Antivaccine nonsense Autism Medicine Pseudoscience Skepticism/critical thinking

Get out the popcorn! Leslie Manookian attacks fellow antivaxer James Lyons-Weiler

I always love a good crank fight, and we seem to be witnessing an entertaining one, as Leslie Manookian attacks fellow antivaxer James Lyons-Weiler for not being antivaccine enough. Get out the popcorn!

I’ve been blogging about the antivaccine movement now for over 13 years, and before that I had been refuting its misinformation online on Usenet and other discussion forums for nearly five years. So I think I have quite a bit of perspective on what constitutes being “antivaccine.” Admittedly, I sometimes liken antivaccine pseudoscience to pornography, echoing Brennan’s famous statement about how I know it when I see it. I’ve also rarely been wrong. Still, just because it’s difficult to articulate exactly what constitutes antivaccine views doesn’t mean that I don’t like to show you examples, so that, hopefully, you too can learn to recognize it when you see it.

One of the biggest lies told by antivaxers it that they are not antivaccine. I suppose that in some cases it’s possible that they actually believe that they are not antivaccine and are deluding themselves otherwise, but most of the time I sense the “I’m not antivaccine” gambit as a ploy, as PR. Being antivaccine is viewed highly negatively by most people, and rightly so. Antivaxers know this. They also know that it’s better to represent themselves as being vaccine safety activists, hence Jenny McCarthy’s famous claim, “I’m not ‘antivaccine,’ I’m pro-safe vaccine.” It was nonsense then, and it’s almost always nonsense now. Indeed, here’s a pro tip: Whenever you hear someone say that, it’s highly accurate indicator that that person is, in fact, antivaccine.

Now, by any stretch of the imagination, James Lyons-Weiler is antivaccine. You might remember him ranting about who killed Colton Berrett Colton Berrett, as you might recall, is the unfortunate teen who developed the rare condition called transverse myelitis that one of his arms useless, the other almost useless, and him on a portable ventilator, paralyzed. Antivaxers blamed it on Gardasil, although the temporal relationship between Colton’s receiving the shot and the onset of his symptoms was tenuous at best. Ultimately, he committed suicide, leading to a “Gardasil killed Colton Berrett” narrative making its way around the Internet. His antivax cred is impeccable, particularly his ability to claim that he’s read far more studies on vaccines than is humanly possible and praising horribly awful antivaccine studies. Yet, in some quarters, he is not sufficiently antivaccine. I kid you not.

I learned that the other day on—where else?—that wretched hive of antivaccine scum and quackery, Age of Autism. There, I found that Leslie Manookian deems James Lyons-Weiler to be insufficiently pure, to be insufficiently antivaccine. Manookian, if you’ll recall, was responsible for the antivaccine propaganda film The Greater Good, routinely spreads antivaccine misinformation, and really, really doesn’t like Dr. Paul Offit. (I’ve even met her. It happened when she was the moderator at a debate about vaccines between Steve Novella and Julian Whitaker.) This time around, she’s really, really unhappy with Lyons-Weiler, asking, in fact, Has James Lyons-Weiler Lost It?

Get out the popcorn. I love it when two antivaxers go at it:

In his recent article, “New York Times Has Lost It,” James Lyons-Weiler wrote that, “Mandates without exemptions create a situation where those who are destined to be injured by vaccines will be found, and injured, with mathematical certainty” – a line of reasoning he’s employed before.

So he’s advocating for mandates as long as there are exemptions? Really? What about freedom and bodily autonomy? What about first do no harm? I wonder how any educated reader can take him seriously when he espouses such dangerous ideas.

Methinks Ms. Manookian can’t read very well. I read Lyons-Weiler’s article. It’s about as far from “advocating for mandates” as you can imagine. Basically, he’s not “advocating for mandates.” Rather, he’s grudgingly accepting school vaccine mandates, but only if there are exemptions. Does this sound like he’s advocating for vaccine mandates? I think not:

California is the worst possible example for other states to follow. The New York Times has lost their collective minds. Mandates without exemptions create a situation where those who are destined to be injured by vaccines will be found, and injured, with mathematical certainty.

Mandates for vaccines are, for some,

Mandatory death sentences, for having the wrong genes.

Mandated Guillan Barre Syndrome.

Mandated lifetime paralysis.

Mandated lifetime autoimmunity.

Mandated food allergies.

Mandated encephalopathy, leading to autism, for millions.

Mandated tics.

Mandated seizures.

Mandated job loss, for exercising their rights to informed consent.

Autism rates in CA jumped 7% in CA.

I would recommend not reading the New York Times until they retract their call for injury and death in a genetic minority of people who, through no fault of their own, are susceptible to vaccine injury.

This does not sound like an endorsement of vaccine mandates to me, but a demand that, if there must be mandates, there must be nonmedical exemptions. But that’s just me. Being someone who’s always thought that nonmedical exemptions to school vaccine mandates should be restricted to as few as possible, if no eliminated altogether, I did not read the passage above and see it as any sort of endorsement of school vaccine mandates. Quite the contrary.

Maybe Ms. Manookian was “triggered” by this:

The majority who benefits from the suffering of a minority should protect the minority, and lift them up as heroes, not toss them to the side and deny their suffering and mandate that more people be injured because vaccine injuries are causing “vaccine hesitancy”.

On the surface, it looks as though Lyons-Weiler is actually admitting that vaccines do good. After all, consider what he’s saying here: The majority benefit from vaccines, but there’s a minority who suffer “vaccine injuries.” On one level, he’s not entirely wrong. There is such a thing as vaccine injury. It is very rare, but it exists. Of course, you and I know that Lyons-Weiler doesn’t mean that. He thinks that vaccines cause autism, neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, and all manner of other health issues, but even to him the children affected by “vaccine injury” represent a minority. I suspect that the contention that most children benefit from vaccines is what really bothered Ms. Manookian, who did not react well:

Vaccines injure all who receive them. ALL. There is no such thing as a safe dose of mercury or aluminum or many of the other toxins. There is no science proving what that level is. Any scientist who argues that only some individuals are susceptible to vaccine injury despite any science to substantiate this assertion is not a true scientist. Mercury, aluminum, and all the other poisons in vaccines don’t miraculously become health promoting when contained in a vaccine. Advocating for mandates with exemptions for those “susceptible few” sounds like a vaccine maker’s dream come true, doesn’t it? How’s that working out in California where there’s a veritable witch hunt for doctors who write medical exemptions?

Pro tip: Now that’s antivaccine. She won’t even accept a common antivaccine trope that vaccines are safe for most, but that there are “susceptible” individuals who, through genetic predisposition, suffer extreme “injury” due to vaccines, viewing that idea as a boon to pharmaceutical companies:

Your first goal would be to manage the conversation so that you could retain control of the market. And how would you do that? Simply concede that there are indeed a “few susceptible” individuals and recommend testing to determine who’s susceptible. Then you reap all the kudos of being the good guy while deflecting away from the true issue of poisonous, failing vaccines.

Next, you create the tests to determine those “few susceptible” individuals. (Lyons-Weiler’s stated goal in other communications.) This is vital as you not only replace your lost profits from conceding some people are harmed you retain control of the conversation. You develop a test or two. You say it’s all genetic. You say the form of mercury in vaccines isn’t the problem – it’s your genes. You pay scientists to conduct studies and ghost write papers saying the aluminum is nothing to worry about. The media aids you in this endeavor, as they are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the corporations and state. The uneducated and naïve public buys the story because the vaccine makers “did the right thing” and we skip merrily along towards complete loss of freedoms.

See what I mean? Ms. Manookian doesn’t accept even that vaccines are safe for most children. Rather, she thinks vaccines are dangerous to each and every child who receives them and that vaccines harm each and every child who receives them. No exceptions. None. She even goes so far to portray the very idea that only a minority of children are susceptible to “vaccine injury” as a triumph of pro-vaccine forces, in which scientists can claim to develop tests to identify who is and isn’t susceptible to such “injuries.”

Pro tip: That’s antivaccine.

Don’t believe me? Check this out:

Vaccines today are NOT safe, period. Everyone deserves bodily autonomy, period. There is, and never will be, a place for medical mandates of any kind in a free society. The sooner our community starts calling out those who defend vaccines, vaccine mandates, and the practice of vaccination, the better.

