckily some kind soul has archived them for you, so it shouldn't be too hard to restore.
[LINK: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/jeni-barnett-have-you-lost-something.html ]

--------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Stupiditiy rulez on in London... :-)
.
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

Ayumi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 777
Re: Fight against Jeni Barnett !
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2020, 11:36:24 AM »

Ob Jeni Barnett Covid-19 überlebt?

Die Natur hat einen besonderen Humor.

Warten wir es ab...  8)
Logged

Écrasez l'infâme!
Pages: [1]