Lancet Journal Editor Retracted Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet Paper on False Grounds

How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed – a 21st Century Controversy

Today the Euripides site releases Video 03. How Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet Paper Was Retracted on False Grounds – 9m 7s

The 1998 Lancet paper was retracted by Lancet journal Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton for two reasons. Both reasons are wrong. They come from two of the findings of the GMC Panel’s decision against Professor Walker-Smith, Andrew Wakefield and Simon Murch.

In Video 3, you will see for yourself the evidence showing those reasons are wrong and why.

You will also see the evidence proving that the BMJ’s commissioned author withheld 11 crucial documents from all parties to the GMC proceedings which only he had and which he withheld from the GMC and everyone involved in the GMC hearings whilst claiming falsely he had given the GMC all his evidence as a “public duty”. This was despite him attending most the GMC hearing days, knowing full well that the main charge alleged the carrying out of research on children without ethics approval. The BMJ editors’ author kept the documents to himself and never disclosed them despite his “public duty”.

You will see for yourself the evidence that the withheld documents proved the doctors had ethics approval REC 162/95. Those documents were critical because they entirely undermined the GMC case alleging unethical research when the research element had ethics approval.

So those documents are relevant to the GMC case and to the retraction of the 1998 Lancet paper by Dr Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of the journal. The BMJ’s author obtained them under Freedom of Information in February 2004.

The GMC had not seen any documents relating to REC 162/95 ethics approval – as confirmed by their Prosecutor, Sally Smith QC on Day 8 of the hearings when Professor Walker-Smith’s Counsel produced letters referring to the approval.

Walker-Smith had no documents proving REC 162/95 was in routine use.

The only person at the hearings who had them was the BMJ’s journalist.

The documents proved that the only part of the investigations which might have been research did have research ethics approval and that this approval was in routine use month in and month out for many years.

Every parent of every child had been presented with and signed a REC 162/95 ethics consent form.

Video 3 is the seven video but only the second on pay-per-view. The first five introductory videos are free-to-view.

Get a free 48 hours paid subscription to the Euripides site. Accept on or before 27 March for 48 hours free paid access.

---

Discover more from ____________________Child Health Safety_________________

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.