One Click Hacks and Homophobes

22 Feb

As blogged by Anthony at Black Triangle the One Click Group – who say they are:

…a British-based international health advocacy pressure group and worldwide raw news hub…

described Brian Deer and his involvement with the MMR case thusly:

By all accounts a gay man and therefore unlikely ever to have to face the multiple vaccine risk agonised over by parents from around the world in relation to their children…

Nice. Sounds to me like they’re a bunch of homophobic stupidniks to me. As Anthony says:

Even if Deer is homosexual, it does not necessarily mean he has no stake in vaccine safety. Homosexuals are not some mysterious alien presence in our society, they have families which include small children. Homosexuals can even adopt children.

Unless you’re a Daily Mail reading OneClickTwit of course.

They are anti-vaxxers of course and really really don’t like Brain Deer much at all. This makes the JABS loonies recently in evidence in the monumental ‘Wakefield‘ post on this blog big, big fans of theirs naturally. Amusingly, these same JABS loonies have been complaining about the horror of Brian Deer _making_ the news and then _reporting_ on the news regarding Wakefield. Not that he has, but thats how they see it. The amusing thing is that one of the straplines of the OneClickGroup is:

We not only break the news, we also make it.

They also proudly boast of receiving ‘7,000 – 33,000 hits per day’…..woah…big time baby!

Just for fun, I ran LB/RB, JABS and OneClickGroup through the Compete analyser which analyses Unique Visitors (a much more reliable indicator of traffic than ‘hits’):

Sadly, you’ll notice only two lines there. OneClickGroup didn’t generate enough statistics to be measurable.

So, this member of the antivaxosphere, carried on from homophobic attacks on Brian to carrying an alleged ‘out of control’ attack from Brian on their owner/Director/whatever – one Jane Bryant. Here’s how its ‘reported’ on the OneClickGroup website:

Brian Deer Is Out Of Control

On Monday 7 April 2008, with the Defence presentation for Dr Andrew Wakefield at the General Medical Council MMR Vaccine Trial UK concluded, Brian Deer went berserk in the Press Room of the General Medical Council. This incredible aggressive behaviour is not that of a responsible and objective journalist with ethics covering a story in the public interest….I entered the GMC Press Room to discover Deer holding court over what he clearly perceived to be his case with the assembled media. Comfortably sprawled in lounging lizard position

Out of control…went berserk…incredible aggressive…holding court…lounging lizard…

and these descriptives are used before Bryant even _begins_ her description of Brian’s behaviour. Thank goodness for impartial media!

When she does get to that transcript (which has clearly been edited) it reveals _more_ editorialising and less fact.

When asked if Deer was the complainant and if this was his case with the GMC, Deer simply exploded. Springing to his feet, placing his body inches from mine and invading my space, Deer proceeded to threaten, to rant and to jab his fingers close to my face.

Brian Deer: “No! I’ve not complained! I’ve got letters from the GMC saying I’m not the complainant! Ask me the question again! Ask me and I’ll tell you!”

Deer continued ranting: “So, you’ve this, um, dribbling idiot here,” gesturing towards investigative writer Martin J Walker who has exposed Deer’s vaccine activities in the aforementioned Complainant, “pumping out this information and you believe it and this is what this whole MMR thing has been about! Andrew Wakefield enjoys giving evidence! You get these CLOWNS who just MAKE THNGS UP as they go along!”

I wondered if any other members of the press ( the ones Brian Deer was holding court over) had reported on this behaviour from Brian. That of threats, invasion of body space and jabbing his fingers close to Bryant’s face. Funnily enough, the answer is ‘no’ – nobody from the other members of the press Brian was apparently ‘holding court’ over when Bryant arrived noticed this. I can find no record of this behaviour in any mainstream media. And there were plenty there. How odd.

Its also worth noting that Brian was right. He is _not_ the complainant and he _does_ have letters from the GMC to establish that fact.

Next in Bryant’s highly selective account was the issue of who was paying Brian. At the end of which despite not mentioning any intimidation she reports:

At this point, people in the foyer piled in to the doorway of the Press Room to witness a fully grown male journalist attempting to intimidate a press colleague and deploying classic bully boy techniques against a very small woman on her own.

What bully boy techniques exactly? Answering her questions? Or is this more of the finger jabbing and space invasion that only Bryant witnessed and reported on? Lets not forget that Bryant also directly accused Brian of threats (‘Deer proceeded to threaten’) – no sign of a threat so far…lets continue.

