What's happened to Ben's website this morning? I hope it's just a glitch and nothing as sinister as a DNS attack.

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).

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.

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

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.

Before you do, send me your e-mail - someone's already done some of it, so no need to replicate the work...

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.

I think it was BoingBoinged. It's back though.

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.

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

So why is this woman listening to a homeopath and not real medical staff.
If she wants to live in the dark ages, then let her.
There is a reason we are now living beyond thirty now and it's not by keeping our fingers crossed!

MMR reduces risk of asthma - New Scientist.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/mmr-vaccine-...

Wow, what unbelievable arrogance - and unbelievable ignorance, particularly her comments vis-a-vis what is so terrible about childhood diseases? How about Measles causing deafness, blindness oh and death of course. I have a cousin deaf from measles.

This page is now the number one result for a "jeni barnett" Google search.

Ouch!

Um . . . Her manner of speaking was pretty normal--not particularly obnoxious. She doesn't screech. She doesn't even raise her voice. I think if she was speaking about a different topic you all wouldn't even notice her delivery. She uses the same tone and delivery when she's talking about event announcements for bands, etc., as when she's discussing the topic of vaccinations.

She admits she's not an expert and asks for people to call in. She's getting dialogue going. How, when she takes this approach, can anyone say that she sounds like she's not interested finding things out? Sure, she's got an opinion going into the discussion, but she does invite people to call in and try to present facts that could convince her to change her mind. Isn't that the normal way to approach things--to try to see if someone else's position can defeat the idea you've already got? She does concede a point or two to callers, so it's not like she's trying to win the argument at all costs.

Throwing out insults and getting so bent out of shape that you won't even listen to what she's actually saying is not a productive or intelligent way to respond to the topic. She's not even saying that we should go back to the Dark Ages--in fact, she says the opposite. She says we do need to use medicine and science to combat diseases. She's only saying vaccines harm some people, we should have the option of whether or not or when to have children vaccinated, and that the benefits and dangers of vaccinations vs. developing natural immunity should remain on the discussion table in light of the evidence we have now. The majority of the responses here (and elsewhere) merely throw out insults and try to get her to shut up. Have the decency to actually discuss the topic, listen to her evidence, and present evidence of your own.

I thought the whole point was that she had no evidence or information of any kind, just an opinion based on pretty much nothing at all. I think the way she cut off the 'vicious nurse' just about summed up the fact that this was not a discussion she wanted once facts started being thrown around by people who knew what they were talking about.

If you think she has evidence for her opinions, let's hear it.