Richard Horton is Thief-in-Chief of Medical Record-Stealing Journal
“The role of Brian Deer mystifies me. I agree with you that he has had access to many confidential documents, which seems surprising.” –Lancet editor Richard Horton in an email to a mother that he’d also leak to Sunday Times‘ reporter Brian Deer, who illegally acquired the medical records of her children.
In 2004, Lancet editor Richard Horton stated that Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 seminal paper on the vaccine-autism link should have dishonestly omitted disabled children’s adverse vaccine events from publication. He said this as he was colluding with the Royal Free Hospital to fabricate lies about the research by distorting medical records the hospital illegally leaked to opposition researcher Brian Deer. They subsequently got all the coauthors still working at the hospital to fraudulently retract the interpretation. They then had the article fully retracted in 2010 after getting the UK’s General Medical Council to sign on to the stolen medical record-based lies.
Then in 2012, the stolen medical record-based reasons stated for The Lancet‘s full retraction of the seminal autism-vaccine paper were overturned in court. So Autism Investigated demanded its editor and three most recent ombudsmen restore the article. In 2015, current ombudsman Malcolm Molyneux admitted to Autism Investigated that the basis of the retraction was not stated in the retraction. Ironically, he later asserted a “strong case” for retraction in his annual report. Of course it’s obvious he’s lying because his editor Richard Horton is telling him to, having colluded with Sir Mark Pepys who shut down that research and ousted its lead scientist.
In the “Ombudsman’s report for 2015,” current ombudsman of The Lancet Malcolm Molyneux wrote:
A surprising complaint received later in the year proposed that a research study that was published in The Lancet in 1998 and fully retracted in February, 2010, should be reinstated to the literature. My adjudication was that the argument for reinstatement of the paper, based on a case in the UK’s High Court brought by one of the paper’s authors, was not directly prejudicial to the strong case for the paper’s retraction.
In reality, he admitted that the basis for the retraction could no longer be stated by the journal’s retraction statement:
Dear Mr Crosby,
Thank you for your letter of June 13, 2015, in which you request that the Lancet Editor reinstate the retracted paper Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children.
In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect. In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.
Having considered all of the relevant material, I can see no sufficient reason for reinstatement of the Wakefield paper. I do not believe that COPE’s guidelines have been violated by retraction of the paper in question, or by failure to reinstate it.
I do not believe there is justification for any further debate about this extensively discussed article.
Prof Malcolm Molyneux, Lancet Ombudsman
If there was a “strong case” for retraction, Molyneux would be able to make it. Since there is actually no case, he cannot. The Lancet’s full retraction is as fraudulent as 10 of the 13 coauthors’ previous retraction also forced by Pepys and Horton.
Now the editor of the medical record-stealing medical journal has the gall to come to America in March. Let’s tell that medical record thief to his face that he’s not welcome in our country.
The post Richard Horton is Thief-in-Chief of Medical Record-Stealing Journal appeared first on Autism Investigated.