Jane Bryant: “Why are you being so abusive?”

Brian Deer: “Of who?”

Jane Bryant: “Of the parents, of the children…”

Brian Deer: “What parents have I been abusive to?”

Jane Bryant: “You have just been abusive to me.”

Brian Deer: “Are you a parent?”

Jane Bryant: “Yes, I am a parent, I’m also press. Why are you being so abusive? Get away from me, Brian! Stay away from me.”

With Brian Deer out of control, Editor Polly Tommey of The Autism File showed support.

Polly Tommey: “Stay away from her Brian, keep away. Look, you’re a journalist, give her some space.”

Is Bryant parent to an autistic child? I can’t find anywhere that says she is.

Anyway, notice how Tommey of the antivax magazine ‘The Autism File’ also chimes in. These two poor cowering ladies who are in terror of a man answering their questions. I’ll say it again. I can find nowhere else that reports on the eminently newsworthy story of two women being threatened by an out of control Brian Deer – other than OneClickGroup itself. In a room full of the media no one takes notes, no one turns on their dictaphones and no one turns on their cameras. The _only people_ who capture this threatening, out of control Brian Deer are a couple of anti-vaxxers. What an amazing coincidence.

At this point in the proceeding, Brain Deer calls for security. He has to call them again later that day.

Later on in her piece, Bryant accuses Brain Deer of damaging the equipment of Polly Tommey.

Interestingly, the only person’s equipment that got damaged that day was that of Polly Tommey, Editor of The Autism File. Having left her belongings in the Press Room whilst she went to conduct an interview in the foyer, two of the recordings destined for Autism One Radio were purposefully deleted by someone. I will leave One Click readers to surmise just who the perpetrator might be, who had the access and the motive.

She also says:

The GMC has now categorically on the record refused to deny Brian Deer’s complainant status. They will simply not comment on Deer. So much for Deer’s GMC back up

Which, as we know is simply incorrect. I look forward to Bryant’s correction on her massively popular website.

If you want to see the depths and lengths that St Andy’s fan Club will stoop to, look no further than this. The word of a homophobic woman who seems to mislead people about her status as parent to an autistic person (assuming I’m right about that) and who wants to paint a man as an out of control tyrant when I suspect he was just a bit pissed off.

163 Responses to “One Click Hacks and Homophobes”

  1. Dedj February 26, 2009 at 16:27 #

    “I quoted the post on which I based my remark.”

    And by doing so, misrepresented our exchange, as I had later stated the exact opposite to you claim.

    It’s a trick known as a ‘qoute mine’, something we’re very used to dealing with around here.

    I fail to see any point continuing this aspect of the discussion, as my comments are easily viewable, allowing people to view them in the proper context.

  2. John Stone February 26, 2009 at 18:16 #


    Ah “quote mining” – that must have been what it was!

  3. Matrk February 26, 2009 at 18:28 #

    why not dissect Brian Deers comments from the other day or perhaps his qualifications in science or medicine. that should not take you long.

  4. Dedj February 26, 2009 at 18:59 #

    Matrk – why? I’m not aware of anywhere Deer has claimed to be a medical authourity on the basis of qualifications or experience. He claims to have read the records, and found that the content is not compatible with the Wakefieldian version.

    Arguement over content is not arguement over conclusion.

  5. John Stone February 26, 2009 at 19:52 #


    It is all irrelevant because Deer can’t back up his claims with documentation any more than he can back up his claim not to be the complainant with the GMC document. But you are right that the Sunday Glaxo’s dependence on his medical expertise is extraordinary.

  6. John Stone February 26, 2009 at 20:19 #

    Not to forget Dr Ben Goldacre receiving his 2003 Glaxo award:

    for his article ‘Never mind the facts’ (and he didn’t):

  7. One Queer Fish February 26, 2009 at 20:39 #

    thanks for that Mr John Stone …they haven’t got that one , on JABS ,interesting stuff on the Child Health Safety site as well .
    . Quite simply if Mr Deer cant back up his “tell tales” with paper evidence what does it say for the so called “medical establishments ” and medical courts world wide when on Mr Deer’s tales copied from his fairy tale web site they make a verdict such as in America recently, and he doesn’t even have a first aid course under his belt never mind an academic qualification. ..Baldric is stand amazed!

  8. alyric February 26, 2009 at 20:59 #

    Ah dedj you are the first to reply to this Matrk or whoever. He’s a troll and amazingly unsuccessful or he was until you chimed in. Let him go back under his rock.

  9. A Scientist February 26, 2009 at 21:21 #

    I don’t find the fact that Wakefield has dozens of cited articles on PubMed desperately impressive. So have I, and so have most people who have been in the research business for 20-odd years. I note that Wakefield’s papers include:

    (i) multiple short letters trying (without much success) to rebut peoples’ rebuttals of his various dodgy claims;
    (ii) a significant number of rather poor review articles pimping said dodgy claims;
    (iii) a bunch of papers with > 10 authors, including several where he is somewhere in the middle.

    [for the uninitiated, a guide to scientific author order etiquette: first author: did most of the work or was prime mover; last author; was the lab boss and grant-holder. The nearer the middle, the less you probably did.]

    Anyway, as a testament to his eminence, it is hardly convincing.

    The other point is that one’s sheer prolific-ness as a researcher is secondary to whether your work is any good or not. In Wakefield’s case, several of his most “high profile” papers have been shown to be incorrect, massively flawed, riddled with spin and inaccuracies or simply invented.

    I will leave you to guess what the scientific community thinks about the likely worth of his other published works. The general verdict on him would be “con artist”.

  10. Matrk February 26, 2009 at 21:41 #

    thanks for the compliment,
    I actually have a CSE in human biology and health. which as far as I can see Trumps Brian nicely. (I’m not proud of this exam but it did stop me having to do rugby in the freezing rain).
    what qualifies you to speak. i bet you haven’t even met the festering ex-philosophy student (how was that brain?)

  11. Socrates February 26, 2009 at 21:50 #

    The general verdict on him would be “con artist”.

    Ca Plain Pour Moi 🙂

  12. One Queer Fish February 26, 2009 at 23:33 #

    a scientist

    Quite simply Dr Wakefield`s papers all still stand not even the Lancet has withdrawn his article that kicked the MMR /Autism debate on down the hill gathering pace as it snowballs .Becoming more out stretched and harder to believe UNBACKED BY EVIDENCE are Mr Deer’s fairy tales.Every time a new Deer In Wonderland tale materialises certain segments on the web ask for proof and he cant provide..its a fact witnessed on here . So where do we go from here Mr Deer could back half his rumours with evidence simply Dr Wakefield is going free and straight back to the Royal Free where he left of when the GMC hearing finishes. Mr dreamer Deer will have to get real sometime..unless of course he can provide The Judge Eady letters and more..

  13. John Stone February 26, 2009 at 23:35 #


    One of the oddest questions here is why if Wakefield’s science was that bad was it left to someone who manifestly knows nothing about science to dismember it – what special talents did he have for the job? Actually the allegations in the original Deer article were very limited and revolved round the substantially discredited allegation of Richard Horton:

    This, of course, Deer has never managed to report despite his evident hostility to Horton. And it looks as if a key strategy for launching the other allegations may have been the complaint to the GMC. Anyhow, what always gets reported is the allegations not the evidence, so it is absolutely essential that we see what was in the letters.

  14. One Queer Fish February 26, 2009 at 23:43 #

    a scientist

    Quite simply Dr Wakefield`s papers all still stand not even the Lancet has withdrawn his article that kicked the MMR /Autism debate on down the hill gathering pace as it snowballs .Becoming more out stretched and harder to believe UNBACKED BY EVIDENCE are Mr Deer’s fairy tales.Every time a new Deer In Wonderland tale materialises certain segments on the web ask for proof and he cant provide..its a fact witnessed on here . So where do we go from here Mr Deer could back half his rumours with evidence simply Dr Wakefield is going free and straight back to the Royal Free where he left of when the GMC hearing finishes. Mr dreamer Deer will have to get real sometime..he could publish the Judge Eady letters for a start or a link to some where other than make believe ..

  15. HCN February 27, 2009 at 03:23 #

    Mr. Stone, I am still wondering what your medical training is. What is your area of expertise?

  16. Rpger February 27, 2009 at 05:13 #

    More guilt by association:

    MMR vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has appointed to its Board the head of News International James Murdoch. Murdoch is also boss of The Sunday Times, London, England publisher of stories by freelance journalist Brian Deer to discredit research into the link between MMR vaccine and autism in the US and UK [James Murdoch joins Glaxo board – Andrew Jack and Ben Fenton Financial Times 2 February 2009].

  17. brian February 27, 2009 at 05:31 #

    “One of the oddest questions here is why if Wakefield’s science was that bad was it left to someone who manifestly knows nothing about science to dismember it. . . . “

    Surely you give Brian Deer too much credit, John; Deer didn’t “dismember” Wakefield’s work–that years-long task was only recently completed by independent researchers in various laboratories.

    Although Deer raised for lay readers the possible ethical shortcomings of Wakefield’s work, interested scientists may have noticed that as early as 2 May 1998 the pages of The Lancet included the suggestion that Wakefield may have misrepresented information in his February 1998 article: specifically, that far from being a conventional series of “consecutively referred” admissions (a routine measure that is used to avoid bias), many of the 12 cases reported in Wakefield’s article appeared to be associated with Dawborns, a firm of solicitors in King’s Lynn. I gather from posts here and elsewhere that Deer brought Wakefield’s alleged ethical lapses to the attention of the editors of The Lancet, the public, and, perhaps, to the GMC?but Deer didn’t invent them.

    However, Deer may be responsible for widely disseminating but not for generating the information that showed that whether or not, as Deer has suggested, Wakefield misrepresented evidence or strayed outside conventional bioethical boundaries, Wakefield was just … wrong. The commentary from Chen and DeStafano that accompanied Wakefield’s article began the thorough demolition of the paper that was finally completed only in recent months: Those authors noted 11 years ago that Wakefield’s case series was subject to both selection and recall bias, the pathological findings were nonspecific, the then-claimed virological studies had not been well developed much less completed (although, unknown to Chen and DeStafano, apparently work by Wakefield’s own student indicated that the biopsy samples collected from the children did not contain measles virus); the 1998 commentary also noted that although Wakefield had previously reported measles virus in inflammatory bowel disease [he also suggested that MMR was associated with Crohn’s disease], his work was not accepted (and, in fact, that same issue of The Lancet included another study that failed to find measles virus in IBD although it used a very sensitive assay). Now, over a decade later, many studies from a substantial cohort of respected scientists have conclusively demonstrated that Wakefield was wrong: MMR vaccination is not temporally associated with GI episodes or with the onset of autism. In short, Deer didn’t “dismember [Wakefield’s] science”; it simply unraveled.

    That said, I have some sympathy for Wakefield. PCR was and is still not completely straightforward, and possible infectious triggers for diseases such as Crohn’s (which clearly shaped Wakefield’s perception of “autistic enterocolitis”) are still somewhat controversial. In fact, I think I can follow some of Wakefield’s thought processes, and I may be able to understand why he may have preferred to believe the now-discredited results from Kawashima and Uhlmann and to disbelieve his own student. At this point, though, I don’t understand why he doesn’t move on.

    However, if, for example (as Deer suggests), 2 of the 3 children who were noted in Wakefield’s 1998 paper as having seizures associated with MMR had in fact prior to MMR vaccination experienced seizures that were not mentioned by Wakefield, then perhaps Deer is on to something more serious than what he has previously reported. I hope not: I’d rather believe that Wakefield was merely (though emphatically) wrong.

  18. John Stone February 27, 2009 at 08:07 #


    Yes, but you are still going round in circles citing Deer as the source for much of what you believe on this. For example, have you seen any evidence that the families were involved in the litigation at the time the study took place. It was certainly denied early on by Wakefield (Lancet 6 March 2004). Did this thing happen or has it only been made to look like it did? We have not seen the evidence, we have only heard the allegation, which is why Deer needs to publish his GMC correspondence.

    As to the death of Wakefield’s hypothesis, reports of it death are exaggerated. Leaving aside unpublished evidence I must point out the ambiguity of the recent Hornig study, going beyond it’s headline conclusion we read:

    *Our results differ with reports noting MV RNA in ileal biopsies of 75% of ASD vs. 6% of control children [10], [41]. Discrepancies are unlikely to represent differences in experimental technique because similar primer and probe sequences, cycling conditions and instruments were employed in this and earlier reports; furthermore, one of the three laboratories participating in this study performed the assays described in earlier reports. Other factors to consider include differences in patient age, sex, origin (Europe vs. North America), GI disease, recency of MMR vaccine administration at time of biopsy, and methods for confirming neuropsychiatric status in cases and controls. Participation in the current study required confirmation in cases of the presence of an AUT diagnosis and exclusion in controls of AUT or other developmental disturbances.”

    The reference is to the Uhlmann study. So, they are saying that if they had studied a similar group to Uhlmann (O’Leary) they would likely have had similar results. And, in fact, Hornig enhanced the plausibility of this because despite the admitted very different selection (with cases included preponderently that had a history of autism and bowel disease prior to vaccination), it nevertheless confirmed two cases of persistent measles virus in the ileum of two cases (one non-autistic but both with a history of gut pathology and MMR vaccination) across 3 leading laboratories.

    My understanding is that although this evidence was only made available at a very late stage it was submitted by the claimants at the Cedillo hearing, but was excluded without mention by Special Master Hastings. The Hornig study leaves as a real possibility that Michele Cedillo had persistent measles virus in her gut.

    It isn’t very clear that the hypothesis has been disproved, but very clear that it is being made institutionally difficult to research. Meanwhile, the flying accusations have not aided science, or allowed the proponents of one view to defend it properly.

  19. John Stone February 27, 2009 at 09:30 #


    There is obviously a conflict here. While a huge amount has been made of Wakefield’s alleged conflicts all others are airily waived aside. For instance, we had an article in The Times following the recent Deer article pointing out that Wakefield makes money. Where was the main article pointing out that the proprietor of the newspaper had just been made a director of one of the defendant companies?

    We are just getting used to the idea in the field of banking that web of appointments is newsworthy and critical to the public interest (although always thought to have been rather a yawn). Something which only gets printed in a small column on a back page of newspaper or not at all may actually be the really significant news.

    Anyway, perhaps, BD – the bold investigative journalist – can help us on this?

  20. A scientist February 27, 2009 at 16:19 #

    Wakefield’s papers only “still stand” in the sense that they have not yet been retracted, withdrawn, or shown definitively and beyond all reasonable doubt to be the result of deliberate fraud. But that is NOT what happens with bad science, unless there is a formal enquiry by the Medical School or University, which is very rare.

    What DOES happen with poor science is that people repeat the work, do related experiments, test the consequent hypotheses, check the methods, examine whether the results might have been false positives etc etc. These studies are then published, casting retrospective light on the quality of the earlier work.

    As repeatedly restated, no credible science or scientist has supported Wakefield’s MMR work. Meanwhile, a positive avalanche of credible science has disproved it, shown why the methods were flawed, tested and dismissed the consequent hypotheses etc.

    So the work is still “in the literature”. It is just that everyone in science and medicine thinks it is wrong – and quite possibly fraudulent.

    For a scientist to be wrong as regularly and flamboyantly as Wakefield inevitably raises questions about HOW they could have got it so wrong. Brian Deer has provided an explanation that every scientist I know finds highly plausible (at least) or completely convincing (at best) – namely that Wakefield overstated, fiddled and fixed the data at every turn. The small print of the Autism Proceedings ruling make clear that many of the scientists and doctors who had looked closely at his work earlier on had reached the same sort of conclusions as Deer, though they had not said it quite as trenchantly.

    Anyway “all still stand” as in “are still in the literature” – yes. “All still stand” as in “have NOT been discredited and disproved” – emphatically no.

  21. John Stone February 27, 2009 at 16:31 #

    A scientist

    This is self-important, ad hominem balderdash from someone who won’t even put their name to it. What has been marked in this instance is the number of studies which look superficially as if they test Wakefield’s hypothesis but which patently don’t.

    The only study which did touch it was Hornig and Hornig found evidence of persistent measle virus in the ileum of two cases of children with gut pathology, who had had MMR. And Special Master Hastings couldn’t bring himself to examine the fact.

  22. A scientist February 27, 2009 at 18:45 #

    One only has to see the kind of relentless ad hom attacks that you and others have directed at (e.g.) Ben Goldacre, Brian Deer and Anthony Cox to see why many commenters prefer to remain anonymous, John. I will happily admit that I prefer not to be “doorstepped” across the blogosphere by you, Fryer, Cybertiger et al.

    Of course, it is a defining tactic of denalist movements to loudly denounce the other side as making ad hom attacks while launching them yourself, in spades.

    Talking of which, I don’t see the ad hom in:

    “It is just that everyone in science and medicine thinks [Wakefield’s work] is wrong – and quite possibly fraudulent.”

    That is an accurate representation of the opinions I have heard expressed, over the last few years, each and every time MMR and Wakefield have come up in discussion – opinions voiced by all kinds of scientists and doctors, including a research gastroenterologist or two.

  23. Dedj February 27, 2009 at 18:57 #

    It’s ridiculous to assert that not putting your name to something somehow invalidates the central point. That social rule is a left over from the days when you could put your name to something and know that you wouldn’t have someone turning up on your doorstep in a really altered state (as has happened even to people who have you pseudonym’s)

    Mind you asserting that ‘something somehow is going to mean something somewhere someday to somebody, therefore I’m right’ has been the best these people have offered.

    I’m traceable through my name and a obvious key word. Someone with a grudge could make my life annoying, cut my earnings, and potentially threaten my career, with little cost to themselves.

    Given how utterly relentless and fanatic some people have demonstrated themselves to be, you’d have to be mad or brave to identify yourself.

  24. Kev February 27, 2009 at 20:10 #

    John Stone – on this blog no one cares what name is used, we care about what is said. So far you’re not doing very well.

  25. Kev February 27, 2009 at 20:11 #

    John – by the way – which lab did Mady use?

  26. Kev February 27, 2009 at 20:17 #

    Matrk – consider yourself on your last warning. Add something of value or get hit with the ban hammer.

  27. John Stone February 27, 2009 at 20:21 #


    “John Stone – on this blog no one cares what name is used, we care about what is said. So far you’re not doing very well.”

    I am certainly not pleasing the usual clientele, but then that was not the purpose. I couldn’t see much content in “a scientists” post beyond “I’m the king of the castle, and Wakefield’s the dirty rascal”, and now you are doing it again (except I’m the dirty rascal), but you have nothing of substance to say.

  28. John Stone February 27, 2009 at 20:39 #


    Didn’t Mady send you a copy of the paper (since you are on first name terms)?

  29. alyric February 27, 2009 at 20:46 #


    you give Sone too much credit for honesty7. Well you couldn’t know exactly but trying to shanghai the Horning study as support for Wakefield is ludicrous and that should be a very big clue.

    The Hornig study was pretty definitive, which is why we have Stone dancing the lie fantastic. Of course he’s not the only one. All the usual suspects have tried to overturn the findings. What I find interesting is that they must know they’re fudging right and left and that doesn’t to bother them. I’d be squirming under my collar having to be half so misrepresentative.

  30. Kev February 27, 2009 at 21:12 #

    John, forget pleasing the clientele. I don’t care about that either. What I care about is people having something of substance to say. So far you are lacking.

    Now, can you tell me what lab Mady used?

  31. A Scientist February 27, 2009 at 21:16 #

    “I’m the king of the castle, and Wakefield’s the dirty rascal”

    A rather odd paraphrase of what I said. While the second might be close – it is a widely-held opinion in the business – I can’t for the life of me see where I said I was “the king of the castle”. I am a professional researcher and teacher. So are lots of other people. All I said was that Wakefield’s publication record, which John incessantly reminds as of as a way of “validating” Wakefield, is/was not particularly unusual in terms of its volume.

    I will say, though, that that last bit is something which I could make a professional judgement on – since that is sometimes part of my job – while John Stone would not have the faintest clue.

  32. John Stone February 27, 2009 at 21:35 #


    “Three laboratory sites participated in MV RNA analyses: 1) Coombe Women’s Hospital, Trinity College; 2) Center for Infection and Immunity, CU, New York; 3) Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Herpesvirus Laboratory Branch, CDC, Atlanta.”

    So, the results of O’Leary’s lab were consistent with the other two (including the two positive readings).

  33. Isabella Thomas February 27, 2009 at 21:36 #

    February 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    Measles vaccine is widely used, most often in association with mumps and rubella vaccines. We report here the case of a child presenting with fever 8 days after vaccination with a measles–mumps–rubella vaccine. Measles virus was isolated in a throat swab taken 4 days after fever onset. This virus was then further genetically characterised as a vaccine-type virus. Fever occurring subsequent to measles vaccination is related to the replication of the live attenuated vaccine virus. In the case presented here, the vaccine virus was isolated in the throat, showing that subcutaneous injection of an attenuated measles strain can result in respiratory excretion of this virus.

  34. Isabella Thomas February 27, 2009 at 21:38 #

    February 27, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    We report a case of measles inclusion-body encephalitis (MIBE) occurring in an apparently
    healthy 21-month-old boy 8.5 months after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. He had no prior
    evidence of immune deficiency and no history of measles exposure or clinical disease. During
    hospitalization, a primary immunodeficiency characterized by a profoundly depressed CD8 cell
    count and dysgammaglobulinemia was demonstrated. A brain biopsy revealed histopathologic
    features consistent with MIBE, and measles antigens were detected by immunohistochemical
    staining. Electron microscopy revealed inclusions characteristic of paramyxovirus nucleocapsids
    within neurons, oligodendroglia, and astrocytes. The presence of measles virus in the brain tissue was
    confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The nucleotide sequence in the
    nucleoprotein and fusion gene regions was identical to that of the Moraten and Schwarz vaccine
    strains; the fusion gene differed from known genotype A wild-type viruses.

  35. Kev February 27, 2009 at 21:52 #

    I thought that was the study you were referring to. Lets quote again from its conclusions:

    ….This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure. Autism with GI disturbances is associated with elevated rates of regression in language or other skills and may represent an endophenotype distinct from other ASD.

    You, John, wouldn’t know the point of a study if it came up and introduced itself to you. So just in case you still don’t get it, let me go through it slowly.

    They looked, they found no association. They couldn’t replicate Wakefield. Nobody has, other than the man himself and various cronies.

    Do you know why?

    Because its junk science. I’m sorry John, I know that grates but aside from you and the rest of your troop nobody would trust Wakefield to clean the Bunsen burners out at the local high school. Holding hands and singing kum-by-ya outside the GMC won’t alter a goddamn thing you poor boob.

  36. Matrk February 27, 2009 at 22:27 #

    I truly hope that some one filmed brian outside the GMC what I saw. I think even you would be disgusted.
    I listened to your 2006 podcast ,, where has that kev gone? all i see now it someone who has transfered his blame and guilt on to parents those whos kids may have suffered vaccine reactions.
    do you self a favour and go to a paediatric gastro unit and count the kids with autism.

    i’m off

  37. John Stone February 27, 2009 at 22:33 #


    Well, actually they couldn’t state “no association” so they opted for “lack of association”. But they only had 5 out of 25 cases that were even possibly Wakefield type (the sample was weighted with cases that had developed symptoms before vaccination). They don’t mention whether in the two positve cases (one non-autistic but with GI symptoms) the symptoms devloped before after vaccination (an odd omission).

    So, in fact, aspects of the study are contradictary and given the very high levels of political hostility towards a positive result I think I know why.

    But there is another aspect of the Hornig study which is detrimental to the Deer case. It emphasises there are occasions when biopsies are clinically indicated. So we are left with the conundrum that John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch allegedly ordered biopsies on cases where it was not indicated, when there are probably many where it is. Why would they do that?

  38. Kev February 27, 2009 at 23:47 #

    Matkr, still no substance to the debate at hand? Is that your Grand Trampling Exit?

    John, I think its pretty obvious now that a sample that includes ‘cases that had developed symptoms before vaccination’ is _exactly_ a Wakefield type.

    Look John, I have no idea why a seemingly intelligent man is so desperate to hang on to what my old friend MJ would refer to as semantics. I mean ‘no association’ vs ‘lack of association’. If you find enough green grass between those two positions to set up camp in then good luck. Seriously. You are going to need it. Out here in the real world we’re fully aware that no decent scientist is *ever* going to rule anything completely 100% out. Thats just not the way scientists work.

    I’m pretty sure if you want to ask Lipkin about the two kids he’d answer your questions. I’ve not come across any researchers yet who’ve totally blanked me when I’ve asked for more background.

    But please realise John that banking your hopes on two kids with GI symptoms is so far away from any kind of science that its going to do you no good.

    There’s only so many times you can split a hair before it disappears totally John.

  39. Sullivan February 27, 2009 at 23:56 #

    the sample was weighted with cases that had developed symptoms before vaccination


    That spin works at Age of Autism, it doesn’t work here.

    The Hornig study did what Wakefield did not–look at patients who were consecutively referred to the clinic. Also, they looked at patients who has a clear need for colonoscopy–another detail that Wakefield claimed but didn’t actually have in his patients.

    So, the fact that there are a large number of patients who had onset of autistic symptoms prior to MMR is a RESULT.

    Again, it works with some. It is a good smokescreen. It doesn’t work with those who really look at the study critically.

    The fact that Wakefield tries this smokescreen is just another reason why I question his motives.

  40. Dedj February 28, 2009 at 00:04 #

    Surely if we looked at people with GI and autism where the autism was pre-MMR, and then looked at another group with the same dignosis, but with autism post-MMR – and then found no discernable difference – wouldn’t that – by lack of clear correllation – indicate another cause?

    I can’t even work out what’s being implied here.

  41. brian February 28, 2009 at 00:49 #


    I relied on the correspondence in the Lancet published in the months following the appearance of the 1998 Wakefield paper, not on Brian Deer, when I indicated that very early (years before Deer published on the MMR congtroversy) on it was clear that many of the children discussed in that paper were clients of one firm of solicitors.

    Dr. Hornig was unlikely to mention the testimony given in UK and US court proceedings in a scientific article. If you have difficulty understanding the PCR data, you should simply review Dr. Bustin’s testimony in Omnibus hearings. I cannot believe that anyone who both understands PCR and has read that testimony could support Uhlmann’s conclusions.

  42. John Stone February 28, 2009 at 00:58 #

    No, I guess in the end you cannot have a debate with people who repeat unsubstantiated allegations uncritically. You can only point to some of the fissures – like the improbability that Wakefield’s 12 co-authors allowed him to fiddle the data.
    In all probability Deer’s attempt to refloat his allegations the other week is a sign that the hearing which he has never reported on is failing to make the accusations stick.

  43. Sullivan February 28, 2009 at 01:39 #

    Do you ever read what you write critically?

    No, I guess in the end you cannot have a debate with people who repeat unsubstantiated allegations uncritically. You can only point to some of the fissures – like the improbability that Wakefield’s 12 co-authors allowed him to fiddle the data.

    Then you move directly into an unsubstantiated allegation!

    In all probability Deer’s attempt to refloat his allegations the other week is a sign that the hearing which he has never reported on is failing to make the accusations stick.

  44. John Stone February 28, 2009 at 01:48 #


    Wakefield states that none of the children in the study were in the litigation at the time it took place. I can find no counter statement, although Horton was concerned about an overlap it isn’t clear that he is challenging Wakefield’s word on this.

    Click to access statement20Feb2004web.pdf

  45. John Stone February 28, 2009 at 01:55 #


    That’s not an allegation, it’s a speculation. I am trying to make sense of events – about the only thing Deer has reported from more than 100 days of testimony is a single sentence of Susan Davies. I suppose you could call that “quote mining”.

  46. brian February 28, 2009 at 02:45 #

    Wakefield states that none of the children in the study were in the litigation at the time it took place.

    John, I trained in medicine and molecular biology, so I’m rather ignorant of the difference between being “in litigation” and being clients of a firm of solicitors. I assume that the latter means that a suit has not yet been filed. However, I note that Dawborns MMR Newsletter for Spring 1997 (which I happened to find with a few moments effort when Goggle directed me to–you guessed it–Brian Deer’s site) includes this information: “The pilot study (being coordinated by Dr. Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital) has already started and a number of children have already been tested.” As you may suggest, that may not mean that they were “in litigation”, but it does not mean that they were not clients of the firm, nor does it provide any support for the notion that Wakefield correctly indicated that his 12 subjects were “consecutively referred” to avoid bias.

  47. John Stone February 28, 2009 at 07:27 #


    I doubt whether John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch were influenced by litigation bias when making any clinical decisions, though they would certainly aware of Wakefield’s position, and were cautious about it. By this stage, also, Richard Horton had twice had his atttention directed to the situation – once privately by an MCA official and once by Richard Barr of Dawbarns, so it wasn’t any secret:

    I would point out that Brian Deer has been completely reticent about this dramatic new evidence since it was presented at the GMC by Wakefield last April.

    I do not have to hand the date when the paper was submitted to the Lancet. The Dawbarns spring newsletter was dated May 1997. If Dawbarns knew about it this still did not necessarily entail any of the subjects being clients at the time. I think it is obvious that while a legal firm in any litigation takes sides (irrespective of which) any retained experts have a different obligation.

    If we begin on this game we can also raise eyebrows at the £225,000 paid to Stephen Bustin by the defendant companies through a solicitor. What’s the difference?

  48. brian March 1, 2009 at 02:33 #

    This is a scientific question, John, not as you and others have frequently framed it a game of “who to trust”, and the evidence is clearly against Wakefield.

  49. John Stone March 1, 2009 at 11:06 #


    Any genuinely trustworthy science would have paid heed to the parents and the condition of the children, as the Royal Free doctors did. But official hostility was there from the beginning, and the evidence base and the culture of this “science” has always been “Go, away and shut up”. That is not really the foundation of knowledge: it is just bureacratic and legal expedience. This does not in itself make the Wakefield hypothesis scientifically right but it does place the attack on him in a certain context which has little to do with how respectable science should be conducted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: