What hasn't been elucidated fully so far is the meeting at the Royal Free where the final pathology for the Lancet information was submitted.
Professor Simon Murch gave sworn testimony at the General Medical Council 1 (GMC – Day 113 Friday 16 January 2008 Pages 43/44)to the following.
Which clearly emphasises the broader context of the decision making. Which some readers may have confused as being either John Walker-Smith's or for that matter Andrew Wakefield's.
Counsel Q Was there any meeting about the histology section?
Murch A Yes, I recall a meeting. I suspect that I may not be alone with that, but I do have a very good recollection of the meeting.
I think the reason was initially that Dr Davies had seen the draft of the paper and just wondered whether the description of the histology perhaps oversold it.
In other words, was the description in the paper something that was rather more florid than the lesion she remembered and thus my recollection is that she arranged a lunchtime meeting – I believe it was Friday, that is possibly irrelevant – in the manner of our normal histology meeting in the same place, in the histology seminar room, where the various pathologists who had seen the tissues attended at the same time and so this would be from the paper Dr Anthony —
Q I want to run through a list of names and then if I miss out anyone then of course add them in. Let us start off with Dr Davies; was she present at that meeting?
A She was indeed.
Q Professor Walker-Smith?
A Yes.
Q Dr Thomson?
A Yes.
Q Obviously yourself.
A Yes.
Q Dr Andrew Anthony?
A Yes.
Q Dr Dhillon?
A Yes.
Q Dr Heuschkel?
A I believe that Dr Heuschkel was present, yes. I am less certain about that, but that is my recollection from that meeting.
Q Dr Casson?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Dr Malik?
A I also believe so, yes.
Q Dr Wakefield?
A Yes.
Q Are there any others you remember being present at that meeting?
A I think Dr Alan Phillips may have been there as well but I cannot recall with certainty.
Q Were the original histology slides that had gone to Dr Davies’ lab looked at at that meeting?
A They were.
Q What was the outcome of that meeting about the description of the histology?
A That all the pathologists present when the slides were reviewed case by case agreed that the wording in the paper – we had a table of the histological findings, which I believe will be as seen in the paper here – they all agreed that the wording was reasonable. So I think that Dr Davies was then satisfied that the paper could go forward for publication without change in the histological description.”
Professor Dhillon emphasised in his response the need to take all clinical aspects and information into account in the final determination.
There was the clear opportunity to debate, to argue for and against they came to collective decision.
There can be no doubt that this was a highly skilled professional team, particularly in regards to this issue, the discovery and definition of a new and important disease pathology associated with children with ASD.
Competing interests:
Father of ASD Son. Family fully vaccinated. No association placed on son's Autism and vaccines.
Rapid Response:
Re: Pathology reports solve “new bowel disease” riddle
What hasn't been elucidated fully so far is the meeting at the Royal Free where the final pathology for the Lancet information was submitted.
Professor Simon Murch gave sworn testimony at the General Medical Council 1 (GMC – Day 113 Friday 16 January 2008 Pages 43/44)to the following.
Which clearly emphasises the broader context of the decision making. Which some readers may have confused as being either John Walker-Smith's or for that matter Andrew Wakefield's.
Counsel Q Was there any meeting about the histology section?
Murch A Yes, I recall a meeting. I suspect that I may not be alone with that, but I do have a very good recollection of the meeting.
I think the reason was initially that Dr Davies had seen the draft of the paper and just wondered whether the description of the histology perhaps oversold it.
In other words, was the description in the paper something that was rather more florid than the lesion she remembered and thus my recollection is that she arranged a lunchtime meeting – I believe it was Friday, that is possibly irrelevant – in the manner of our normal histology meeting in the same place, in the histology seminar room, where the various pathologists who had seen the tissues attended at the same time and so this would be from the paper Dr Anthony —
Q I want to run through a list of names and then if I miss out anyone then of course add them in. Let us start off with Dr Davies; was she present at that meeting?
A She was indeed.
Q Professor Walker-Smith?
A Yes.
Q Dr Thomson?
A Yes.
Q Obviously yourself.
A Yes.
Q Dr Andrew Anthony?
A Yes.
Q Dr Dhillon?
A Yes.
Q Dr Heuschkel?
A I believe that Dr Heuschkel was present, yes. I am less certain about that, but that is my recollection from that meeting.
Q Dr Casson?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Dr Malik?
A I also believe so, yes.
Q Dr Wakefield?
A Yes.
Q Are there any others you remember being present at that meeting?
A I think Dr Alan Phillips may have been there as well but I cannot recall with certainty.
Q Were the original histology slides that had gone to Dr Davies’ lab looked at at that meeting?
A They were.
Q What was the outcome of that meeting about the description of the histology?
A That all the pathologists present when the slides were reviewed case by case agreed that the wording in the paper – we had a table of the histological findings, which I believe will be as seen in the paper here – they all agreed that the wording was reasonable. So I think that Dr Davies was then satisfied that the paper could go forward for publication without change in the histological description.”
Professor Dhillon emphasised in his response the need to take all clinical aspects and information into account in the final determination.
There was the clear opportunity to debate, to argue for and against they came to collective decision.
There can be no doubt that this was a highly skilled professional team, particularly in regards to this issue, the discovery and definition of a new and important disease pathology associated with children with ASD.
Competing interests: Father of ASD Son. Family fully vaccinated. No association placed on son's Autism and vaccines.