pagwatch the following is from (cry shame website) Horton's evidence to the GMC hearing. Horton being no fan of Wakefields of course. Really interesting what he says about Deer:
The point at which my ignorant dislike of Horton unravelled was when he described, how, on addressing Deer?s complaints against Wakefield, presented at the Lancet, he immediate said, ?this has to be investigated?, and began to plan evidence gathering trips to the Royal Free to question Wakefield and his colleagues. According to Horton, Deer collapsed in the face of proper investigation and pleaded with him not to pursue this approach. Not long after this, Horton told the hearing, ?I fell out with Mr Deer?.
According to Horton, his enquiry into Deer?s allegations left him sure that at least one of the most serious was completely fictitious. From that point onwards, in real life and in the hearing, Horton gave impeccable evidence for the defence. In fact he rose to a level of praise for Dr Wakefield the like of which I have only previously heard from parents.
When Horton moved to talking about the paper published in the Lancet, it became clear that he had the highest regard for the method which the ?case series? used and the way in which it was presented. If the prosecution was expecting him to say that the paper was full of poor science, they must have been surprised when he said the absolute opposite.
Horton said that the Lancet paper was an excellent example of a ?case series?. That this was a standard and entirely reputable way of reporting on a possible new syndrome. He likened it to how the first cases of HIV/AIDS were reported in the early 80s and how the new variant CJD issue broke more recently. He said unequivocally that the science reported in the 1998 Lancet paper ?still stands? and that he 'wished, wished, wished' that the clock could be turned back and the paper be considered in the light it was first presented, without everything that followed.
Defence council spent a considerable time cross examining Horton about the declaration of ?conflict of interest? issue. Over the years this has become one of the most important issues associated with the Lancet paper. At the end of a long session, the worst that Horton could adduce was that Dr Wakefield was genuinely surprised that there was the need for him to reveal funding from the Legal Aid Board, which anyway hadn?t been used in this case-series, or at all at that point.
Horton was happy to say that Dr Wakefield had been honest throughout his dealings with the Lancet and that he had not declared any conflict of interest because he genuinely believed (and believes still) that there was no conflict to be declared. While Horton personally disagreed with Dr Wakefield?s interpretation of this, as did Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, he acknowledged clearly that it could be seen as a matter of opinion and not a reflection on Dr Wakefield?s honesty.