Wow! - JABS announcement re the Wakefield GMC case

[Guest guest]

Update On Hearing Into Dr Wakefield, et al.

Dr Horton and the GMC hearing,

JABS Briefing Note 9TH April 2008

JABS is a UK support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

Documentary evidence has come to light concerning the role of

Dr Horton in the disciplinary hearing against Dr

Wakefield and colleagues currently before the General Medical

Council. The investigation by the GMC was instigated at the behest of

the then Health Secretary, Reid, following allegations by Dr

Horton that Dr Wakefield had hidden his involvement in the MMR

litigation at the time of the publication of his controversial 1998

study.

Subsequently Dr Horton gave evidence to the GMC under oath in

2007 to the effect that he was totally unaware of Dr Wakefield's

involvement in a class-action lawsuit being led by the Norfolk

solicitors Dawbarns when The Lancet published its controversial paper

in February 1998 that led to the intense and long-running controversy

over MMR's safety.

The recently unearthed correspondence between Dr Horton at The

Lancet and the lawyers seeking compensation for children believed to

have been damaged by the MMR vaccine would indicate that Dr Horton

knew, almost a full year before the controversial paper appeared,

that Dr Wakefield was also involved in assembling medical evidence

for the lawsuit.

From this correspondence it appears that both Dr Horton and

members of his staff at The Lancet had been informed of this and did

not see it as a reason to withhold publication. JABS would like to

know how someone with Dr Horton's responsibility could make

apparently erroneous claims over a period of more than four years,

and also how this could have gone overlooked by The Lancet's staff

and legal advisors over this period.

Dr Horton's problem is compounded by the fact that a letter to

the Lancet from Dr A Rouse, Department of Public Health Medicine, was

received on Tuesday 4th March 1998 just one working day following

publication (Friday 28 February 1998) and forwarded by the Lancet on

9 March 1998 and in its original version plainly alluded to

circumstances prior to publication of the study.

Dr Rouse's letter was edited and published in The Lancet on 2

May 1998 with a response from Dr Wakefield. Textual analysis shows

that Dr Wakefield was answering the original version of Dr Rouse's

letter, not the one published more than eight weeks later. Moreover,

Dr Rouse's original letter cited extracts from a Dawbarns Fact Sheet

dated July 1997.

There could therefore be no reasonable mistake on Dr Horton's

part that Dr Wakefield might be referring to any potential

involvement commenced after the publication of the study on 28

February 1998, rather than before.

Dr Horton has repeatedly stated that, if he had previously

known of Dr Wakefield's evidence-gathering for Dawbarns, the 1998

paper would not have been accepted. One of the main reasons the GMC's

long-running hearing is being held is precisely because Dr Horton

subsequently accused Dr Wakefield of concealing this crucial

involvement, leading to the accusations by Mr Deer and the

Sunday Times.

JABS believes that Dr Wakefield has been falsely accused ever

since by the Department of Health, the medical establishment and the

Sunday Times of deliberate concealment, something that he has always

denied. Dr Wakefield has always openly confirmed his involvement with

the MMR legal action, and the new evidence now fully supports him all

the way back to early 1997.

Mr Barr, the solicitor at Dawbarns at the centre of the

correspondence with Dr Horton at The Lancet has agreed to make

available all the original copies of the correspondence to the GMC

hearings.

In the opinion of JABS these latest revelations now throw the

GMC prosecution case, against Dr Wakefield in particular, into chaos.

The GMC should have no option but to re-question Dr Horton in

the light of the new evidence, to try to get to the bottom of what he

and his staff knew and when they knew it, and why they apparently

subsequently stopped knowing it!

This dramatic development in the MMR controversy may also

ultimately lead to calls for Dr Horton to resign if his evidence to

the GMC has been knowingly at variance with the facts.

Concern must also surround the fact that Dr Horton was on his

own account drawn into framing charges against Dr Wakefield by the

GMC only three days after his denunciation, as well as subsequently

acting as a prosecution witness.

He states in his book MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the

Vaccine Crisis: `…Indeed, the GMC seemed non-plussed by Reid's

intervention. The best their spokeswoman could say was: 'We are

concerned by these allegations and will be looking at what action, if

any, may be necessary.' In truth, they had not a clue where to begin.

