Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

News Extra [these Stories Appear Only On The Web]

Pathologist in Sally Clark murder case is charged with withholding vital evidence

BMJ 2005; 330 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7485.216-b (Published 27 January 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:216

Rapid Response:

Re: Re: A Fatal Misdiagnosis

Editor,

I generally do not respond to charges such as those made by Frank
Lockyer, retired Chief Supt of Police, but will make an exception in this
case and answer each one separately.

a.“One would have thought that Michael D Innis, Directorate of
Medisets, (whatever his qualification which is not clear),”

I made my qualifications clear. Here they are again MBBS;
DTM&H; FRCPA; FRCPath.

b.“would not rush into print unless informed of the full medical
facts. Clearly he is not.”

I received all the relevant Clinical and Autopsy findings of both
Christopher and Harry from the Solicitor and I submitted reports. I am
sure Steve Clark will not be offended if I quote him in regard to my
report on Harry.

"Michael – this is marvellous.

How can I thank you?”

e-mail dated 08/03/200 RE Report on Harry.

I did not ask for, nor would I accept, any compensation for my
involvement.

c.“As a former professional police officer, as the father of the
innocent victim, indeed, as a patient, I find it inconceivable that there
are people in the medical world who seem quite relaxed to go public on
major issues prematurely.”

I can understand Frank Lockyer’s annoyance at what he perceives as
interference in a very personal and grave matter. However I believe, as a
former professional police officer, he should have ascertained the facts
before he “went public on major issues prematurely.”

I was asked for my opinion as an Expert.

d.“Without any regard for the eleven experts with detailed knowledge
who thought differently. Then to fly their own kite of theory”

I recall that more than a quarter of a century ago there were several
"experts with detailed knowledge who thought differently” and declared
that I was mistaken in claiming the vaccine they were then using for
Poliomyelitis was causing cancer in some children.[1]

That vaccine is no longer in use in any part of the world.

e.“Dame Janet Smith is right - there is an urgent need to tighten up
on this. Meanwhile we the victims stand helplessly by short of going to
law which we we want desperately to avoid”

I agree entirely with the learned Dame Janet Smith and for that
matter with his Honor Lord Goldsmith, both of whom have expressed
dissatisfaction at the current legal processes. I too, feel for the
victims that stand helplessly by.

It is for that reason that I see “Mandated Iatrogenic Manslaughter”
while others see – a shaken baby. Perhaps the Judges will share my vision
soon.

I am sorry Frank Lockyer has lost two grand children.

Michael Innis

Reference:
1. Innis MD Oncogenesis and Poliomyelitis Vaccine Nature vol 219; No 5157
pp 972 -973

Competing interests:
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

08 February 2005
Michael D Innis
Director Medisets International
Home 4575