From: Jan Drew on
Proven liar, harasser, and spammer Peter Bowditch
> Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:
> >On Jan 31, 5:55?pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)> wrote:
> >> On Jan 31, 4:19?pm, "john" <nos...(a)> wrote:
> >> >
> >> You mean the Al Queada of Autism, don't you? They are as credible as
> >> the site.
> >Speaking of credible....................
> >In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
> >Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
> >Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.
> >92-02731
> KACHING!! Disbarred lawyer.
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> The Millenium Project
> Australian Council Against Health Fraud
> To email me use my first name only at
> Sponsor me in the World's Greatest Shave

Why would anyone in their right mind want to sponsor a liar, harasser,
and spammer???

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,670 for Peter Bowditch KACHING. (0.36

The itch has a problem. Kaching never worked, and never will.
No proof anyone ever send any money.

From: Jan Drew on
On Feb 1, 6:18�am, "john" <nos...(a)> wrote:
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)> wrote in message
> news:1ubcm5lpf4fgtls2n7nulr1f8bdtit686t(a)
> > Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:
> >>
> > KACHING!! Anti-vaccination liar site.
> KACHING!! � Logical fallacy from proven liar

Correct. Not to mention the itch does it when he cannot stand the
From: Jan Drew on
On Feb 1, 3:14�pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)> wrote:
> "john" <nos...(a)> wrote:
> >"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)> wrote in message
> >news:0cgdm51i7crvqgdf1iaokr8kuado9r2gsd(a)
> >> Please explain how describing an anti-vaccination liar web site as an
> >> anti-vaccination liar site is a logical fallacy. Please do not mention
> >> ad hominem, because that is the wrong answer.
> >but right one, and your opinion isn't worth diddly squat seeing as you are a
> >proven liar
> Thanks. John. I didn't think you would be able to give an answer.

It's right that you don;t think

In FACT he did give an answer exposing you lies.
> --
> Peter Bowditch
Lies and spamming deleted.
From: Jan Drew on
On Jan 31, 8:35 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)> wrote:
> Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:
> >
> KACHING!! Anti-vaccination liar site.


I know you get confused, but I did not post that, John did.

From: "john" <nos...(a)>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:19:30 -0000
Local: Sun, Jan 31 2010 4:19 pm
Subject: Attorney Jim Moody Describes False Testimony at GMC Hearing:
Video Here
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author


Yesterday I was talking w/a neighbor who had vaccinated her (now 9
year old) son according to the CDC "rites" and her son is OK...I was
expecting her to defend her decision but instead she said she knew
was just lucky, knew about the 1 in 60 rate, etc. The truth is out
there and people know it. The Big Liars will be found out.

Posted by: Amanda Blinn | January 31, 2010 at 04:56 PM

Jim, you're magnificent!

Posted by: Alli Edwards UK | January 31, 2010 at 04:23 PM

Nice Speech! Awesome job. One of the signs in the background really
summed it up nicely.

"Guilty of helping our damaged kids".

That's it in a nutshell.

Posted by: A Friend | January 31, 2010 at 11:39 AM

This is nothing short of obscene. I don't know where the greater
frustration lies for me...with the corrupt system, pharma,
initimidated peds--or--the people who ask me to explain what's
happening to us, in this country, in the UK, what is happening to
these doctors. They stand in front of me sort of annoyed as if to
"I guess that's bad...but... what are YOU getting so worked up

The greatest lesson I have learned on this journey so far: The power
of denial is greater than autism itself.

Sidenote--Teresa I have nary a clue what your literary acredentials
are but I must tell you are THE BEST armchair investigative-watchdog
journalist I have ever read! PLEASE KEEP GOING!

Posted by: lj goes | January 31, 2010 at 08:44 AM


Posted by: htbenz | January 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM

Jim Moody summed the proceedings up perfectly, and all Harris could
was throw out the standard, denialist "no evidence" claim.

Posted by: Jake Crosby | January 30, 2010 at 09:51 PM

Red Rover, Red Rover, Let Glaxo and Merk come over. We will stand
stong and not break our bond and you will fail in your greedy plot to
prevent true science from flourishing. We shall overcome with peace,
care, knowledge, and love for the people of the planet.

Posted by: maggie | January 30, 2010 at 09:11 PM

Jim Moody does a fantastic job in explaining the facts about false
testimony and the complaint being presented by many autism
organizations both here and in the UK.

The man with the wild eyes and inappropriate smile is no innocent
bystander. He is Dr. Evan Harris MP who has an interesting
I am sure we will hear more about that but here is a link to a blog
that he started that has some questionable accusations.

This is a part of a post from that blog. It is well written and I
think shows a strategy that Evan and so many others use. She is
directing her comment to Evan:

Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR Scare – Evan on C4 News

"We have asked if we can have the single vaccines on the NHS but have
been told that we cannot even though our doctor said that he could
rule out the possibility that the MMR had contributed to our
daughter’s autism.

I therefore watched the Channel 4 News item with interest. I am well
aware of your stance on this issue which I respect. You are entitled
to your view. Your conduct though I do not find acceptable. Frankly I
do not understand where you are coming from on this. You are
entitled to attack the science, to express your view that the MMR is
safe but I think your are wrong, and in fact do yourself no favours,
when you start attacking the integrity of Andrew Wakefield and others
who share Wakefield’s concerns about the safety of the MMR. You have
stopped playing the ball and are now playing the man.

I personally have no doubt at all that Andrew Wakefield is a decent,
honest man who has genuine concerns about the safety of the MMR and
committed to finding out what has caused the autism and bowel
disorders in children like our daughter. The most serious finding
against him by the GMC is essentially that he treated the children in
the study like guinnea pigs. It is therefore extraordinary, is it
that not one parent of those children has complained about him? Your
comments about the parents being in distress and that he took
advantage of them is the sort of patronising nonsense that I am
is rather typical of the medical profession, and certainly is
something we got in spades from our GP when our daughter was

But more serious. I felt, were your comments about the individual (I
don’t know his name) who appeared on the show alongside you. You
accused him, without showing any evidence to back up your claims, of
seeking to make a profit at the expense of public health by
advocating, and offering single vaccines. In effect you accused him
being motivated purely by money. This is clearly defamatory. How on
earth can you be so sure that money is his primary motive to make
a serious allegation as that on live TV? And you appear to be proud
it too judging from this website! I would like to give our son single
vaccines but cannot. If I wanted to vaccinate my son against measles
would have to go to a private clinic. Can you not see the absurdity
accusing an individual of profiteering in this way, when, if he and
Wakefield and others had their way, the single vaccines would be
available on the NHS? The individual on the wshow came across as a
more reasonable and plasuible person than you.

I have lodged an official complaint about this with your party."

> --
> Peter Bowditch
Now, that I proved it, care to apologize?

Now, here comes the for what?

Oh well, anyone intelligents, and not a gang member will see right
through you OCD.

Btw, still waiting for you to prove the donations you gave.
Can't prove it. No surprise there.
From: Jan Drew on
On Feb 3, 7:13�am, "Rod" <deniecer...(a)> wrote:
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)> wrote in message
> news:548fm5hcg5q1a2hhql435pmcivj4r6s35p(a)
> > Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)> wrote:
> >>On Feb 1, 3:14?pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...(a)> wrote:
> >>> "john" <nos...(a)> wrote:
> >>> >"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...(a)> wrote in message
> >>> >news:0cgdm51i7crvqgdf1iaokr8kuado9r2gsd(a)
> >>> >> Please explain how describing an anti-vaccination liar web site as an
> >>> >> anti-vaccination liar site is a logical fallacy. Please do not
> >>> >> mention
> >>> >> ad hominem, because that is the wrong answer.
> >>> >but right one, and your opinion isn't worth diddly squat seeing as you
> >>> >are a
> >>> >proven liar
> >>> Thanks. John. I didn't think you would be able to give an answer.
> >>It's right that you don;t think
> >>In FACT he did give an answer exposing you lies.
> > KACHING!! Calling me a liar
> But you are a Liar, so Kaching yourself and donate to the Salvation Army.
> Maybe there is hope for you in the future,
> Cheers, rod