Uninformed reporter fails to present even the most basic GMC allegations of misrepresenting individual patients findings. You can listen to it here:
When your interviewee – who has been found guilty by the GMC of misrepresenting his own scientific findings, and conducting dangerous experiments on children without ethics committee clearance, in a clearly laid out document – when that interviewee says “let’s debate the science”, the correct answer is either “okay then why did you try and fail to sue Channel 4 when this all came out, in a case which even Justice Eady said was about stifling debate?”. Or “okay then”, and then you press them hard on the obvious simple holes in their claims. This interview was weak.
Anyway, you might not have heard that Wakefield has been struck off.
He is a bad man and he shares half the blame, the other half is discussed here:
As ever, incidentally, the money shot quote on this case comes from Evan Harris (in the Sci Media Centre mail out, not sure if it’s appeared in the media yet):
“Today’s decision, while welcome, does not close this matter because it is about more than one man. There needs to be an enquiry as to how these unacceptable invasive tests came to be done on so many vulnerable children despite the existence of ethics committees designed to prevent this sort of abuse, and the medical establishment needs to ask itself whether there are any other published papers, based on the same flawed research, that need to be retracted as the Lancet paper eventually was. It took a determined journalist to expose what happened to these children and to public funding and I am not satisfied that something similar could not happen again. Medical journals need to review their systems of checks and hospitals must ensure their ethical oversight is fit for purpose.”