Not his only mistake,he had a few
Denial of retraction of discredited vaccine paper[edit]
See also:
The Lancet § Controversies
On 28 February 1998 Horton published a controversial paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and 12 co-authors with the title “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" suggesting that vaccines could cause autism. The publication of the paper set off a sharp decline in vaccinations in Europe and America and in subsequent years globally.
[18] In the United Kingdom, the Health Protection Agency attributed a large measles outbreak in 2008 and 2009 to a concurrent drop in the number of children receiving the MMR vaccine. Pockets of measles — which can be fatal —have also cropped up in Canada and the United States as a result of parents’ refusal to vaccinate.
[19]
Horton was heavily criticised for refusing to take action for so long. He was finally forced to retract the paper in February 2010 after the General Medical Council, which oversees doctors in Britain, said that "there was a biased selection of patients in The Lancet paper" and that Wakefield's "conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible".
[20] Horton defended his position by saying "I do not regret publishing the original Wakefield paper. Progress in medicine depends on the free expression of new ideas. I worked at the Royal Free from 1988 to 1990 and met him on many occasions. He is a committed, engaging, and charismatic clinician and scientist. He asks big questions about diseases - what are their ultimate causes? - and his ambition often brings quick and impressive results."
[21] However, there are groups criticising Horton for contributing to t
Professor Sir Roy Meadow[edit]
Horton published an article in 2005 supporting Professor Sir
Roy Meadow who had been charged with serious professional misconduct by the GMC for giving erroneous and seriously misleading evidence in the
Sally Clark trial. This was especially controversial as the article appeared whilst the GMC proceedings were still under away and was published on the first day of Meadow's defence. The article "incensed" Clark, a solicitor who had been the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice. With the support of erroneous statistical (and other) evidence from Meadow the prosecution wrongly convicted her of murder and she spent over three years in prison before her successful second appeal.
[23][24]
Her husband wrote a rebuttal letter to
The Lancet in order to correct Horton's 'many inaccuracies and one-sided opinions' and to prevent them prejudicing independent observers. Dr
James Le Fanu, medical practitioner and writer, also wrote to
The Lancet in the same issue and described Horton's words as 'mischief'.
[25] The Clark family issued a statement addressing and countering with established fact each of the points making up Horton's biased support of Meadow.