On the matter of the Lancet retraction

http://whale.to/vaccine/lancet7.html

On the matter of the Lancet retraction
Hilary Butler - Monday, February 01, 2010


The Lancet has retracted the 1998 paper (1). Now, all the pillorying and
slandering of Andrew Wakefield will start in earnest. The question is, "How
does Richard Horton manage to go to sleep each night?". And here's why. In
2004, the Lancet "partially" retracted the paper, on the basis that Andrew
Wakefield never declared to the Lancet, financial conflicts of interest.
When confronted in front of the GMC, with 1997 faxes , and proof of receipt,
showing that that required information had indeed been received by the
Lancet, Richard Horton said that he had never seen it.
How convenient. Again, in front of the GMC, when asked what he thought of
the 1998 case-study, Richard Horton was effusive in praise, saying words to
the effect that it was an excellent example of a case study and conformed to
the highest scientific standards.

Interesting then, to see that one reason for the full retraction is because
the study didn't have ethical approval. How strange. That document was
tabled to the GMC and was also provided to the media outside the GMC by Dr
Andrew Wakefield a few days ago. Did the GMC lose that piece of paper, as
well as a whole heap of others provided?

Richard Horton's other excuse for retracting the paper, is because the study
purported that the children were 'consecutively referred' and the Lancet now
believes that's false. Okay, so what about this science that Richard Horton
lauded so highly in front of the GMC?

So what do I think of Richard Horton's decision to withdraw the paper?

It's ironic in the bigger picture of things, that Richard Horton should
retract the paper.

First, as an Editor of the Lancet for many years, you would think that the
"paper" systems would be in order.

For him not to see documents for which there are office receipts, raises
just a few questions.

Second, the Lancet is a peer review journal, and requires several
"independent" reviewers to sign off studies. Obviously there wasn't
anything wrong with the science or you'd think it would not have got past
get-go. But to what extent does the Lancet, actually do it's job properly?
Because it seems to me that either Richard Horton is incompetent, as were
the peer reviewers, or he's expediently twisting the truth to suit an
agenda. Whose agenda? That's the 64 million dollar question.

Given the revelations in front of the GMC panel, you wonder why the media
isn't talking about the inconsistencies between what Richard Horton said,
and what he has now done.

The future will be interesting, because I have no doubt that the documents
presented to the GMC will be released to the public, uploaded onto internet
sites, and a definitive book will be written on the topic. Where will that
leave the GMC? And then the "Deers, Offits and Oracs" will flood the market
with their ninth hand replies.

What readers must remember is that the primary supporters of Andy Wakefield
are provaccine parents who believe that their fully vaccinated children
became seriously ill after being given - not just the MMR - but often two or
three other concomitant vaccines at the same time.

The ultimate irony of all this, is that most those of us who are pilloried
as anti-vaccine, have no experience of either gastrointestinal issues, or
autism in our children. This is a mystery and a totally foreign world to
most of us.

Whether or not there is a higher rate of autism and other disorders in
vaccinated children, compared to totally unvaccined children in New Zealand,
is also something, that IMAC and the Ministry of Health could prove first
hand - if they had the will to do so.

As everyone knows, Dr Paul Hutchison is chairman of a select committee in
Parliament looking at ways to increase New Zealand's supposedly disgraceful
immunisation rates. In other words, New Zealand has a very large,
unvaccinated cohort of children who could be compared with fully vaccinated
children. In that group will be children who are not vaccinated at all,
because parents chose not to vaccinate. Other children aren't vaccinated
because parents simply default.

What is the overal health of children whose parents chose not to vaccinate
like? What is their rate of autism, chronic illnesses, autoimmune disorders
like? We have no idea. But we could know, if the Government had the will
to find out, and they have the means at hand, to do that study, very easily.

How's that? The National Immunisation Register (NIR) has on it the names
addresses and doctors of all children vaccinated. It's primary function is a
reminder service to make sure everyone has all their shots. It's certainly
not being used to it's full potential as a health checker or vaccine
reaction flag-alert system. (We could even compare the children of parents
who chose not to vaccinate with the children of parents who simply default
without chosing.)

The National Immunisation Register has on it, some names and addresses of
people who have chosen not to vaccinate, and who have asked to be taken off
the register. Actually they are not taken off the register. The names,
addresses etc, are all supplied to the register, go on the register, but the
register is not used to harrass those parents, ... or if it is, the
Ministry, or the Health and Disability Commissioner, soon knows about it.

There is also another separate numbering system, which all New Zealanders
are given at birth, and that is the National Health Index. (NHI) Those who
are not on the NIR, are on the NHI. By accessing both sets of data, New
Zealand hospitals have potential access to a huge amount of information.