To Manookian, vaccines are just plain dangerous. Always. In a previous interview, she demonstrated this inadvertently by listing a number of requirements that she sees as necessary before she views vaccines as safe:

  1. All ingredients must be studied singly and in combination with all other ingredients to prove safety.
  2. Vaccines must be studied singly and in all combinations in which they might be administered to prove safety.
  3. Vaccine trials must use a true placebo not another vaccine or active substance like mercury or aluminum.
  4. The cumulative effects of the vaccine schedule must be studied to determine long-term impact.
  5. A vaccinated versus unvaccinated study must be conducted to ascertain long-term health outcomes of the continuously expanding schedule.
  6. The impact of vaccine ingredients on our genetic makeup must be determined.
  7. The risks of the culture media in which vaccines are grown and the long-term impact on the human body must be determined.
  8. An ‘active’ adverse reactions monitoring system must be implemented.
  9. Vaccines must not be fast tracked.

The first one is, of course, a variation of the “toxins” gambit. By implying that there are all sorts of “toxins” in vaccines and insisting that all ingredients be studied individually and then in combination, she is, whether she realizes it or not, setting up a standard that is so cumbersome and lengthy as to be totally impractical. It’s unnecessary as well. For instance, we know that formaldehyde, one of the most commonly demonized “chemical” ingredients of vaccines is safe at the dose used because the human body makes formaldehyde as a normal byproduct of metabolism and there is far more formaldehyde in a baby’s body at any given time than there is in any vaccine. #2 is, of course, a variant of #1. Vaccines are, of course, studied in combination with the existing vaccine schedule. I’m not sure what she meant by “in all combinations in which they might be administered,” but clearly she is talking a lot of combinations. This, too, would be so time consuming and expensive as to be totally impractical. Similarly, #7 is a variant that pushes the goalposts back to the culture medium used to grow the cells that produce the viruses used to derive the vaccine. Never mind that the culture media is removed, except for traces.

#3, of course, is another bogus antivaccine that I’ve addressed on multiple other occasions.

#4, #5, and #6 are antivaccine tropes that follow a common theme, that somehow vaccines are causing some sort of long term injury. Of course, it’s not true that there haven’t been “vaccinated versus unvaccinated studies.” That is a myth. Ironically, existing “vaccinated/unvaccinated” studies not only don’t support the antivaccine view that vaccinated children are unhealthier, if anything they lean towards supporting the opposite. As for #6, again I don’t even know what Manookian means by the “impact of vaccine ingredients on our genetic makeup” but it sure sounds a lot like General Ripper’s concern about how fluoride in water will “sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.” My guess is that she’s probably invoking that antivaccine misuse of epigenetics, as antivaxers are wont to do without knowing what they are talking about.

But what about the lack of an active monitoring system for vaccines? Well, that’s just not true, either. Yes, the most famous system, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive system. However, there are at least two active systems, one run by the FDA called PRISM (Post-licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring System) and the VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink), which is run by the CDC. Around the world, there are a number of other active surveillance systems examining vaccine safety, although some are not restricted to vaccines and examine drug safety in general. Examples include Canadian systems, such as the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) and the Vaccine and Immunization Surveillance in Ontario (VISION); European systems, such as the Exploring and Understanding Adverse Drug Reactions by Integrative Mining of Clinical Records and Biomedical Knowledge (EU-ADR) Alliance and the Vaccine Adverse Event Surveillance and Communication (VAESCO); Asian, such as the Pharmacoepidemiology Network (AsPEN) and the Shanghai Drug Monitoring and Evaluative System (SDMES); and the UK, such as the Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines (VRMM) Division and the Drug Safety Research Unit (DSRU), an independent academic unit.

Basically, antivaxers who claim there are no active surveillance systems for adverse events for vaccines do not know what they are talking about or are lying. There is no third option.

Of course, James Lyons-Weiler was not pleased by this attack by a fellow antivaxer. He showed up in the comments to complain:

I greatly appreciate your work and dedication. But you really missed the mark on this one. Of course, it is not a genetic minority that is damaged by vaccines or who carry all the risk. You know there are glyphosate and biologically incompatible nanoparticles (and who knows what else) in these drugs. Having great genes (whatever that means) will not protect against these contaminants. Then there is the damage done by artificial man made immune system stimulation and all the crap in these drugs that genes have nothing to do with. Your thesis is oversimplified and just incorrect and that isn’t like you. I hope you rethink your position.

Actually, Manookian’s “thesis” (such as it is) is exactly liker her. Still, what do you call a man who thinks that vaccines are full of all sorts of horrific toxins and that it is “not a genetic minority that is damaged by vaccines or who carry all the risk”? What do you call a woman who thinks that vaccines harm all children? Antivaccine, of course. As I said, I know it when I see it.

And I do so love a good fight between antivaxers. Get out the popcorn.

ADDENDUM: And James Lyons-Weiler has fired back this morning by asserting his antivaccine purity and claiming he never argued that vaccine mandates are acceptable. Quite the contrary, he calls them unethical and unscientific. This is getting good.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

48 replies on “Get out the popcorn! Leslie Manookian attacks fellow antivaxer James Lyons-Weiler”

In his response he called vaccines ״filthy, nasty vials of toxic sludge.” Claiming he is not anti vaccine is implausible, given that.

He does also claim to be an objective scientist.

At least they’re both in the open on their hatred for vaccines, as you showed.

Monitoring wise I also want to mention CISA, which is a partnership focused on studies of vaccines safety with an emphasis on those who might be at risk of adverse events – something antivaccine activists say isn’t done.

Any scientist who argues that only some individuals are susceptible to vaccine injury despite any science to substantiate this assertion

That’s very awkwardly worded. She seems to be saying that even if the scientific evidence says that most individuals are not injured by vaccines, the evidence is wrong. But that’s par for the course for an antivaxxer.

How’s that working out in California where there’s a veritable witch hunt for doctors who write medical exemptions?

Hm. Wasn’t that “witch hunt” because several doctors (I’m looking at you Doctor Jay) were issuing false medical exemptions?

I guess it’s true on some level. For example, a completely healthy person could get an infection at the injection site and develop sepsis. But then again, that’s a reason not to get chelation therapy and intravenous turmeric as well, and that doesn’t seem to bother them.

Heck, it was clear that Lyons-Weiler had lost it when he started ranting about the N.Y. Times supposedly calling for “mandatory death for a genetic minority”, or labeling Sanjay Gupta’s call for ramping up global flu vaccine production capabilities as “eco-medical hegemony”.

The fact that there are even more nutty antivax loons does not make L-W rational.

Two anti-vaxxers vying for “dumber and dumbest”–that’s a 10 lb bag of popcorn right there.

it is truly stunning the depths of stupidity attained by the denizens of AoA. Today Dachel claims (with no actual refutation, of course) that scientists and the media and wrongly report (and for nefarious purposes) that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome may affect up to 5% of children in the US. That much higher revised figure probably causes a lot of uneasiness with the TMR group that strongly supports AoA, and who so love to rave about their own consumption of spirits whilst showing how they just know that vaccines are the root cause of everything wrong with the children.

If you point out that Lyons-Weiler is anti-vax on facebook he just immediately blocks you. He’s very sensitive about it on pages like the CDC, and then get’s upset when other anti-vaxxers say he’s not anti-vax enough. He runs about shouting about how anti-vax he is.

I assume that he’s actually just an emotionally fragile, paranoid educated individual that lacks objectivity due to a life event or peer influence. I’d say he’s also smarter than the vast majority of anti-vax “doctors” and “scientists”. He just lacks the personal control to sit down and write the proposals for funding from the CSMRI like the others do.

I just had a scary thought. What if Lyons-Weiler is actually…one of us??

Just yesterday I was listening to the classic radio channel on Sirius, and they were running an episode of the hilariously overwrought ’50s series “I Was A Communist For The F.B.I.” with Dana Andrews.

Could it be that Lyons-Weiler is only posing as an antivaxer, and had an unfortunate slip revealing his true motives?

Might his next book* be titled “I Was An Antivaxer For The C.D.C.”???!?!?

*or movie, released by Orac Productions and bankrolled by Merck.

I LOVE “I Was a Communist for the FBI.” So hilariously over-the-top. Of course, it’s a useful historical lesson to listen to the show because it’s a startling demonstration of just how powerful the paranoia about the Communists and the Soviet Union was in the early 1950s. Remember, the producers of the show were dead serious. The show was not meant in any way to be campy or overwrought, no matter how campy and overwrought it sounds to 2018 ears.