At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I

discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council

could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked

over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he

scribbled down some possible lines of investigation, and passed me

his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything sprang

to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given

ministerial interest. Here was professionally led regulation of

doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifully

wood-panelled room of one of medicine's most venerable institutions…'

(Horton p.7-8) (1) A further deeply unsatisfactory feature is that

Dr Horton has never disclosed that his boss, Sir Crispin , chief

executive of Elsevier, was appointed a non-executive director of

MMR defendants GlaxoKline in summer 2003 only a few months

before the Sunday Times article in February 2004 that accused Dr

Wakefield.

This is in addition to the embarrassment that the high court

judge who dismissed the MMR autism cases just seven days after Dr

Horton's accusation was none other than Sir Crispin's younger brother

Sir Nigel . (2) (3) JABS believes it is essential that there

is now a full and open public enquiry into this matter.

JABS National Office, 1 Gawsworth Road, Golborne, Warrington,

Cheshire WA3 3RF

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I don’t understand this. Can someone translate? Why would the LANCET need

to pretend they didn’t know about the legal case? Sorry for dimness but I’d

love to understand it. Sara

-----Original

Message-----

From: Autism-Biomedical-Europe

[mailto:Autism-Biomedical-Europe ] On Behalf Of mcollins2001uk

Sent: 10 April 2008 10:21

To:

Autism-Biomedical-Europe

Subject:

Wow! - JABS announcement re the Wakefield GMC case

Update On Hearing Into Dr Wakefield, et al.

Dr Horton and the GMC hearing,

JABS Briefing Note 9TH April 2008

JABS is a UK support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

Documentary evidence has come to light concerning the role of

Dr Horton in the disciplinary hearing against Dr

Wakefield and colleagues currently before the General Medical

Council. The investigation by the GMC was instigated at the behest of

the then Health Secretary, Reid, following allegations by Dr

Horton that Dr Wakefield had hidden his involvement in the MMR

litigation at the time of the publication of his controversial 1998

study.

Subsequently Dr Horton gave evidence to the GMC under oath in

2007 to the effect that he was totally unaware of Dr Wakefield's

involvement in a class-action lawsuit being led by the Norfolk

solicitors Dawbarns when The Lancet published its controversial paper

in February 1998 that led to the intense and long-running controversy

over MMR's safety.

The recently unearthed correspondence between Dr Horton at The

Lancet and the lawyers seeking compensation for children believed to

have been damaged by the MMR vaccine would indicate that Dr Horton

knew, almost a full year before the controversial paper appeared,

that Dr Wakefield was also involved in assembling medical evidence

for the lawsuit.

From this correspondence it appears that both Dr Horton and

members of his staff at The Lancet had been informed of this and did

not see it as a reason to withhold publication. JABS would like to

know how someone with Dr Horton's responsibility could make

apparently erroneous claims over a period of more than four years,

and also how this could have gone overlooked by The Lancet's staff

and legal advisors over this period.

Dr Horton's problem is compounded by the fact that a letter to

the Lancet from Dr A Rouse, Department of Public Health Medicine, was

received on Tuesday 4th March 1998 just one working day following

publication (Friday 28 February 1998) and forwarded by the Lancet on

9 March 1998 and in its original version plainly alluded to

circumstances prior to publication of the study.

Dr Rouse's letter was edited and published in The Lancet on 2

May 1998 with a response from Dr Wakefield. Textual analysis shows

that Dr Wakefield was answering the original version of Dr Rouse's

letter, not the one published more than eight weeks later. Moreover,

Dr Rouse's original letter cited extracts from a Dawbarns Fact Sheet

dated July 1997.

There could therefore be no reasonable mistake on Dr Horton's

part that Dr Wakefield might be referring to any potential

involvement commenced after the publication of the study on 28

February 1998, rather than before.

Dr Horton has repeatedly stated that, if he had previously

known of Dr Wakefield's evidence-gathering for Dawbarns, the 1998

paper would not have been accepted. One of the main reasons the GMC's

long-running hearing is being held is precisely because Dr Horton

subsequently accused Dr Wakefield of concealing this crucial

involvement, leading to the accusations by Mr Deer and the

Sunday Times.

JABS believes that Dr Wakefield has been falsely accused ever

since by the Department of Health, the medical establishment and the

Sunday Times of deliberate concealment, something that he has always

denied. Dr Wakefield has always openly confirmed his involvement with

the MMR legal action, and the new evidence now fully supports him all

the way back to early 1997.

Mr Barr, the solicitor at Dawbarns at the centre of the

correspondence with Dr Horton at The Lancet has agreed to make

available all the original copies of the correspondence to the GMC

hearings.

In the opinion of JABS these latest revelations now throw the

GMC prosecution case, against Dr Wakefield in particular, into chaos.

The GMC should have no option but to re-question Dr Horton in

the light of the new evidence, to try to get to the bottom of what he

and his staff knew and when they knew it, and why they apparently

subsequently stopped knowing it!

This dramatic development in the MMR controversy may also

ultimately lead to calls for Dr Horton to resign if his evidence to

the GMC has been knowingly at variance with the facts.

Concern must also surround the fact that Dr Horton was on his

own account drawn into framing charges against Dr Wakefield by the

GMC only three days after his denunciation, as well as subsequently

acting as a prosecution witness.

He states in his book MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the

Vaccine Crisis: `…Indeed, the GMC seemed non-plussed by Reid's

intervention. The best their spokeswoman could say was: 'We are

concerned by these allegations and will be looking at what action, if

any, may be necessary.' In truth, they had not a clue where to begin.

At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I

discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council

could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked

over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he

scribbled down some possible lines of investigation, and passed me

his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything sprang

to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given

ministerial interest. Here was professionally led regulation of

doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifully

wood-panelled room of one of medicine's most venerable institutions…'

(Horton p.7-8) (1) A further deeply unsatisfactory feature is that

Dr Horton has never disclosed that his boss, Sir Crispin , chief

executive of Elsevier, was appointed a non-executive director of

MMR defendants GlaxoKline in summer 2003 only a few months

before the Sunday Times article in February 2004 that accused Dr

Wakefield.

This is in addition to the embarrassment that the high court

judge who dismissed the MMR autism cases just seven days after Dr

Horton's accusation was none other than Sir Crispin's younger brother

Sir Nigel . (2) (3) JABS believes it is essential that there

is now a full and open public enquiry into this matter.

JABS National Office, 1 Gawsworth Road, Golborne, Warrington,

Cheshire WA3 3RF

[Guest guest]

I think the crux of this is that Dr Horton (who it appears, works

at/for the Lancet) went on record saying that if he had known about

Dr W's involvement in assembling medical evidence for the MMR

lawsuit before Dr W's article was published in the Lancet, then the

Lancet's editorial policy (presumably Horton is on the Lancet's

editorial panel) would have barred Dr W's article from publication

(because of the alleged conflict of interest).

It now appears that both Dr Horton and the staff at the Lancet knew

about Dr W's involvement in assembling medical evidence for the MMR

lawsuit well in advance of Dr W's article being

published...........and it didnt stop them from approving it for

publication in the Lancet.

Dr Horton subsequestly accused Dr W of concealing his involvement in

assembling medical evidence and that was one of the main reasons

that precipitated the GMC investigation..........

so if in fact Horton and the Lancet did know about Dr W's

involvement in collecting evidence for the lawsuit that means they

didnt see it as a conflict of interest at the time.........and this

begs the question of why they are subsequently claiming it is a

conflict of interest.

They have basically been exposed as liars, which is great news for

Dr W's case, and well done to his lawyers for getting hold of all

the correspondence that shows this.

Hope that helps

Zoe

>

> Hi, I don't understand this. Can someone translate? Why would the

LANCET

> need to pretend they didn't know about the legal case? Sorry for

dimness

> but I'd love to understand it. Sara

>

> Wow! - JABS announcement re the

> Wakefield GMC case

>

> Update On Hearing Into Dr Wakefield, et al.

>

> Dr Horton and the GMC hearing,

> JABS Briefing Note 9TH April 2008

> JABS is a UK support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

>

> Documentary evidence has come to light concerning the role of

> Dr Horton in the disciplinary hearing against Dr

> Wakefield and colleagues currently before the General Medical

> Council. The investigation by the GMC was instigated at the behest

of

> the then Health Secretary, Reid, following allegations by Dr

> Horton that Dr Wakefield had hidden his involvement in the MMR

> litigation at the time of the publication of his controversial

1998

> study.

> Subsequently Dr Horton gave evidence to the GMC under oath in

> 2007 to the effect that he was totally unaware of Dr Wakefield's

> involvement in a class-action lawsuit being led by the Norfolk

> solicitors Dawbarns when The Lancet published its controversial

paper

> in February 1998 that led to the intense and long-running

controversy

> over MMR's safety.

> The recently unearthed correspondence between Dr Horton at The

> Lancet and the lawyers seeking compensation for children believed

to

> have been damaged by the MMR vaccine would indicate that Dr Horton

> knew, almost a full year before the controversial paper appeared,

> that Dr Wakefield was also involved in assembling medical evidence

> for the lawsuit.

> From this correspondence it appears that both Dr Horton and

> members of his staff at The Lancet had been informed of this and

did

> not see it as a reason to withhold publication. JABS would like to

> know how someone with Dr Horton's responsibility could make

> apparently erroneous claims over a period of more than four years,

> and also how this could have gone overlooked by The Lancet's staff

> and legal advisors over this period.

> Dr Horton's problem is compounded by the fact that a letter to

> the Lancet from Dr A Rouse, Department of Public Health Medicine,

was

> received on Tuesday 4th March 1998 just one working day following

> publication (Friday 28 February 1998) and forwarded by the Lancet

on

> 9 March 1998 and in its original version plainly alluded to

> circumstances prior to publication of the study.

> Dr Rouse's letter was edited and published in The Lancet on 2

> May 1998 with a response from Dr Wakefield. Textual analysis shows

> that Dr Wakefield was answering the original version of Dr Rouse's

> letter, not the one published more than eight weeks later.

Moreover,

> Dr Rouse's original letter cited extracts from a Dawbarns Fact

Sheet

> dated July 1997.

> There could therefore be no reasonable mistake on Dr Horton's

> part that Dr Wakefield might be referring to any potential

> involvement commenced after the publication of the study on 28

> February 1998, rather than before.

> Dr Horton has repeatedly stated that, if he had previously

> known of Dr Wakefield's evidence-gathering for Dawbarns, the 1998

> paper would not have been accepted. One of the main reasons the

GMC's

> long-running hearing is being held is precisely because Dr Horton

> subsequently accused Dr Wakefield of concealing this crucial

> involvement, leading to the accusations by Mr Deer and the

> Sunday Times.

> JABS believes that Dr Wakefield has been falsely accused ever

> since by the Department of Health, the medical establishment and

the

> Sunday Times of deliberate concealment, something that he has

always

> denied. Dr Wakefield has always openly confirmed his involvement

with

> the MMR legal action, and the new evidence now fully supports him

all

> the way back to early 1997.

> Mr Barr, the solicitor at Dawbarns at the centre of the

> correspondence with Dr Horton at The Lancet has agreed to make

> available all the original copies of the correspondence to the GMC

> hearings.

> In the opinion of JABS these latest revelations now throw the

> GMC prosecution case, against Dr Wakefield in particular, into

chaos.

> The GMC should have no option but to re-question Dr Horton in

> the light of the new evidence, to try to get to the bottom of what

he

> and his staff knew and when they knew it, and why they apparently

> subsequently stopped knowing it!

> This dramatic development in the MMR controversy may also

> ultimately lead to calls for Dr Horton to resign if his evidence

to

> the GMC has been knowingly at variance with the facts.

> Concern must also surround the fact that Dr Horton was on his

> own account drawn into framing charges against Dr Wakefield by the

> GMC only three days after his denunciation, as well as

subsequently

> acting as a prosecution witness.

> He states in his book MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the

> Vaccine Crisis: `.Indeed, the GMC seemed non-plussed by Reid's

> intervention. The best their spokeswoman could say was: 'We are

> concerned by these allegations and will be looking at what action,

if

> any, may be necessary.' In truth, they had not a clue where to

begin.

> At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I

> discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council

> could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked

> over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he

> scribbled down some possible lines of investigation, and passed me

> his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything

sprang

> to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given

> ministerial interest. Here was professionally led regulation of

> doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifully

> wood-panelled room of one of medicine's most venerable

institutions.'

> (Horton p.7-8) (1) A further deeply unsatisfactory feature is that

> Dr Horton has never disclosed that his boss, Sir Crispin ,

chief

> executive of Elsevier, was appointed a non-executive director

of

> MMR defendants GlaxoKline in summer 2003 only a few months

> before the Sunday Times article in February 2004 that accused Dr

> Wakefield.

> This is in addition to the embarrassment that the high court

> judge who dismissed the MMR autism cases just seven days after Dr

> Horton's accusation was none other than Sir Crispin's younger

brother

> Sir Nigel . (2) (3) JABS believes it is essential that there

> is now a full and open public enquiry into this matter.

>

> JABS National Office, 1 Gawsworth Road, Golborne, Warrington,

> Cheshire WA3 3RF

>

[Guest guest]

---Hi Sara

I might have misunderstood but I think they are saying that one of the

things the Lancet has repeatedly claimed over the years is that they

would never have published the paper in the first place if they knew it

was the subject of a legal action. Presumably publishing the paper

before the case goes to court could prejudice the outcome as the judge

and jury could form an opinion before hearing the evidence.

It sounds like the lawyers involved in the legal action have proof that

the Lancet knew about the legal action and Andy's involvement as an

expert witness it a year before it published the paper, and that this

Dr Horton has lied under oath which is very serious.

But maybe I've got this completely wrong, in which case I'm sure

someone will correct me!!

x

[Guest guest]

Whoops, I see now Zoe has already answered this!

x

[Guest guest]

I remember a TV interview with the editor of the Lancet in which he said

that if he'd known he wouldn't have published Wakefield's stuff. Seemed

a bit bogus because afterall if the science is good then it's good but

he made quite a lot of damning statements which I would have thought

would have been sueable if not true

Sally

Zoe wrote:

>

> I think the crux of this is that Dr Horton (who it appears, works

> at/for the Lancet) went on record saying that if he had known about

> Dr W's involvement in assembling medical evidence for the MMR

> lawsuit before Dr W's article was published in the Lancet, then the

> Lancet's editorial policy (presumably Horton is on the Lancet's

> editorial panel) would have barred Dr W's article from publication

> (because of the alleged conflict of interest).

>

> It now appears that both Dr Horton and the staff at the Lancet knew

> about Dr W's involvement in assembling medical evidence for the MMR

> lawsuit well in advance of Dr W's article being

> published...........and it didnt stop them from approving it for

> publication in the Lancet.

>

> Dr Horton subsequestly accused Dr W of concealing his involvement in

> assembling medical evidence and that was one of the main reasons

> that precipitated the GMC investigation..........

>

> so if in fact Horton and the Lancet did know about Dr W's

> involvement in collecting evidence for the lawsuit that means they

> didnt see it as a conflict of interest at the time.........and this

> begs the question of why they are subsequently claiming it is a

> conflict of interest.

>

> They have basically been exposed as liars, which is great news for

> Dr W's case, and well done to his lawyers for getting hold of all

> the correspondence that shows this.

>

> Hope that helps

>

> Zoe

>

>

> >

> > Hi, I don't understand this. Can someone translate? Why would the

> LANCET

> > need to pretend they didn't know about the legal case? Sorry for

> dimness

> > but I'd love to understand it. Sara

> >

> > Wow! - JABS announcement re the

> > Wakefield GMC case

> >

> > Update On Hearing Into Dr Wakefield, et al.

> >

> > Dr Horton and the GMC hearing,

> > JABS Briefing Note 9TH April 2008

> > JABS is a UK support group for parents of vaccine damaged children.

> >

> > Documentary evidence has come to light concerning the role of

> > Dr Horton in the disciplinary hearing against Dr

> > Wakefield and colleagues currently before the General Medical

> > Council. The investigation by the GMC was instigated at the behest

> of

> > the then Health Secretary, Reid, following allegations by Dr

> > Horton that Dr Wakefield had hidden his involvement in the MMR

> > litigation at the time of the publication of his controversial

> 1998

> > study.

> > Subsequently Dr Horton gave evidence to the GMC under oath in

> > 2007 to the effect that he was totally unaware of Dr Wakefield's

> > involvement in a class-action lawsuit being led by the Norfolk

> > solicitors Dawbarns when The Lancet published its controversial

> paper

> > in February 1998 that led to the intense and long-running

> controversy

> > over MMR's safety.

> > The recently unearthed correspondence between Dr Horton at The

> > Lancet and the lawyers seeking compensation for children believed

> to

> > have been damaged by the MMR vaccine would indicate that Dr Horton

> > knew, almost a full year before the controversial paper appeared,

> > that Dr Wakefield was also involved in assembling medical evidence

> > for the lawsuit.

> > From this correspondence it appears that both Dr Horton and

> > members of his staff at The Lancet had been informed of this and

> did

> > not see it as a reason to withhold publication. JABS would like to

> > know how someone with Dr Horton's responsibility could make

> > apparently erroneous claims over a period of more than four years,

> > and also how this could have gone overlooked by The Lancet's staff

> > and legal advisors over this period.

> > Dr Horton's problem is compounded by the fact that a letter to

> > the Lancet from Dr A Rouse, Department of Public Health Medicine,

> was

> > received on Tuesday 4th March 1998 just one working day following

> > publication (Friday 28 February 1998) and forwarded by the Lancet

> on

> > 9 March 1998 and in its original version plainly alluded to

> > circumstances prior to publication of the study.

> > Dr Rouse's letter was edited and published in The Lancet on 2

> > May 1998 with a response from Dr Wakefield. Textual analysis shows

> > that Dr Wakefield was answering the original version of Dr Rouse's

> > letter, not the one published more than eight weeks later.

> Moreover,

> > Dr Rouse's original letter cited extracts from a Dawbarns Fact

> Sheet

> > dated July 1997.

> > There could therefore be no reasonable mistake on Dr Horton's

> > part that Dr Wakefield might be referring to any potential

> > involvement commenced after the publication of the study on 28

> > February 1998, rather than before.

> > Dr Horton has repeatedly stated that, if he had previously

> > known of Dr Wakefield's evidence-gathering for Dawbarns, the 1998

> > paper would not have been accepted. One of the main reasons the

> GMC's

> > long-running hearing is being held is precisely because Dr Horton

> > subsequently accused Dr Wakefield of concealing this crucial

> > involvement, leading to the accusations by Mr Deer and the

> > Sunday Times.

> > JABS believes that Dr Wakefield has been falsely accused ever

> > since by the Department of Health, the medical establishment and

> the

> > Sunday Times of deliberate concealment, something that he has

> always

> > denied. Dr Wakefield has always openly confirmed his involvement

> with

> > the MMR legal action, and the new evidence now fully supports him

> all

> > the way back to early 1997.

> > Mr Barr, the solicitor at Dawbarns at the centre of the

> > correspondence with Dr Horton at The Lancet has agreed to make

> > available all the original copies of the correspondence to the GMC

> > hearings.

> > In the opinion of JABS these latest revelations now throw the

> > GMC prosecution case, against Dr Wakefield in particular, into

> chaos.

> > The GMC should have no option but to re-question Dr Horton in

> > the light of the new evidence, to try to get to the bottom of what

> he

> > and his staff knew and when they knew it, and why they apparently

> > subsequently stopped knowing it!

> > This dramatic development in the MMR controversy may also

> > ultimately lead to calls for Dr Horton to resign if his evidence

> to

> > the GMC has been knowingly at variance with the facts.

> > Concern must also surround the fact that Dr Horton was on his

> > own account drawn into framing charges against Dr Wakefield by the

> > GMC only three days after his denunciation, as well as

> subsequently

> > acting as a prosecution witness.

> > He states in his book MMR Science and Fiction: Exploring the

> > Vaccine Crisis: `.Indeed, the GMC seemed non-plussed by Reid's

> > intervention. The best their spokeswoman could say was: 'We are

> > concerned by these allegations and will be looking at what action,

> if

> > any, may be necessary.' In truth, they had not a clue where to

> begin.

> > At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I

> > discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council

> > could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked

> > over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he

> > scribbled down some possible lines of investigation, and passed me

> > his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything

> sprang

> > to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given

> > ministerial interest. Here was professionally led regulation of

> > doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifully

> > wood-panelled room of one of medicine's most venerable

> institutions.'

> > (Horton p.7-8) (1) A further deeply unsatisfactory feature is that

> > Dr Horton has never disclosed that his boss, Sir Crispin ,

> chief

> > executive of Elsevier, was appointed a non-executive director

> of

> > MMR defendants GlaxoKline in summer 2003 only a few months

> > before the Sunday Times article in February 2004 that accused Dr

> > Wakefield.

> > This is in addition to the embarrassment that the high court

> > judge who dismissed the MMR autism cases just seven days after Dr

> > Horton's accusation was none other than Sir Crispin's younger

> brother

> > Sir Nigel . (2) (3) JABS believes it is essential that there

> > is now a full and open public enquiry into this matter.

> >

> > JABS National Office, 1 Gawsworth Road, Golborne, Warrington,

> > Cheshire WA3 3RF

> >

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1367 - Release Date: 09/04/2008

07:10

>

[Guest guest]

Dr Horton was the Editor of the Lancet at the time in question.

Margaret