Video 03 - The Lancet Paper Retraction on False Grounds - 9m 7s - "How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed - a 21st Century Controversy"
Video 03 - The Lancet Paper Retraction on False Grounds - 9m 7s - "How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed - a 21st Century Controversy"
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO
ANDREW WAKEFIELD
NAVIGATION
Back to How to Get Best Use of this Site
Video 03 - The Lancet Paper Retraction 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The 1998 Lancet paper was retracted by Lancet journal Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton for two reasons.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 below, 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”.
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.
Although attending most the GMC hearing days, knowing full well that the main allegation was of carrying out research without ethics approval, the BMJ editors’ author kept the documents to himself and never disclosed them despite his “public duty”.
Back to How to Get Best Use of this Site page
In the video below you will see for yourself the evidence that the withheld documents proved the doctors had ethics approval REC 162/95 – 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.
Get a free 48 hours paid subscription. Accept on or before 27 March for 48 hours free paid access.