I highly doubt, though, that Lyons-Weiler is an antivaxer for the CDC. He’s just not smart enough.

Just finished reading the book High Noon by Glenn Frankel. It’s disturbing how many lives and careers were ruined by the blacklist and anti-communist hysteria. Something similar could easily happen again.

One of the biggest lies told by antivaxers it that they are notantivaccine. I suppose that in some cases it’s possible that they actually believe that they are antivaccine and are deluding themselves otherwise….

Not pedantry? My not yet having had coffee?

IIRC ,JLW used to comment at RI:
he argued against vaccination insidiously, cautiously expressing his doubts. He was a scientist! Then, he started showing up in comments at AoA. and eventually, writing posts there and elsewhere.

Sometimes they show their tracks..

-btw- I really enjoy the concept of being undercover for the CDC or SBM.
I’ve often thought – jokingly of course- that one of Orac’s minions would be hilarious as a “citizen journalist” for Mikey or a film editor for Gary Null.
Imagine the possibilities!
Providing written material that makes sense! Editing errors OUT of documentaries! Changing scripts so that they reflect reality!

IIRC ,JLW used to comment at RI

You have recalled correctly. He started out “reasonable” here, then went full antivaxx. I remember responding to and refuting him several times, even though I don’t recall the exact details. I wasn’t the only one who slapped him down either.

I looked at JLW’s Linked In, website, twitter and am trying to figure out exactly what he does for a living; it looks like he used to be involved in research.
He is CEO of his own company and he writes books. AND?

Something looks amiss here.

This third-person autobiography is hilarious.

He published twelve papers as a result of his PhD research, and quickly became recognized as a thought leader in the area of complex analysis in biological systems.

What would be better would be adding “MPU” to his credentials.

He served as the founding Editor-in-Chief of his brainchild journal, the open access, rigorously peer-reviewed journal, Cancer Informatics.

Left out “third-tier,” bro.

His favorite classes were biology, geometry, history, music, and creative writing.

He appears now to concentrate on the final one of those.

Then again, if his autobiography is anything to go by, his mixing of the passive and active voice suggests that he’s forgotten the basics of good writing,

You know there are glyphosate and biologically incompatible nanoparticles (and who knows what else) in these drugs.

It seems that Stephanie Seneff has created a backreaction.

“The uneducated and naïve public buys the story”

Ms Manookian uses that word uneducated; I do not think it means what she thinks it means. Because facts don’t matter to them there is nothing about the antivaccine cult that has anything to do with education . She also is apparently unaware that shunning a fellow member for not being true to the cause is a classic behavioural aspect of a cult; this morning’s response by JLW indicates his fear of being excluded from the cult. It’s apparent from their writing that both have had a formal education. That hasn’t prevented them from abandoning facts for dogma.

It is possible that polio will be eradicated within the next 3 years without any of Ms Manookian’s requirements. That wouldn’t have happened without vaccines, and nothing the antivaccine cult is doing will help eradicate the next VPD.

@ Moose:

I find it quite enlightening that people I survey decry the sorry state of education. it seems that they just can’t understand how scientists keep doing studies that DON’T show vaccine injuries or how DEADLY glyphosate is or why organic food is the only way to go. They have to assume that Orac, Dr Offit and many others must be being paid off to cite such BAD studies as they do.

The two chief offenders I observe frequently brag of their own brilliant education as they mispronounce words like “methane” or write hip hop lyrics that would shame any 10 year old who posts on you tube..

BUT I hear this criticism CONSTANTLY: it appears more likely to me that the so-called worrisome situation in education may guarantee that the have a ready supply of followers and buyers for their woo.

“Autism rates in CA jumped 7% in CA.”

My goodness, JLW did actually write that. I hope he doesn’t do this for a living.

From where I sit, this looks like a case of dueling straw men.

Most if not all US states have some kind of vaccination requirement. That’s just the status quo, and I don’t see that JLW is advocating it, but rather stating the fact.

Of those states, a grand total of 0 lack mechanisms for getting the requirements waived on medical grounds. There are three (CA, MS, and WV) where that is the only circumstance under which the vaccination requirements can be waived.

One thing California has that MS and WV do not is a supply of doctors willing to certify dubious medical exemptions. I suspect this is because California has a fair number of anti-vax parents with enough financial resources to support these doctors’ medical practices, while MS and WV do not have such parents (at least not in sufficient numbers to make a material difference).

If there were anything to the claims of anti-vaxers about the dangers of vaccines, they would have no difficulty obtaining exemptions on medical grounds, as there would be doctors (MDs, not NDs) who both would be willing to issue the exemptions and accept medical insurance. I am not aware of any such doctors anywhere in the US. You never see this degree of unanimity on any scientific or medical question on which there is a genuine controversy.

I would suggest a duel between the two (maybe we we could throw in a few others), I would suggest as weapons they use hand grenades in a phone booth (if you can remember them).

“#4, #5, and #6 are antivaccine tropes that follow a common theme”

Don’t forget #9, “Vaccines must not be fast tracked”. The idea that vaccines are “fast-tracked” is an article of faith in those circles, so the details of this ‘fast-track’ procedure do not need to be spelled out in detail.

It is OK, Cia Parker has turned up to defend him. Or spam. Or both, it gets a bit hard to tell with Cia.

Is it really that hard to articulate what constitutes antivaccine views? I think antivaccine views can be summed up in only a few words: the advocacy of views against vaccination without a rational, scientific basis to justify them. I think this just about covers everything from the ridiculous notion current in Edward Jenner’s time that getting the smallpox vaccine would literally turn you into a cow, to the the present-day ravings of Manookian and Lyons-Weiler (which, by the way, are not that much of a step up). The only difference is that the people in the 1790s who believed the former had the excuse that vaccination was very new and mainstream medicine still had hardly any science behind it. Manookian, Lyons-Weiler and their compatriots have no such excuse in 2018.

Re: being ‘undercover’:
Well, it used to be a running joke that at least half the editors on Conservapedia (Andrew Schlafly’s attempt at a version of Wikipedia without the ‘liberal bias’) were in fact there to either spy on the place or troll it. That’s one of the things about Poe’s Law: when it becomes impossible to tell the difference between a set of views and a parody of that set of views, it’s often impossible for the actual holders of those views to tell the difference either.

Granted, places like that often end up in purity purges like this, where people get thrown out for heresy, whether they were trolls to start with or not.

The problem with the undercover route, though, is still summed up by Kurt Vonnegut in Mother Night: We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.

James Weiler AKA James Lyin’ Weiler AKA James “Cherry Pickin'” Weiner is having an ABSOLUTE MELTDOWN on Twitter over this blog. It’s hilarious.

First he writes “Every time someone sends me news that some shallow-minded vaccine risk denialist mentions me in one of their onerous blog articles, I groan. I’ve blocked people who use the term “antivax” precisely because they are like parrots aping each other. I don’t want to know, thanks.”

Then he proceeds to ignore everything he just said and go on a multi-tweet angry rant boasting about his resume! Something is very wrong with this guy.


Read most of the rant here:

He blocked me a long time ago. So I didn’t see this. I might have to use my other account to see what he’s up to.

Let’s just put it this way. Now that he’s on my radar, I’ll be paying a LOT more attention to him. ?

I’ve been following him and exposing his BS for months now on my Twitter & FB page.

His new big news is that he got his peer-reviewed paper that “proves” vaccines cause autism published…on a journal he won’t mention. And he needs $2,600 to pay for it to be published so he’s begging his FB followers to donate so he can publish in some pay for play predatory journal.

You must read his rant. It’s epic. He blocked me as well but I had to go read it on my wife’s account.

My favorite is at the end where he calls in “Laura LaRue” another loon and writes “May I beg a favor and ask that you share my comments with Mr. Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity, or whatever troll runs that blog. Be sure to emphasize my gratitude for amplification of my message?”

they are like parrots aping each other

Perhaps he really meant to write “they are like apes parroting each other”.

One more!

“Each vaccine injured child creates 10, 20, 30 vaccine risk aware Americans. I stand by all of my quotes in your pathetic, useless “blog”, and while I should not, I will help your comprehension by pointing to my extensive and reliable use of qualifiers.”

L-W cites the Mark Geier case on Twitter, indicating he could be in line for millions:

“Now see what slurs can get you? Call me “Antivax” no more!”

“They” (the sinister forces opposing L-W) had better watch out.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading