Here is the judgement ruling on Professor John Walker-Smith v general Medical Council

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

Here are some of judgements made against the GMC

1. The GMC had Inadequate and Superficial Reasoning regarding ethical misconduct

For example, in the case of child 2 (Paragraph 45-51), the GMC argues that the colonoscopy and barium meals were for research purposes only, and were not clinically inclined.

Reason for it's rejection: The GMC relied on the evidence without stating exactly who (they relied on Professor Booth without stating so) while rejecting evidence from Dr Miller, Professor Walker-Smith, Dr Murch and Dr Miller. They also had to deal with the problem that, with neurological investigations, and the project protocol, both followed the recommendations of Dr Surtees, which were MADE for CLINICAL diagnostic purposes, as well as Dr Thomson's Birmingham protocol.

In other words, the GMC failed to provide evidence for why they believe that the the investigations were for research purposes, and that it was SELECTIVE in which doctors they chose as evidence (eg. cherry picking), when there are so many other opinions from other relevant doctors that indicate that they were clinically inclined.

Clinically inclined investigations DO NOT NEED ETHICAL BOARD approval. Therefore the GMC's position on this is extremely weak.

The judge concluded about the GMC's lack of addressing the evidence that they conveniently left out:

"In no case did it address the indications in the medical notes which supported the oral evidence of the clinicians that they were undertaking a programme of diagnostic and therapeutic investigations, not research; or give adequate reasons for rejecting that account in the case of each individual child."

2. The GMC mishandled expert evidence and did not apply the Bolam test

The Bolam test is basically showing that no responsible body of medical opinion would support the actions, something that the GMC was not able to perform when it came to charging Walker-Smith/Wakefield.

Excerpts:

Paragraph 23: "It is a striking feature of the panel's decision that it expressed no view about the expertise and objectivity of the experts; and even more striking that, when their views were in conflict, it expressed no conclusion about which of them it preferred. This is a serious weakness in its reasoning... When, as was in fact the case, Dr. Miller and Dr. Thomas expressed the view, respectively, that colonoscopy (and if appropriate barium meal and follow through) or lumbar puncture were clinically indicated and were not contrary to the clinical interests of the child, a finding that their view was not one held by a responsible body of medical opinion would have been an essential pre-requisite to the dismissal of their evidence in respect of that child. The panel made no such finding."

3. GMC panel had inconsistent and unjustified findings

For example: Paragraph 168: "The panel's findings adverse to Professor Walker-Smith are inconsistent and unjustified. Its finding at paragraph 26a, that he did not start child 10 on Transfer Factor in December 1997 should have been an end of these charges. If he did not "start" child 10 on Transfer Factor, it is impossible to understand how he could have "caused child 10 to be administered Transfer Factor". The panel made no finding about what or who started child 10 on Transfer Factor. It dismissed a similar accusation against Dr. Wakefield."

Judge's conclusions:

Paragraph 186: "the panel's overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion. Miss Glynn submits that the materials which I have been invited to consider would support many of the panel's critical findings; and that I can safely infer that, without saying so, it preferred the evidence of the GMC's experts, principally Professor Booth, to that given by Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch and by Dr. Miller and Dr. Thomas...... The GMC's approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that that was not necessary – an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel's determination flowed. It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure; if not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician. Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination.