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 Pluserix MMR vaccine was known to be dangerous and had been withdrawn in Canada [branded as "Trivirix"] when it was approved after consideration by a range of medical professional advisors to the British Government and the UK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
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: