Karol Sikora is a very confused man
Posted by gimpy on August 16, 2010
A few months ago I posted on the very silly views of Karol Sikora in commenting on the life expectancy of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. The words of Professor Sikora have apparently informed the US senators who are demanding an enquiry into the release of al-Megrahi. I was interested in finding out just how a man such as Sikora, who has previously been in trouble for claiming affiliations he does not have, got involved with the reasonably competent Scottish Prison Service, so I asked them. This the (edited) reply:
The decision of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to release Mr Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was based on advice from the Director of Health at the Scottish Prison Service, who drew on expert advice from a range of specialists. These specialists did not include Dr Karl Sikora, who has been the subject of recent media attention. The decision was also based on the recommendations of the Parole Board and Prison Governor.
The views of Sikora played no part in any official decision. Any claim that they did is not compatible with this statement.
Sikora was interviewed for The Observer yesterday. Here is an excerpt:
“What I find difficult is the idea I took the key and let him out. I provided an opinion, others provided an opinion, and someone else let him out. That decision of compassionate release is nothing to do with me. No one asked me, ‘Should we let him out?’ All they said was when do you think he will die?”
Maybe Sikora is genuine in assuming that his views were considered, perhaps this is why he feels he should distance himself from a decision that it is denied he had any part in. If so he should probably be relieved at the Scottish Government’s insistence that he played no part, his conscience is clear.
There is another possibility of course, that maybe Sikora is using his peripheral involvement as a medical advisor (paid for by the Libyans), whose advice was not considered, as an opportunity for self-promotion. In this Sikora has caused distress to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, facilitated the misinterpretations of US senators and failed to correct erroneous assumptions. Just to see his name in lights.
notspock said
Apologies for not reading through everything twice- but:
When Sikora’s says “I provided an opinion” he’s not being clear as to whether he provided that to anyone official in scotland, he did after all provide an opinion to the Libyans.
Where/when did he self-promote?
The newspaper talks of “Yesterday he said”. Now that sounds to me, a bit like the journalist phoned him up, or otherwise got an interview.
So the key question of his guilt over “self promotion” charges here are how he got the quotes out. Was it some sort of press conference or media event? If he didn’t even instigate the phone call/interview I’d suggest “not guilty”.
Alex said
Don’t be silly. Journalists are all responsible, upstanding members of society and I’m sure they checked their sources like always. Journalism is not a bullshit-shoveling contest.
Alex said
Note that the Scottish government has said this before:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/121060-scots-govt-libyan-paid-doctors-did-not-influence-megrahi-release/
Lots of relevant documents can be found here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legal/lockerbie
MacAskill’s speech seems to be consistent with the email, and makes interesting reading in light of some of the media coverage:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/This-Week/Speeches/Safer-and-stronger/lockerbiedecision
Report by Medical Officer, Andrew Fraser, here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0085337.pdf
Several doctors mentioned, names redacted.
***
Btw, I think if you read that quote by Sikora carefully, I don’t think he’s claiming his views were taken into account. When he says “All they said…” he could be referring to Libya not Scotland. Now maybe for self-promotion reasons he’s just making it look to the media like his views were considered by the Scottish government, but that exact quote doesn’t actually say that. Or maybe the media are just stupid and have conflated his medical examination, with the examinations that informed the Scottish government.
Andy Lewis said
What would be interesting to now is how the Lybian government came to the conclusion that it was worth hiring Sikora for his expert opinion?
Alex said
Gimpy, I posted a second comment. It had lots of links so maybe its stuck in a spam filter. Anyway I’ll try to submit one more time below.
Alex said
Ah, you got it! Thanks.
ivan said
In Polish, sikora means tit, the bird that is.
draust said
Thanks for that, Ivan. Does “bolshoy” mean “great” or “large” in Polish as well as in Russian?
If it did then, in line with we could call the Prof
Professor Karel “Bolshoy” Sikora
ivan said
No, the Polish for “great/large” would be “wielki”, or “wielka” to agree with feminine sikora.
Caustic Logic said
There is another possibility of course, that maybe Sikora is using his peripheral involvement as a medical advisor (paid for by the Libyans), whose advice was not considered, as an opportunity for self-promotion. In this Sikora has caused distress to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, facilitated the misinterpretations of US senators and failed to correct erroneous assumptions. Just to see his name in lights.
Excellent! I can’t disagree. Why does this guy keep spilling slime on himself on TV? Ooop! It was me that freed the bomber cause cancer is complex! Why? Note for comparison, how many interviews have Dr. Sharif, Waxman, or Peter Kay voluntarily given? Or the several other doctors who still remain silent and anonymous like usual?
Sikora is everywhere. It’s apparently a media campaign, but it’s not clear that it’s self-promotion of the usual kind. Note that he’s voluntarily worked for US political campaigns in the past (in a TV spot by a GOP group opposing “socialized medicine”). And this BP-conspiracy theory probe is shaping up like an organized campaign…
My own more rambling article along similar lines:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/09/one-last-time-sikora-was-not-doctor.html
Anyway, great article. You’ve got insight.
Mat said
I’m afraid it’s too easy for someone in a position of power who disagrees with someone else in a position of power to smear them without actually saying anything libelous. Especially when person B is generally outspoken. And has been involved in sensitive cases such as Lockerbie.
But it’s not right to blindly accept the supposedly detailed analyses of rags like the Telegraph and the Guardian.
If you look closer at the wording of Sikora’s claim and Anderson’s rebuttal (which was, by the way, written on spec to the Guardian), and if you understand the difference in politics between the two, it becomes a little clearer.
You just have to look at their histories: Sikora on US television discouraging a national health system, Anderson having been Chief Scientific Adviser to the MoD.
The rebuttal states he “is not on the staff at Imperial”. But Sikora’s CV never suggested he was. Merely that he was an honorary consultant. He never suggested he was “honorary professor of Oncology”.
It’s typically outrageous of the media to stir crap in this way. To be expected. The broadsheets are no better than the tabloids in this respect.
But it’s downright lazy to read the media without paying attention to the way they manipulate a story.