If the National Immunisation Register was ALSO used to record all deaths,
all acute, chronic and autoimmune disorders,... and autism diagnoses...,
then with the flick of a switch a comparison of the fully vaccinated
children, and the totally unvaccinated children, might answer a whole lot of
questions. It's not like they would have to set up an expensive new system
to do this. The fundamentals are all there, today, now....

As far as I know, both those systems are run using compatible computer
software.

To use these systems to compare the health of children, and also to see
whether or not there are a few more Jasmine Renatas out there, could be
done. But it won't be done.



Back to Richard Horton and the Lancet.


The ultimate irony of the situation is this.
The Lancet was originally set up in 1823 by Dr Thomas Wakley who couldn't
get any other journals of the day, to publish his views on the medical
profession. After all, he called them liars, incompetents, nepotistic and
corrupt. Dr Wakley used his own money to say exactly what he wanted how he
wanted and be damned to his own colleagues. For many years, the Lancet
fearlessly exposed the medical profession's conflicts of interest; damage to
patients, and became the darling of the disenchanted.

By 1900, the Lancet was a leader; a shaker; a mover; a catalyst for badly
needed change.

In 2010, 187 years later, it is pretty safe to say that the Lancet, is now
as "respectable" as the journals in 1820, who would not publish Wakley's
articles.

But there is a huge fundamental difference today, which was not there in
1823. Would BIG PHARMA, the GMC, and other controlling, or regulatory
bodies today, stand for Andrew Wakefield and others like him, setting up
their own "medical journal" and pointing out their colleagues sins of
commission and ommission?



NO WAY!!!


Would such a journal be allowed to remain in publication? Would it be
listed on PUBMED?



NO WAY!!!


I like to think that Richard Horton had no choice but retract Andrew
Wakefield's article. That he had both arms wrestled behind his back and a
metaphorical gun put to his head and was told, "Do this or else!" But
having watched his evolution over the last two and a bit decades, I somehow
doubt it. What he said to the GMC showed me that Richard Horton runs with
the hares and hunts with the hounds.

Medical science is no longer about honest enquiry and truth.

We have come right back, full circle, to 1820 but with one big difference.
Medical $cien$e is now about keeping pharma above water in a recession;
about adhering to dogma; and protecting "ones own".

As to the very sick children, or provaccine parents who are pulling their
hair out? Where do they fit in in all this? Nowhere.


And that's the way it's always been, and always will be.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



(1) Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive
developmental disorder in children. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A,
Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey
P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA. Lancet. 1998 Feb
28;351(9103):637-41.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:03:58 -0000, "john" wrote:

http://whale.to/vaccine/lancet7.html

On the matter of the Lancet retraction
Hilary Butler

Not the brightest bunny in the hutch is she?

In
2004, the Lancet "partially" retracted the paper,

No it didn't, 10 of the 13 authors issued a retraction of an
interpretation after Wakefield widely misused it (the interpretation
that the vaccine could be linked to health problems). This retraction
was signed by ten of the 13 original authors of the study, including
Professors Walker-Smith and Murch - Wakefields co -defendants in the
GMC case.

on the basis that Andrew
Wakefield never declared to the Lancet, financial conflicts of interest.

Completely false. The retraction was not made or instituted by the
Lancet but by a majority of the studies authors.

Interesting then, to see that one reason for the full retraction is because
the study didn't have ethical approval. How strange. That document was
tabled to the GMC and was also provided to the media outside the GMC by Dr
Andrew Wakefield a few days ago.

Unfortunately the piece of paper Wakefild waved about referred to
another and unrelated application for ethical approval for another
study.

Did the GMC lose that piece of paper,

No, it read it, perhaps Butler should have done likewise.

Richard Horton's other excuse for retracting the paper, is because the study
purported that the children were 'consecutively referred' and the Lancet now
believes that's false.

No "believes" about it, it clearly was false as Wakefield admitted at
the GMC hearing.

Okay, so what about this science that Richard Horton lauded so highly in front of the GMC?

He wasn't aware that so much of it wasn't quite as he had been told
and based up deceit?

It's ironic in the bigger picture of things, that Richard Horton should
retract the paper.

No, it is completely inevitable. It has been exposed as manipulated.

Second, the Lancet is a peer review journal, and requires several
"independent" reviewers to sign off studies. Obviously there wasn't
anything wrong with the science or you'd think it would not have got past
get-go.

There were a number of questions raised by the reviewers, but all
assumed the authors were, if nothing else, telling the truth. They
were not (or at least one was not). Had Wakefield revealed the
children were hand picked and not a case series the paper would
_never_ have been accepted for publication in the first place.