Damning Doll - Pots and Kettles
injurywatch has found a series of secret payments from environmental polluters to the leading Oxford University cancer researcher Sir Richard Doll may have compromised his integrity. By shaping the epidemiological evidence to fit the requirements of his paymasters and failing to stimulate adequate health warnings, Doll's paid-for "evidence" may have protected his proven paymasters in the chemical and asbestos industries and led to the premature deaths of millions of people worldwide. Injury watch Aims and principles
Injurywatch aims to counter the myth that a "compensation culture" exists in Britain today and to presses for the rights of victims to receive the compensation due to them. We campaign against business practices intended to rip-off claimants wherever we find them. We strongly oppose the culture of delay, obfuscation and legal challenge which we believe insurance companies are using in a cynical attempt to limit their liabilities to pay valid claims, particularly to asbestos victims. At the same time we deplore the behaviour of claims handlers who promise no-win-no-fee agreements but dip into compensation rightfully due to the claimant if the case is successful.
All sounds very noble - but who is "injurywatch"? Who is the "secret paymaster" behind them. I haven't been able to find out from their website. They obviously work with solicitors - who presumably pay them for leads, but nowhere, that I can see is this disclosed. The website declares it is Copyright © 2000-2006 Watch Media.
A quick WHOIS Query on the domain reveals the unhelpful information:
Trading as: Legalwatch Ltd
Registrant type: UK Individual
Registrant's address: The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.
(Companies House reveals that Legalwatch ltd is a recent company incorporated 24/7/2006 - that trades from the same address as injurywatch.)
So still no nearer as to who pays for injurywatch's extensive services! It looks like the Groan merely reprinted a PR puff from an organisation funded by an anonymous bunch of compensation solicitors who might be thought to have a declarable interest - though I might be wrong! And the accusation is that Sir Richard Doll took money from an anonymous bunch of companies who might be thought to have a declarable interest - though they might be wrong!