Lancet Refuses to Reinstate 1998 Royal Free Paper Despite Its Reasons Being Overturned in Court

The following has been published by Jake Crosby under the title: Lancet Keeps Wakefield et al. Retracted in Contempt of Court.  CHS points out that in the strictly legal sense what Jake Crosby describes in ordinary terms appears contemptuous of the legal process but is not per se a Contempt of Court in the legal sense.  However, that contempt for due process and formal fact-finding demonstrates how little any of this has to do with medical science and how much it has to do with medical politics and the protection from criticism of vaccines which have been proven dangerous and the people who wrongfully allowed their use in the United Kingdom.  Pluserix MMR vaccine was known to be dangerous and had been withdrawn in Canada [branded as "Trivirix"] when it was approved after consideration by a range of medical professional advisors to the British Government and the UK contract was signed on behalf of the NHS Procurement Directorate in 1988.  One of those advisors was Professor George Nuki who was in 1987 a member of a British government committee which was considering Pluserix MMR vaccine for approval.  It was Professor Nuki’s son, Paul Nuki, when he was an executive at The Sunday Times who hired Brian Deer in September 2003 to get something “big” on the MMR vaccine: Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action.

Here is Jake Crosby’s article

 Lancet Keeps Wakefield et al. Retracted in Contempt of Court

Findings of the UK General Medical Council against the Wakefield et al. paper were overturned by the High Court, yet the Lancet still keeps that paper retracted – citing those overturned findings. Previous attempts have been made to persuade Lancet editor Richard Horton and the previous Lancet ombudsman Charles Warlow to restore “Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular-Hyperplasia, Non-specific Colitis and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children” by Wakefield et al. Horton flatly refused, while Warlow denied having any responsibility for reconsidering the status of the paper.

Then in March, the Lancet hired Wisia Wedzicha – a new ombudsman to take Warlow’s place. In April, I contacted her asking that she repeal the retraction and restore Wakefield et al. Below is my email correspondence with her. Interestingly, she did acknowledge having responsibility for reconsidering the status of the paper, despite keeping it retracted for no given reason. She also  made it clear that she did not want to hear about this matter again.

Click here to read on for more at Jake Crosby’s website including his interesting exchanges of correspondence with The Lancet:

Lancet Keeps Wakefield et al. Retracted in Contempt of Court

About these ads

8 Responses

  1. URL error http://childhealthsafety..wordpress.com/2014/05/12/lancet-refuses-to-reinsta te-1998-royal-free-paper-despite-its-reasons-being-overturned-in-court/

    Should be http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/lancet-refuses-to-reinstate-1998-royal-free-paper-despite-its-reasons-being-overturned-in-court/

    [ED: Thanks bill. Not been able to locate the broken links in the article. They seem OK?]

  2. [ED: This comment deleted.

    Trolling and internet stalking by a clearly compulsive obsessive member of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet. To quote Dr Ben Goldacre himself commenting on his own BadScience Forum: "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally.". This is on a site owned and operated by Dr Ben Goldacre as a high profile opinion former in the mainstream medical professions].

    This troll claimed Walker-Smith’s exoneration in the English High Court did not provide any support for reinstating the Lancet paper by Walker-Smith et al.

    But firstly the judgement demonstrated the GMC Panel were incompetent to render any decision of any kind and trashed it:

    For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.

    ………… The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.

    The clearest demonstrations the GMC’s hearings were political show trials are that contrary to the Nolan Principles setting out standards to be adhered to in public life, Prof Denis McDevitt and later Dr Surendra Kumar both have conflicts regarding the MMR vaccine which should have debarred both from accepting Chairmanship of the Panel but they accepted and then failed to declare them. Additionally Dr Harvey Marcovitch put his name as an author and editor to alleged false fraud allegations in the BMJ when he had a role in the GMC of choosing hearing panels and when Walker-Smith’s appeal was sub-judice in the High Court and Walker-Smith is an author of the paper. And of course they were the most unprecedented longest running and expensive trials in the history of medicine with enormous amounts of money lavished on them by the GMC when other doctors have killed patients and not been subjected to GMC proceedings. In short, a reasonable opinion is they were going to get their men regardless.

    The troll then tries to claim that the Walker-Smith judgement provides no reason to overturn the Lancet’s retraction of the Lancet paper. This shows how Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls spread misinformation on the internet. In this case citing the Lancet’s reasoning:

    “Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false.”

    But Judge Mitting shows that the phrase “consecutively referred” was in no way misleading and expressly that the GMC’s findings were wrong.

    He found as follows:

    “The phrase “consecutively referred” means no more than that the children were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology. The words did not imply routine referral. The paragraph from which the words “a self-referred group” was taken reads:

    “We describe a pattern of colitis and ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia in children with developmental disorders. Intestinal and behavioural pathologies may have occurred together by chance, reflecting a selection bias in a self-referred group; however the uniformity of the intestinal pathological changes and the fact that previous studies have found intestinal dysfunction in children with autistic-spectrum disorders, suggests that the connection is real and reflects a unique disease process.

    The general reader of that paragraph would note the author’s caution about the possibility of selection bias in the self-referred group. Taken together with the comments already cited made about the temporal coincidence of the onset of symptoms and MMR vaccination in the case of eight children, the author has made it clear that this was not a routine referral. It was a referral generated by the concerns of parents about a possible link. The statement made by the panel in paragraph 32c that it was Professor Walker-Smith who had described the referral process in the Lancet paper as “routine” was wrong. It put its stretched meaning of the wording of part of the paper into his mouth and then found that it was irresponsible and misleading. This was not a legitimate finding.”

    So that clearly shows the Lancet’s reasoning was wrong and contrary to the judgement of Judge Mitting. Yet that does not prevent Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls from spreading outright false claims contrary to a legally binding decision of the English Court.

    The troll actually wrote “Mitting’s judgement in fact confirms that both of these reasons remain true. ” when the above quotes show that is not so. So as anyone can see some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls intentionally troll and spam blogs on the internet making false claims.

    Yet the troll claims the judgement by Mitting exonerating Walker-Smith does not provide any support for re-instating the Lancet paper.

    And on the issue of ethics approval Judge Mitting did not have before him the documentary evidence that it is alleged Brian Deer had and withheld that showed ethics approval 162/95 was routinely applied to support many journal paper publications at the Royal Free Hospital, including the 1998 Lancet paper, as had a similar approval from St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London before Walker-Smith moved to the Royal Free Hospital.

    None of those papers have been retracted covering much of Walker-Smith’s career and upon which much of modern pediatric gastroenterology is founded.

    But the Lancet paper is singled out.

    Again, clearly political.

    However, Judge Mitting still rejected the GMC’s panel findings as unsubstantiated that there was no ethics approval under ethics approval 162/95 as he also rejected the GMC panels finding it was ethics approval 172/96 that applied instead.

    Which just shows quite how creepy these Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls really are when they go onto blogs making all this stuff up.

    And finally, demonstrating how slimy and oleaginous some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members are the troll – getting desperate claims he knows the identities of CHS commentators.

    It is common behaviour of some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum trolls to invent blogs under cover of anonymity and simply lie about many people across the internet they do not agree with.

    For good reason, and as also confirmed by Dr Ben Goldacre’s own BadScience internet forum rules for their own forum, the identities of the numerous contributors to CHS are not revealed unless they have agreed. There is no published list of contributors to CHS.

    But some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum members are obsessive and obsessed. They engage in internet stalking like this particular commenter shows he does.

    This troll is clearly so very angry and cannot contain his rage about not being allowed to win with his shabby tactics. He does not know who the contributors to CHS are but that does not stop him. His compulsions, compulsiveness and obsessions take him to extremes – engaging in internet trolling and stalking as his repeated appearances on CHS have demonstrated.

    Even when it means compulsively and repeatedly being untruthful, as can be seen from the example of the troll shown here he has to invent untrue claims as it seems he cannot bear looking like a loser. Quite sad.

    So this shows how some of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum go about their trolling and showing it up for what it is.

    People are getting the picture.

    Dr Ben Goldacre’s association with these people by facilitating and encouraging their actions through his BadScience Forum indicates their behaviour appears to be approved of and endorsed by the medical establishment. Some BadScience members are registered British medical doctors.

    This is reinforced by Dr Ben Goldacre’s prominence in the medical hierarchy where he shares lecturing platforms with prominent medical establishment figures including from the British Medical Journal. He was also appointed temporarily to advise the British Government’s Cabinet Office. So the association with these activities is not just Dr Ben Goldacre but also Dr Ben Goldacre’s endorsement by the medical and political hierarchies.

    So thanks for providing more evidence.

    It is one rule for the troll and Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum other trolls and another for those they attempt to bully, abuse, harass and disparage on the internet, clearly it would seem with Dr Ben Goldacre’s implicit support [although it looks more like it is akin to explicit].

    Interestingly, this particular troll published his identity on the internet when making numerous comments online about vaccination issues. But when challenged he was one of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum internet trolls and bullies, he vanished from the comments. Which is probably why at his age he is still only an Associate Professor. But if you want to keep your garden looking pretty and free of unwanted growth in the antipodes it seems he is your man.

    So the final summation is therefore that is yet another example of the tactics of some of the yellow-bellied cowards of Dr Ben Goldacre’s BadScience Forum and why CHS takes the approach to such thugs that it does. In CHS’s views – what slime.]

  3. [ED: This comment deleted.

    Trolling and internet stalking by a clearly compulsive obsessive member of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet. To quote Dr Ben Goldacre himself commenting on his own BadScience Forum: "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally.". This is on a site owned and operated by Dr Ben Goldacre as a high profile opinion former in the mainstream medical professions].

  4. [ED: This comment deleted.

    Trolling and internet stalking by a clearly compulsive obsessive member of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet. To quote Dr Ben Goldacre himself commenting on his own BadScience Forum: "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally.". This is on a site owned and operated by Dr Ben Goldacre as a high profile opinion former in the mainstream medical professions].

  5. [ED: This comment deleted.

    Trolling and internet stalking by a clearly compulsive obsessive member of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet. To quote Dr Ben Goldacre himself commenting on his own BadScience Forum: "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally.". This is on a site owned and operated by Dr Ben Goldacre as a high profile opinion former in the mainstream medical professions].

  6. [ED: This comment deleted.

    Trolling and internet stalking by a clearly compulsive obsessive member of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet. To quote Dr Ben Goldacre himself commenting on his own BadScience Forum: "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally.". This is on a site owned and operated by Dr Ben Goldacre as a high profile opinion former in the mainstream medical professions].

  7. [ED: This comment deleted.

    Trolling and internet stalking by a clearly compulsive obsessive member of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet. To quote Dr Ben Goldacre himself commenting on his own BadScience Forum: "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally.". This is on a site owned and operated by Dr Ben Goldacre as a high profile opinion former in the mainstream medical professions].

  8. It’s a shame we can’t read what Mr Preston said so we can make the judgement for ourselves. Perhaps we can be trusted to be grown up enough to recognise trolling and bullying for itself should that actually be the case. If Mr Preston is making some other points, perhaps we could be allowed to check them for ourselves.

    [ED: That is easily solved. Run your own blog and promise all trolls and spamsters that you will publish all their trolling and spamming comments. Glad to see you know who the BadScience troll spammer is. Looks like he is a mate of yours so you will not have a problem asking him. You could even be his mum or his big sister. We would not be surprised. Who knows.]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 959 other followers

%d bloggers like this: