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. A Scientist March 1, 2009 at 11:39 #

    The “context” may have contributed to the detailed attention which Wakefield’s published work got. But that is as it should be with a question of significant public health importance. And the context IN NO WAY invalidates all the actual SCIENCE that consequently got done to check out Wakefield’s claims, all of which is against him.

    In fact, the early debate that the work produced (see Brian’s posts earlier) and the mass of later research that re-checked Wakefield’s methods, endoscopy findings, epidemiology etc etc. shows that the possibility of an MMR-autism link WAS considered and looked into very seriously. John and his friends at JABS just persist, year after year, in viewing this medical and scientific “process” as a conspiracy – the reason being that it shows that the man they placed their faith in got the science wrong, and possibly much worse.

    As Brian just said, it is a scientific question and the science is comprehensively against Wakefield – regardless of whether you believe he twiddled the data.

  2. John Stone March 1, 2009 at 12:44 #

    Well, I note that people are now some what keener to move the debate away from the claims of Brian Deer.

    Personally, I doubt whether the scientific case against the Wakefield hypothesis is really shut, but then I agree I am not an expert. But even if it was it does not answer what happened to a group or sub-group of children following MMR vaccination: it only eliminates that hypothesis.

    The question is, once the possibility is conceded that a vaccine (or combination of vaccines) can have catastrophic consquences – such as in the Poling or Banks cases (or many more) – I am not sure how you come to a scientific view that it necessarily doesn’t happen very often. But I think also if you treat parents with disdain and contempt if they step out of line it prejudices the outcome.

  3. John Stone March 1, 2009 at 12:48 #

    “But I think also if you treat parents with disdain and contempt if they step out of line it prejudices the outcome.”

    It worries me that I keep on coming across people who proclaim theselves to be scientists who seem indifferent to this problem.

  4. One Queer Fish March 1, 2009 at 14:27 #

    The so called scientists seem to be absent with critical science data as in the Judge Eady letters, the falsified Dr Wakefield data .. symptoms of Mr Deer . yet again!!

  5. A Scientist March 1, 2009 at 16:47 #

    We are not trying to move away from Brian Deer’s actions, John.

    It is quite a simple thought-process, really, despite all your bluster and distraction tactics. Namely:

    (i) The science has overwhelmingly shown – to the satisfaction of all scientists and doctors apart from a very few fringe nutters – that Wakefield was completely wrong, on all counts.

    (ii) The question inevitably arises of just HOW he could have got it so wrong, and done his research so technically poorly – especially given the trenchant nature of all his public statements.

    (iii) Brian Deer has given us, in his programmes, a plausible explanation for how and why Wakefield’s research was so dramatically in error – i.e. that it was a fix, and the result of cherry-picking data (at the very least) to a preconceived agenda. Deer has backed up this explanation with lots and lots of evidence. In doing this, he has done an entirely legitimate journalistic enquiry into what were pervasive suspicions about Wakefield in the trade.

    Personally, I wish that the RFH (or UCL as then was) had announced a full academic enquiry, led by an independent expert, into the allegations of (in effect) research misconduct against Wakefield and co. The RFH could have done this much earlier – since the suspicions were widespread in the trade, as the small print of the Autism Omnibus rulings reveal – and certainly should have done once Deer’s story broke in early 2004. However, the RFH have throughout been stunningly silent, and one can only really conclude that they just wanted to forget the whole episode. Since the RFH never seemed to want to get to the bottom of things, Deer ploughed on – that is what investigative journalists do.

    Again, the overwhelming majority opinion among the doctors and scientists I know is that Deer has done everyone involved, and the cause of scientific truth, a favour. If Wakefield is a data fabricator of the kind alleged, then that is the worst kind of scientific fraudster. People who commit the kind of scientific fraud of which he is accused deserve to be exposed until there is not the slightest smidgeon of doubt left.

  6. John Stone March 1, 2009 at 18:02 #

    It is evident that the Royal Free reviewed all this material in 2004 (in conjunction with Lancet) and didn’t come up with anything apart from the failing contention that the Lancet did not know about the litigation, although there were probably all sorts of people on hand who might have liked to:

    Click to access statement20Feb2004web.pdf

    But so far from Deer’s latest allegation being new, let alone plausible the prosecution at the GMC have sought relentlessly to suggest that the three doctors fabricated the symptoms (in the case of John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch without the slightest motive): that is exactly how the case has been constructed. Apart from that – as it has been pointed our over and over – if Wakefield fabricated the data behind everyone else’s back, how did they all come to sign the paper? These are incredible allegations.

    I don’t know who you are “a scientist” or what your claims to be a scientist are, but you do not impress with your highly prejudicial assessment of the case, for which so little documentation has been provided. Indeed, I might be less sceptical of the claim that Wakefield is/was simply mistaken if it did not come with all the other junk (notably the sick pretence that the children were not ill).

    Anyhow, Mr Deer could certainly clarify what the evidence is, if any, by publishing his GMC correspondence – which thanks to Judge Eady we know took the form of at least 3 complaints.

  7. Isabella Thomas March 1, 2009 at 20:30 #

    This story should be everywhere in the news.

    The Poling case proved mitochondrial disorder could result in autism.

  8. Sullivan March 1, 2009 at 22:57 #

    Isabella Thomas,

    why the tangent?

    Court cases don’t prove science. They demonstrate that one has a reasonable enough argument to win a legal settlement.

    The Omnibus doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that the “science” behind MMR causing autism is painfully weak. Oddly enough, even those who promote MMR causation have been admitting that. Too bad they aren’t honest enough to toss Dr. Wakefield’s study onto the bonfire of bad ideas.

    This is not to take away from the possible link between autism and mitochondrial disorders. There have been reasonable scientists looking at this for some time. They have published a few papers. Unfortunately, few people have read them. They clearly demonstrate that a key piece is missing in the assumptions everyone makes: few of those studied with mitochondrial disorders and autism show regression. The number jumped up significantly with the recent paper, and it will be interesting to see how that is accepted in by the research community as there are some features of that work that are not generally accepted.

  9. Isabella Thomas March 1, 2009 at 23:35 #

    MMR vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has appointed to its Board the head of News International James Murdoch and the boss of The Sunday Times freelance journalist who has been campaigning 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].
    James Murdoch took up his appointment alongside Sir Crispin Davis the CEO of The Lancet medical journals owners. Sir Crispin is brother of Judge Nigel Davis whose English High Court judgement in February 2004 saw the end of British childrens MMR vaccine injury claims [MMR Judge Faces Probe Over Brother’s Links to Vaccine Firm – Evening Standard, London 9 May 2007].

  10. alyric March 1, 2009 at 23:53 #

    John is so fixated on Deer’s journalistic efforts that he quite forgets the mountain of adverse evidence that piled up against Wakefield during the Omnibus or just how far back the stench associated with his methodologies went. Here’s the Vowell Snyder decision at the time when Wakers was all set to make his name through Crohn’s disease not autism.

    “Doctor Wakefield published other papers, in 1995241 and 1997,242 stating that
    measles virus causes Crohn’s disease. Concerns developed about Dr. Wakefield’s
    claims when a French researcher noted that the antibody Dr. Wakefield used to identify
    measles virus reacted with all tissues, not just inflamed bowel tissue. A Japanese
    research group used PCR techniques on tissue samples from Crohn’s disease patients,
    and was also unable to detect the virus.243 A Japanese research group also examined
    the second antibody Dr. Wakefield used to detect measles virus, and the researchers determined that it was reacting with a human protein.”

    Nice going Wakers. Fast forward to the ‘Autistic Enterocolitis’ hypothesis and the 1998 Lancet paper.

    “Doctor MacDonald characterized this paper as
    “probably the worst paper that’s ever been published in the history of [Lancet].”
    Hazlehurst Tr. at 633A-34A. Ten of the paper’s 12 authors later filed a “Retraction of an Interpretation” of the paper.”

    And then there was Chadwick’s work on the Lancet kids supposed measles vaccine virus in the gut:

    “Doctor Chadwick testified
    that he began working for Dr. Wakefield in 1994. He began testing tissue and blood samples from autistic
    children in 1996 for the presence of measles virus RNA. Nine of the samples initially tested positive for
    the presence of measles virus, but confirmatory gene sequencing at another laboratory demonstrated
    that all of these results were false positives. Cedillo Tr. at 2283-89A. He informed Dr. Wakefield of these
    negative results. Cedillo Tr. at 2286-87. Doctor Chadwick’s declaration, filed as Cedillo Res. Ex. QQ,
    contained more detail regarding this conversation. He stated that he had earlier informed Dr. Wakefield of
    the negative PCR tests for measles virus, and specifically asked not to be included on the list of authors
    for publication because of the negative results.”

    No mention of this anywhere in the paper eh Wakers?

    There were other experts who were not at all impressed by either Wakers or his work and not forgetting that Wakers managed to get his work investigated by the Medical Research Council, which together with the GMC must be something of a record.

    “Respondent’s witnesses were highly critical of Dr. Wakefield’s hypothesis, and of
    Dr. Wakefield personally. Doctors MacDonald and Fombonne were both part of a U.K.
    Medical Research Council investigation into Dr. Wakefield’s claims. Doctor MacDonald
    found evidence suggesting fraud. Doctor Rima examined some of the evidence Dr.
    Wakefield relied upon and found that it was not what Dr. Wakefield claimed it to be. Doctors Ward and Griffin both had personal experiences with Dr. Wakefield that left
    them highly skeptical of his claims.”

    Dr MacDonald:

    “Doctor MacDonald criticized the 1998 Wakefield paper for its lack of proper
    controls, but focused much of his criticism on the misleading statements it contained….
    Doctor MacDonald characterized Dr. Wakefield’s theory as “incredible,” “fantastic,” “improbable,” and “not based on any data.”

    Doctor MacDonald was even more critical of the Wakefield 2002 paper.253 At
    the Hazlehurst hearing, he characterized the Wakefield 2002 paper as scientific

    During his testimony in Hazlehurst, Dr. MacDonald used four endoscopy
    photographs that appeared in Dr. Wakefield’s 2002 paper as examples. Although the
    four photographs purportedly show ileum, Dr. MacDonald explained that the time
    stamps that appear on them indicated that Panel A was cecum, not ileum. He
    characterized this as “something of a deception.” He also noted that the control
    children in this study did not have chronic constipation, which was the primary
    presenting symptom of the autistic children, and, thus, any comparison with the control
    children was misleading.”

    Dr Rima:

    “He met Dr. Wakefield at a conference in 1992, where a number of measles
    virologists looked at the material Dr. Wakefield had produced. Doctor Rima attended
    two meetings, and concluded that the material produced in support of Dr. Wakefield’s claims was highly selective, and that Dr. Wakefield was not responsive to criticisms of his findings. The cellular material that Dr. Wakefield claimed was measles virus was not measles virus.

    In 1995, one of Dr. Wakefield’s students approached Dr. Rima about coauthoring
    a paper. After examining the data supplied by the student, Dr. Rima
    concluded that the findings of measles virus were based on contamination from a
    measles virus clone he had previously supplied to Dr. Wakefield as a positive control
    for his research. When an abstract concerning positive results for the presence of
    measles virus was not retracted after Dr. Rima informed them of the contamination, Dr. Rima formally withdrew from his collaboration with Dr. Wakefield.”

    Dr Griffin

    “When Dr. Wakefield first began to implicate MMR as a cause of autism, he
    invited Dr. Griffin to the U.K. as a consultant, presumably based on her expertise with
    measles virology. Cedillo Tr. at 2832A. She spoke with people from his laboratory at
    an open scientific meeting where they indicated they were having problems getting their
    PCR testing to work. Cedillo Tr. at 2861A-62. It was quickly apparent to Dr. Griffin that
    Dr. Wakefield’s laboratory personnel did not know how to perform PCR testing and
    analysis. Based on her personal interactions with Dr. Wakefield, she was suspicious of
    the research he did, and she declined the consultation offer.”

    Dr Ward

    “Doctor Ward testified that Dr. Wakefield presented data from an abstract of work
    done by Dr. Ward’s laboratory as supportive of Dr. Wakefield’s MMR-autism hypothesis. Doctor Ward personally cautioned Dr. Wakefield against relying on this
    data because what was presented initially in the abstract turned out to be wrong.”

    That’s a sizeable selection of the world’s experts in this area who appear to be very well acquainted with and apparently revolted by the research efforts of Wakefield. Deer’s findings will always stand but Wakers has to try to overcome what looks to be a really bad reputation in scientific circles. The GMC will have noted all of this testimony.

  11. Isabella Thomas March 2, 2009 at 00:57 #

    “What looked like Crohn’s disease turned out to be Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, seen also sometimes with non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder. All as reported in a now famous paper published in The Lancet in 1998 and which still stands today and has been replicated in other studies.

    10 of the authors retracted one sentence in March 2004 and three did not and it was done to take the heat off from Government and others who complained about the effect the finding might have on childhood vaccination programmes. The one sentence is the “interpretation” and states “Interpretation We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.”.

    The paper stands today despite Brian Deer’s best efforts. And he still has not published his complaint letters to substantiate his claims he is not the GMC complainant.

    And look at Deer’s articles – unlike professional journalists the world over where are all the experts making the claims he is supposed to be reporting in his stories – they are not there – on Deer’s own admission the world is asked to take Brian Deer’s word for it – from Brian Deer the expert gastroenterologist, Brian Deer the expert neurologist, Brian Deer the autism expert, Brian Deer the expert psychologist, Brian Deer the expert psychiatrist, Brian Deer the expert histopathologist, Brian Deer the patent expert etc etc etc.”

  12. John Stone March 2, 2009 at 01:38 #


    For the last 5 years Andrew Wakefield has only been able to answer his critics in a limited way because of attacks against his integrity, and quite obviously the pace of his research has been slowed as well.

    I would, however, point out that Hornig study identified measles virus RNA in the ileum of two patients confirmed in three laboratories, which presumably ought not to have happened according to the experts cited.

    But I don’t think we should forget the flawed reporting of Brian Deer. I note that he has not answered any of my criticisms, though I sense him hovering about somewhere.

  13. Ringside Seat March 2, 2009 at 01:43 #

    Calm down dear…

    One would not expect the rest of the paper to go where it belongs less than three weeks after Mr Deer’s report.

    I’m not sure he claims to be any of these things. He’s a newspaper reporter, I believe, and as such would gather documents, do interviews, that sort of thing. If a medical report says “Aspergers – not previously normal” and the Lancet says “regressive autism – previously normal”, for the same child, that would be fraud, and presumably Mr Deer would know that.

    I see he says on his website that he supports calls for an investigation into his work.

  14. One Queer Fish March 2, 2009 at 01:56 #

    I’m very confused. Just because one person or several Chadwick et-al proposes a hypothesis, that does not preclude other people working or advancing it.Quite simply discrediting the original proponent of an idea(some 10 years ago), does not invalidate the idea, especially if others are advancing the theory and studying it or it’s components.

    As for Chadwick et-al and study flaws, quite simply these can take many forms: methodology, data capture, etc. In science, a hypothesis always exists independently of a study. Several studies can be created around a single hypothesis to either prove or disprove it. To discredit the data capture, and/or person, does not automatically invalidate the hypothesis. Only studies can do that. The above so called Drs Chadwick et-al have done no studies to my knowledge that disprove the hypothesis — even the extensive vaunted Cochrane report stated as much (despite extreme conflicts of interests in that review).And as Mr Stone states the Hornig as well.

    . And despite the high emotions on here and opinions, this debate /forum is supposed to be about science, not belief as stated above by the Drs . It is pointless and has nothing to do with beliefs if they the expert Drs cannot back it up with studies and hard evidence such as Mr Deer with his Judge Eady complaint letters quite simply lacking as the Drs beliefs are above –NO EVIDENCE

  15. John Stone March 2, 2009 at 02:04 #

    Ringside Seat

    Perhaps, Mr Deer can save everyone the time, expense and tedium of such enquiry by simply publishing his correspondence with the GMC and its lawyers.

  16. Sullivan March 2, 2009 at 02:28 #

    Mr Stone,

    you avoid the subject and try to pretend that those letters are the actual subject.

    Will those letters make it clear whether Dr. Wakefield’s reported data on his patients matches what is actually in their records? No.

    You can’t face that question head on, so you dodge it and throw up chaff.

    If the information presented in Mr. Deer’s report is accurate (if even some of it is accurate), Dr. Wakefield’s Lancet paper will be complete nonsense. I, for one, will call on the editors to print a retraction and I suspect others will as well. Frankly, Dr. Wakefield should be calling to see the raw data itself, and, if Mr. Deer’s account is accurate, Dr. Wakefield should call for a retraction himself. Even if he doesn’t, at that point you should be calling for a retraction and you should admit that the paper is wrong. Somehow I don’t suspect that either you or Dr. Wakefield have that level of integrity. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but your tactics on the discussions here show that to be the most likely case.

    You may now ignore everything I wrote and ask for those letters to be made public, as though that affects the subject at hand in the slightest. Perhaps I could just write your response for you? It has become that formulaic.

  17. Roger March 2, 2009 at 06:34 #

    Dedj on February 28th, 2009 00:04:32

    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?

    There are those of us,myself included,who have autism,bowel disease,and mitochondrial disease,who are too old to have gotten the MMR shot.The David Kirbys,Age of Autisms, JABS,et al simply ignore us,and want to pretend we don’t exist.When you try to contact them by email,they simply do not answer you.

    They simply have so much invested in this disproven theory to acknowledge someone like me.This includes the lucrative business they have selling chelation,and other dangerous “cures” for autism.To do so,would jeopardize all this,so don’t hold your breath waiting for this to happen.

  18. John Stone March 2, 2009 at 07:31 #


    Your response is based on a somewhat large “if” but I am certainly not against reviewing the evidence. But it all so far depends on the global competence one journalist (with never a hint of bias?)

    And I would point out also that this evidence is being extensively reviewed at the GMC.


    No, there could be different causes or environmental triggers in different cases – the gut brain issue would remain anyway. However, we do not know anything about the selection that I can see in the Hornig study – it just says the subjects were recruited.

  19. Isabella Thomas March 2, 2009 at 10:00 #


    I am so very sorry that you are suffering in such a way and there are adults like you who should be investigated especially with your bowel problems. Do you have any help from the Department of Health? I wonder how many more like you are suffering?
    It is so important to do the research and find out what causes these problems. Is it environmental? What other vaccines did you have? My older sister was such a happy girl with many friends at school. We used to be so close and I went everywhere with her.
    At the age of seven she had a smallpox vaccine and suffered very badly. She is now in a home as she cannot look after herself. It was such a shock for me especially seeing her so ill and not knowing what was wrong. I had the vaccine at the same time and remember every bone in my body in pain.I was not told about this until my children were older and my Dad felt guilty when my boys reacted to the MMR vaccine.
    I do strongly believe there is a predisposition in some families and their immune systems are not normal. Again we need urgent research to find which families are affected so they can choose what to do.The rise is too sharp in children with so many problems and it must be stopped. If there is anything I can do to help let me know.

  20. One Queer Fish March 2, 2009 at 11:39 #


    “Will those letters make it clear whether Dr. Wakefield’s reported data on his patients matches what is actually in their records? No.”

    Quite simply how do we know if we haven’t seen the papers ?it might add weight to Mr Deers beliefs? It seems by your comment you have seen the letters of complaint ,so maybe you could be so kind to disclose a bit more of your observations, if you don’t mind please.

  21. John Stone March 2, 2009 at 12:17 #

    One Queer Fish

    This is a nice point: Sullivan would seem to have an advantage over us.

  22. Janet Rossington March 2, 2009 at 19:15 #

    Alyric (March 1st, 2009 23:53:20) shows an ability to scrutinise masses of data in the Omnibus hearing not dissimilar to Brian Deer’s. But look at the authorities Alyric cites. They are nearly all expert witnesses previously acting for the MMR manufacturers in the (unheard) UK MMR action of the early 2000s: McDonald, Rima, Griffin, Fombonne. Whilst the US hearing has given an outlet for these views, in the UK secrecy wraps were placed around the MMR claimants’ expert witness reports and their analysis of the manufacturers research findings. The omnibus hearing has given a free license to the anti Wakefield scientists whilst benefiting from the secrecy that continues to surround the evidence of the UK claimants. Only the full release of all the evidence in the UK case will allow a balanced judgment to be reached. But would the manufacturers ever allow this?

  23. Sullivan March 2, 2009 at 21:41 #

    Janet Rossington,

    you are working from bad assumptions. The expert reports from the MMR action might have been available for the Omnibus petitioners–they just didn’t ask for them.

    You are invited to look through this document, Section D.

    Representatives of the 7 PSC informed the special masters and respondent during an unrecorded OAP status conference held on June 27, 2008 that counsel acting on behalf of the PSC in the United Kingdom had informed the PSC that, without consent from the experts of interest, there was little likelihood of obtaining the release of the desired reports from the court in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, more than one year after the conduct of the hearing in the Cedillo case, the PSC decided not to file an application with the court in the United Kingdom.

    So, the reason why the reports weren’t provided (or even ask for) by the petitioners is the fact that the experts wouldn’t give permission.

    Before you assume that this is a block by the vaccine manufacturers, note this document which has a letter from the Special Masters to the UK court lending support to the PSC request for the expert reports.

    The letter makes it clear that the PSC was asking for reports from the claimants in the UK litigation.

    Read that again–the experts working for the claimants in the UK litigation didn’t give permission for their reports to be provided to the PSC.

  24. Sullivan March 2, 2009 at 21:51 #

    OQF, Mr. Stone,

    you are soo reaching on that one as to be funny.

    It appears to this reader that this discussion is no longer fruitful.

    I hope that someone checks the medical records that Mr. Deer has reported on. The correspondence–well, you can fish for that red herring all you like. What will make a difference in the end is the medical records.

    If Mr. Deer’s reporting is correct, Dr. Wakefield’s papers need to be retracted in total.

  25. Dedj March 2, 2009 at 22:27 #

    ……….and these guys are still going to get paid at the end of it all?

    Wow, if I didn’t do the obvious like these guys didn’t (note how it was Kathleen Siedal who had to find previous cases for them) I’d be lucky to be looking at the wrong end of a reprimand, much less a fitness to practice hearing.

  26. A Scientist March 2, 2009 at 22:32 #

    I now I shouldn’t bother, but… with respect to John Stone’s last “response” to me:

    Clinical research studies with a dozen authors often mean that many of the people involved actually did rather little, and only really “owned” one piece of the jigsaw. For instance, it used to be quite common for surgeons to “co-author” studies simply on the basis of providing surgical tissue specimens for experimental studies. In general, pathologists will often simply have assessed pathological specimens; lab folk will have done PCR amplifications, assays or immunohistochemistry; specialists from other disciplines will have done their specialist thing (like a neurological assessment of a patient) but again may have had little sense of the overall picture.

    The published acknowledgement at the end of the 1998 Lancet paper, and the various indications in the text about who did what bit(s) of the work, bear this out. I expect all the authors saw one or more drafts of the paper at some stage, but it is more than feasible that only Wakefield, as the prime mover and orchestrator of the whole project, and perhaps Walker-Smith as the senior clinician, saw all the data. One could contest the scientific ethics of a lot of people authoring a paper where most of them probably didn’t know the ins and outs of all of what was in it – but it was common then, and I suspect it remains so now.

    Your sniping at me in the 3rd para:

    “I don’t know who you are… or what your claims to be a scientist are, but you do not impress…”

    – are par for the course, again, for you and your friends when dealing with anyone that contests your view of “Saint Andy” and his work. For the record, I graduated with in Chemistry (major) and Biochemistry (minor); did a PhD in physiology; and have been a tenured faculty member in a basic science Department in a medical school for the last 20-odd years. I teach medical students, do cell biological research, and have published between forty and fifty papers. These are mostly in science journals, but on occasion in more medical journals when the work is a result of collaboration with my colleagues in clinical research departments (who include cardiologists and gastroenterologists).

    And before you add your next predictable jibe, I have never been funded by the drug companies – or by a lawyer – but only by peer-reviewed research grants from government research funding organisations and charities.

    As to the last remark in your 3rd paragraph; no-one has contended that the children referred to the RFH had problems. What has been resoundingly disproved is the idea that persistent measles virus in the gut was the cause. I find it difficult to believe that the fruitless fifteen-year pursuit of the illusory MMR causation theory has helped ANYONE involved.

    Finally, feel free to have the last word, as I do not have your indefatigability and I have other stuff to do. I only hope there are some readers here who, if they are “undecided”, can see through your harangues, nit-pickings and evasions to the scientific facts.

  27. John Stone March 2, 2009 at 22:35 #

    Don’t be a child John. You’re about one stupid action away from getting this thread closed as well. – Kev.

  28. John Stone March 2, 2009 at 23:41 #

    A Scientist

    Just to mention that my snores were directed at the preceding posts, not yours which was not up at the time – and which perhaps deserves a little better. What I would point out is that what you are saying about the lesser authors would put them in a much easier position to dissociate themselves completely, but actually in 2004 the 10 only did in a very limited way, and I should imagine under very considerable pressure. So, I don’t know about that as an explanation.

    I don’t agree with you about the nature of the prosecution. They have been trying to make out that John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch were not making decisions on clinical need (in which the measles hypothesis was just a single issue), and I think that is a mischievous imputation. When there are plenty of children with autism and complex bowel problems, why would they be ordering biopsies on children who didn’t?

  29. One Queer Fish March 2, 2009 at 23:59 #

    Sully my friend

    “Still Waters Run Deep”

  30. brian March 3, 2009 at 03:19 #

    It’s interesting to see repeated protests that a Wakefield paper “stands” simply because it has not been completely retracted, as if it’s reasonable to believe that the earth rests on an elephant that stands on a turtle simply because the original suggestion was not retracted by the authors. One Queer Fish and Isabella Thomas suggested that Wakefield’s work ‘stands’, and John Stone has again echoed the unbiased science mavens at Thoughtful House by suggesting that the recent Hornig study somehow validates the thoroughly-discredited work done years earlier by Uhlmann et al. Science doesn’t work that way, as “a scientist” indicated in an earlier post: The problems must be clearly egregious before a paper is retracted?usually, we just move on.

    However, here’s a comment from someone who actually understands the science related to one of the main pillars of the MMR-autism idea, an expert who clearly thinks that the quality of the work in this area merits special attention: “Astonishingly, there is no attempt to retract the original report [Uhlmann et al.], and the admission [by Hornig et al. that [their] results are in direct contradiction of the previously reported ones are thoroughly disingenuous…”

    That’s from Stephen. Bustin, who reviewed the PCR-related aspects of Wakefield’s work in an article ( in which he clearly explained: “The purpose of this communication is to highlight the two key lines of reasoning that prove with the highest degree of certainty that Prof O’Leary’s laboratory was detecting contaminants, and that these contaminants were DNA. This is a decisive finding, since MV does not exist in DNA form. Hence the assay cannot be detecting MV and, in the absence of this bedrock evidence, any proposed link between measles virus, MMR and autism is demonstrably unsustainable.”

    Of course, John Stone, One Queer Fish, or Isabella might be able to explain how the reasoning of an internationally-recognized authority on the polymerase chain reaction is so flawed that the Uhlmann paper still ‘stands’ or Hornig confirms the Uhlmann work—but I doubt that’s possible. But before you reply, let me ask a question: I think I can understand Dr Bustin’s objections to the Wakefield PCR work since 18 years after I began using the reaction in my laboratory my research still involves using PCR to determine clinical endpoints, and Bustin’s objections seem reasonable to me—what experience do you have in this area that can allow you to conclude that Bustin is wrong? I readily acknowledge that you, like many people, may know more about this area of science than I do, but do you think that you really understand PCR better than Dr Bustin does?

  31. alyric March 3, 2009 at 03:27 #

    What a load of crock this entire post is.

    “What looked like Crohn’s disease turned out to be Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, seen also sometimes with non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder. All as reported in a now famous paper published in The Lancet in 1998 and which still stands today and has been replicated in other studies.”

    Get real – Crohn’s disease can be mistaken fir INL, which isn’t pathological anyway, no matter what Wakers liked to believe?

    “10 of the authors retracted one sentence in March 2004 and three did not and it was done to take the heat off from Government and others who complained about the effect the finding might have on childhood vaccination programmes. The one sentence is the “interpretation” and states “Interpretation We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.”.

    Conspiracy time again. Couldn’t come up with a more believable explanation?

    “The paper stands today despite Brian Deer’s best efforts. And he still has not published his complaint letters to substantiate his claims he is not the GMC complainant.”

    He’s not the complainant and never has been. You’ve been told that a few dozen times and have never come up with a refutation – not mind you that you’ve demonstrated any capacity for such.

    “And look at Deer’s articles – unlike professional journalists the world over where are all the experts making the claims he is supposed to be reporting in his stories – they are not there – on Deer’s own admission the world is asked to take Brian Deer’s word for it – from Brian Deer the expert gastroenterologist, Brian Deer the expert neurologist, Brian Deer the autism expert, Brian Deer the expert psychologist, Brian Deer the expert psychiatrist, Brian Deer the expert histopathologist, Brian Deer the patent expert etc etc etc.”

    This is just plain silly. According to yuor ill managed brain a journalist can’t report on anything that he is not academically qualified for.

    An entire post full of tripe.

  32. John Stone March 3, 2009 at 08:02 #


    You say Brian Deer is not the complainant but how do you know? A High Court judge said he was the complainant in a ruling and Deer has been completely unwilling to publish the documents, so surely we must assume until further notice that the judge was right.

  33. John Stone March 3, 2009 at 10:02 #


    Bustin was, of course, handsomely recompensed (£225,000 even before his appearance at the vaccine court):

    I am not sure what he is saying about Hornig et al – it sounds like some form of accusation. Certainly, the evidence of Hornig problematises the issue (as I have pointed out, to everyone’s fury), and keeps the Wakefield hypothesis alive (in spite of the headline conclusions). The study verified across 3 labs the presence of persistent measles virus in the ileum of two patients with bowel disease (and one with autism) – so, oh dear, the story is not over.

  34. Isabella Thomas March 3, 2009 at 10:19 #

    A scientist,

    Common observations.

    The purpose of this communication is to set out in simple terms the present status of the vaccine/autism problem.

    There is no evidence available to support the views held by a cabal of so-called medicinal product regulators and health care professionals that the observed increase in a regressive developmental behavioural condition having similarities to “autism” is not a real increase but is due to “better diagnosing” or “diagnostic redefining”.

    Since there is, after a decade of experience, no such evidence, the reality of an increase has to be accepted as fact.

    What follows has nothing to do with science, just common observation.

    Starting somewhere about 1995 reports began to appear concerning a hitherto unrecognised clinical condition in young children characterised by inflammatory bowel disease and a regressive behavioural disorder classified as autism. Since that time parental accounts have added numerous other abnormalities, all or some of which are present in affected children.

    The following is a list of reported characteristics-

    1. A period of normal development
    2. Loss of previously learnt capabilities particularly speech, eye contact and, mistakenly, hearing.
    3. Appearance of worsening bowel problems – diarrhoea/constipation/incontinence/passage of undigested food
    4. Abdominal pain often severe and disabling
    5. Abnormal thirst
    6. Body temperature dysregulation and loss of thermal sensitivity
    7. Prolonged periods of hyperpyrexia in the absence of identifiable infection
    8. Sleep disturbance, frequently very distressing
    9. Repetitive muscular activity, apparently uncontrollable – bizarre posturing possibly due to pain
    10. Temper tantrums and prolonged screaming, convulsions
    11. Violent behaviour
    12. Even in the absence of speech the child may communicate distressing insight into their own disablilities
    13. Lack of appreciation of danger
    14. Dietary intolerance, often severe
    15. Failure to thrive
    16. Precocious sexual development
    17. Various biochemical abnormalities
    18. Endoscopic and biopsy evidence of serious bowel disease.
    19. Variable improvements with dietary restrictions
    20. Gait disturbance, unsteadiness and tip-toe walking
    21. Skin rashes in the absence of obvious cause
    22. Raised urinary uracil and thymine levels
    23. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency

    This new syndrome has arisen within certain particular circumstances. The simple observational facts are as follows –

    1. There were no reports of any affected children prior to the end of the 1980’s. Almost all have arisen in the past 10 to 15 years.
    2. There have been no reports of children suffering the initiation of this syndrome of abnormalities over the age of about five years and almost all have been at a still earlier age. There are no reports of the syndrome first appearing in adolescence or adulthood.
    3. This most unusual clinical picture has arisen simultaneously in the USA, the UK, Canada, Japan and most developed countries. That is, between about 1990 (probably later) and 2008.

    Whatever the cause of the syndrome may be it has to be consistent with these three incontrovertible facts.

    Any causative agent therefore must have been either absent or inactive prior to the late 1980’s, it must have been either inaccessible or inactive to individuals over the age of about five years and to have become active at precisely the same time over most of planet earth. This is not science, they are simply the requirements arising from common observation.

    It hardly needs to be said that causal possibilities are considerably restricted. A number of suggestions have been made which include pollutants, dietary factors, infectious agents and various toxic materials. None of these are compatible with the observed constraints which require, firstly, that they would have been absent or inactive prior to the end of the 1980’s, secondly, they would have to have been specifically and exclusively active in young children and, thirdly, they would have had to become available in widely separated countries at exactly the same time.

    Someone I know in the past has been a United Kingdom representative on the OECD Chemicals Programme, the EU toxicology programme, a medical advisor to the UK Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, the UK Health and Safety Executive and the Consumer Protection Unit of the Department of Trade and Industry and has known of no material or agent that would meet these requirements.

    The expansion of childhood vaccination programmes is a possible and plausible causative factor. This is not science, it is a fact which is consistent with the constraints. I fully agree that this is not proof of causality it is just the best possibility until someone comes up with a better one. Until that time we have to accept vaccination as the primary suspect.

    The list of characteristics and clinical disorders above strongly support the view that some or all are basically autoimmune conditions which are well known and accepted adverse reactions to most childhood vaccines. This raises yet another non-scientific question – if we accept that certain autoimmune conditions, Guillain-Barre syndrome, juvenile arthritis and type 1 diabetes mellitus for example, are vaccine related then why do we not accept these other autoimmune disorders in the same way?

    Finally, there are a number of children who, having suffered some or all of the listed disorders following a vaccination, undergo a modest improvement until the administration of a booster vaccination. Following a short period of time the child suffers an exacerbation of the original adverse effects – this is called positive rechallenge. In the absence of any other explanation the effect has to be accepted as causal.


  35. Janet Rossington March 3, 2009 at 14:09 #

    Sullivan on March 2nd, 2009 21:41:23

    Thank you for your prompt reply. Fulltime work and caring responsibilities have delayed my reply. I will read the judicial summary you refer to (para numbers referring to PSC action you refer to would help).

    For the time being, in the UK Justice Keith (on 6 June 07; No: IHQ/07/0412) decided in favour of the US government’s application to the High Court in London for release of reports by Profs Bustin (two), Rima and Simmonds, when acting as expert witnesses on behalf of MMR manufactures in the UK MMR litigation. The child claimants were unable to contest this application because legal aid had been withdrawn in 2003. However, one surviving group of parents (of 10 children) unsuccessfully opposed the release of the data. The manufacturer defendants did not oppose the application.

  36. brian March 3, 2009 at 19:29 #

    Bustin’s careful examination of the Unigenetics PCR work revealed that Unigenetics could produce a positive result even if the absolutely crucial step of copying the RNA to DNA for amplification was not performed. Bustin testified, “So I have little doubt that what they are detecting is a DNA contaminant and not measles virus….” However, even if you prefer to believe that Bustin is no more credible that Bustin believes Unigenetics to be, there is a way to test this that does not rely on assessing an individual’s motives: This is a scientific issue.

    The gold standard is to determine the sequence of the PCR DNA amplification product. Wakefield clearly understood the importance of this step: that is why he sent putative positive reaction products from his own lab out for sequencing (according to his student Nick Chadwick, these turned out to be false positives). Uhlmann didn’t do this. Uhlmann reported that the majority of his samples were positive.

    D’Souza et al. did perform the definitive tests. Like Uhlmann, D’Souza found that the Uhlmann primer set produced apparently positive results in the majority of the samples that contained human DNA: D’Souza reported that “almost all” of the samples (39 of 42 samples from children with ASD and samples from 18 of 18 unaffected controls) seemed positive—until he went a step farther than Uhlmann had gone. D’Souza demonstrated that putative positives that were not shown to be false positives by careful examination of the amplicon sizes or the melting curves (something that Bustin testified was rather badly done at Unigenetics) were definitively shown to be false positives by sequencing the amplification products. Note that the difference in the sample types—blood cells or gut biopsies is irrelevant here, since both contain human DNA, and it is obviously either DNA contaminants or human DNA from the samples that is being amplified in these reactions; however, D’Souza later assayed gut biopsy samples. Dr Ward testified: “[D’Souza] demonstrate[d] quite clearly that the Uhlmann primers amplify human genes in the gut, and that means that application of those primers in gut tissue would be expected to amplify human genes. Therefore, sequencing is critical. Therefore, the lack of sequencing [by Uhlmann] is a fatal flaw.”

    Again unlike Uhlmann, Hornig et al. also used DNA sequencing to detect false positives. Hornig reported a large discrepancy between these results and those reported by Uhlmann. In particular, Hornig noted that there were no differences between the affected group and the unaffected control group in detection of measles virus RNA extracted from ileal or cecal biopsies.

    As part of the Hornig study, even O’Leary, following his public humiliation for the astonishingly poor performance at Unigenetics, undoubtedly cleaned up his act and so failed to find the huge preponderance of positive results it is now clear were due to contamination, laboratory error, and failure to follow through by sequencing the amplicons. Your suggestion that the O’Leary’s results in the Hornig paper support the discredited Uhlmann work is laughable: It makes no sense whatsover unless you contend that, following the clear demonstration of the points discussed above, O’Leary continued to use out-of-spec equipment, to inappropriately change reaction conditions (time and temperature) that should be be consistent from assay to assay, to invite contamination, and to repeatedly ignore his own laboratory SOPs so as to perform the later experiments precisely as the much-criticized earlier work had been done.

    There’s just no reason to believe the Uhlmann study, and there’s no reason at all to believe the illogical spin from Thoughtful House.

  37. Rebecca Fisher March 3, 2009 at 19:49 #

    Following John Stone’s logic, I attest that he’s a complete cock, and until he can provide documentary evidence to the contrary, we must take my comments as fact.

    Kind regards,


  38. Dedj March 3, 2009 at 20:03 #

    ” so surely we must assume until further notice that the judge was right.”

    Deer has published ‘further notice’ already.

    But you already knew this, you just won’t accept it.

    “Bustin was, of course, handsomely recompensed (£225,000 even before his appearance at the vaccine court):”

    Someone got paid for work?

    Absolutely shocking.

    Janet – by your logic , you are alluding to a conspiracy of secrecy because the respondents expert reports were released and the petitioners expert reports weren’t because………… people asked for the respondents expert reports and a group of petitioners failed to silence them.

    That’s the wierdest conspiracy ever.

  39. John Stone March 3, 2009 at 23:03 #


    “Again unlike Uhlmann, Hornig et al. also used DNA sequencing to detect false positives. Hornig reported a large discrepancy between these results and those reported by Uhlmann.”

    Hornig states that the differences in result were not due to methodology but the different group studied (as you know):

    “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.”

    “In particular, Hornig noted that there were no differences between the affected group and the unaffected control group in detection of measles virus RNA extracted from ileal or cecal biopsies.”

    The control group was not unaffected – it didn’t have autism but it did have gut pathology.

  40. Janet Rossington March 3, 2009 at 23:31 #


    Sullivan points out above that when in March 2008 the petitioners in the OAP sought access to the UK claimants’ expert reports in the UK MMR litigation, they were unsuccessful. To my knowledge there were no claimants in the UK case as it had ended and they had been unrepresented for 4 years. The refusal to release the claimants’ reports lay elsewhere and not with the UK claimants. Their case was never heard. There were several expert reports supporting the reliability of O’Leary’s Unigenetics lab, which have never seen the light of day. All the running has been made by the MMR manufacturers’ expert Bustin, Rima & Simmonds because the claimants reports were kept under wraps.

    I don’t call this a conspiracy, just a massive imbalance of power and resources in favour of the US government with the cooperation of the manufacturers who were only too happy to oblige the US gov with their expert reports in a combined effort to protect their commercial interests.

  41. One Queer Fish March 4, 2009 at 00:01 #

    .Good points John and Janet I have myself called Bustinism the Enron of The Autism/ MMR Safety Issue- for a reason. I’m told that Enron accounted for its operating expenses as capital assets. In the same way such as on here, whenever Bustinists encounter a check to their Bustinism theory, they declare how great a theory Bustinism must be, to overcome so much contrary evidence provided by Dr Wakefield`s hypothesis ,quite simply did any impartial body review Bustin’s work before he testified in court? night follows day guys, surely?? ?
    Here is your friend Mr Deer’s problem in a nutshell, Kev: Mr Deer and the Deerorites want the approval of the parents of autistic children based on Deerism beliefs and Mr Deer is willing to act in such a way by supplying beliefs as evidence unlike Dr Wakefield who has the parents as evidence but cannot show them.
    Forgive me I am sorry for saying that but since I found your forum a few weeks back I have been kept awake at night just thinking how I’d love to join your side but in order to do it I need some solid evidence and then we can fight these “dangerous menaces from JABS ” together., how about Mr Deer providing the Complaint letters for a start?
    I wish you luck Kev et-al; defending Mr Bustin (to be soon stripped of Prof). If you succeed, Mr Deer and a few other people should look you up… the PCR chain events above by Brain ..! are “laughable”.SOP SOP , just drying my eyes from laughing..

  42. PLR March 4, 2009 at 00:19 #

    Janet – You are not correct. Isabella Thomas, Jackie Fletcher of JABS and others came to the High Court on various occasions to oppose the release of claimant expert reports to the US. Also Prof O’Leary objected to the release of his own report, and declined to give evidence in the US cases which finished recently. So did his associate Dr Shiels. This was why no reports were introduced in the US, and you can see this in the judgments.

    There were no reports supporting Prof O’Leary’s lab. I would know, as I have all the expert reports. It was after the exchange of these reports that counsel for the claimants told the Legal Services Commission (for the third time) that they could make no case that MMR causes autism.

    I’m sorry if you have been misinformed, or misled, but if you were a claimant, you should take this matter up with your former solicitors. They should at least have made it clear to you why the UK case failed.

  43. brian March 4, 2009 at 00:39 #


    Since you and One Queer Fish don’t seem to be following the technical aspects of the PCR-related discussion, I don’t think it will be fruitful to continue it. Perhaps since you seem to have instead focused on conspiracy theories, you might ask if the fact that the Hornig et al. authors very obviously soft-peddled the differences between their recent study and the Uhlmann debacle in a manner that Bustin very generously calls “disingenuous” might in some way reflect their previous histories.

  44. Sullivan March 4, 2009 at 00:56 #


    you guys are trying to smear Bustin now? It shows a level of desperation that is quite unbecoming.

    Do a search for papers by Bustin. Check out how many times they are cited. The guy is an expert in the real sense of the term, not like Vera (I use the library and go to parties at UCSF, therefore I am faculty) Byers.

  45. Sullivan March 4, 2009 at 01:22 #

    . There were several expert reports supporting the reliability of O’Leary’s Unigenetics lab, which have never seen the light of day. All the running has been made by the MMR manufacturers’ expert Bustin, Rima & Simmonds because the claimants reports were kept under wraps.

    I don’t call this a conspiracy, just a massive imbalance of power and resources in favour of the US government with the cooperation of the manufacturers who were only too happy to oblige the US gov with their expert reports in a combined effort to protect their commercial interests.

    This is so far off of the reality to be blatant spin.

    The reports weren’t provided because the experts who wrote them didn’t give permission.

    I.e. the experts in support of the claimants in the UK litigation refused to give permission.

    No US government conspiracy. No imbalance of power. All that was needed was for the UK experts to approve of the reports being made public.

  46. Dedj March 4, 2009 at 01:22 #

    “because the claimants reports were kept under wraps.”

    From what has been presented, the people who keep the reports ‘under wraps’ – a usage of terms which implies a deliberate action to keep the reports secret – appear to have been the authours of the reports.

    Although, from reading what Sullivan has provided the petitioners did not make an application because of what they were told in march. As Sullivan has stated, no refusal was made, because no request was made. It’s odd that they went all the way through the process, yet never actually filed the application, despite being offered support by the Special Masters.

    The only people who appear to have made any attempt to stymie the release of reports appear to be a group of parents on the side of the claimants.

  47. alyric March 4, 2009 at 02:28 #


    No smearing of Bustin or not really – the Fish is trying for humour. She’s done it before – with ghastly results – very unedifying – but this isn’t the brightest bulb in the box. Somehow we aren’t attracting the right clientele here I think:) Take a look at John the droner – can’t seem to take it in that the GMC have said that Deer isn’t the complainant. Come to think of it he doesn’t seem to know what one is. Otherwise He’d know Deer couldn’t be one no matter what. He’d rather carry on endlessly about things he knows little about while ignoring every blatant contradiction.

  48. HCN March 4, 2009 at 06:08 #

    alyric said “He’d rather carry on endlessly about things he knows little about while ignoring every blatant contradiction.”

    I asked at: … what Mr. Stone’s qualifications and interests in the vaccines=autism game were. But I have not received an answer. Does anyone know?

    And why should we entertain his clueless blathering? If he does not understand the science, and cannot comprehend that Deer is not a complainant, and that real science has shown that Wakefield did not conduct real science… why entertain him?

    He has an agenda, and he will not let facts get in the way of his agenda. By definition that makes him a crank. A crank is just a rung up from being a troll. Like one should not feed a troll, one should also not encourage and feed a crank.

  49. WMP March 4, 2009 at 10:14 #

    The MMR litigation in the UK was to deteremine whether or not there was a causal link between the vaccine and , ASD /IBD. By far the biggest proportion of claimants suffered from autism. It may come as something as a shock to Janet Rossington who notes that there were “several expert reports supporting the reliability of O’Leary’s Unigenetics lab” to learn that professor O’ Leary conceded in a letter to Brian Deer that reports provided by Unigenetics to both the solicitors and the Court, right up until late 2003, “did not support the MMR/autism hypothesis”

    Given that the litigation swallowed up some £15-£18m of public funding (a considerable amount of money by anyone’s standards) and hundreds of hours of court time only to have it admitted that the lab work, crucial to support the claimants claims, simply wasn’t there, it’s hardly surprising that the experts reports (I am not aware of any ) supporting the reliability of O Leary’s work “never saw the light of day”. It follows that any experts reports in existence supporting O’Leary’s work must also support the fact that that his findings did not support the MMR/autism hypothesis. This is not the type of stuff the claimants would have shouted from the rooftops and may go some way to explaining why according to Janet the “complainants reports were kept under wraps”

    A logical outcome of this lack of lab work was that the three QC’s representing the children in the litigation admitted that as things stood , they could not make a case to support the claim of a causal link between MMR and autism.It is little wonder given the absence of a laboratory evidenced link between MMR and Autism and the admission by the children’s own representatives that they could not bring a case, that the Legal Services Commission withdrew funding for the litigation. The LSC were hardly likely to keep adding to the millions already spent over a period of years when the claimants own team were telling them that they could not, as things stood, bring the case. Perhaps a more relevant question the claimants should have been asking instead of scrutising the family members of the appeal judge was ‘how after all these years and millions of pounds of incvestment have we ended up with our legal team advising that they cannot make a case’?

  50. JABS-watcher March 4, 2009 at 11:51 #

    Re. HCN’s question:

    For any that don’t know, John Stone, also known on the net as “The Pope of JABS”, is chief spokesman and ubiquitous Internet presence for the “leading” UK Anti-vaccine pressure group JABS. JABS has been intimately associated with the anti-MMR campaign since at least the mid 90s. JABS started life as a “support group for vaccine-damaged children” – or, if you prefer, for parents convinced that vaccines had injured their children. John is one of the parents. Isabella Thomas is another of the JABS insiders.

Leave a Reply to WMP Cancel 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: