Step 8: Allegation 5 - The BMJ Made It Up to Claim Fraud Falsely - Video 13 - 15m 29s
Step 8: Allegation 5 - The BMJ Made It Up to Claim Fraud Falsely - Video 13 - 15m 29s
How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed - a 21st Century Controversy
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO AND AUDIO
Andrew Wakefield
NAVIGATION
Back to How to Get Best Use of this Site
Step 8: Allegation 5 - The BMJ Made It Up to Claim Fraud Falsely - Video 13 - 15m 29s
Step Eight covers the BMJ editors’ false Allegations 2, 5 and 6 – You have already seen in the earlier videos in this series Allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 are false.
In this video in the series we deal with Allegation 5:
5. “The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months — helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link”
As noted in the pages for Video 12, Step 8 is bizarre and so bizarre it is unbelievable that what you are going to see for yourself here is true. But it is.
The brazenness is striking and remarkable.
The common aspect to all three false Allegations 2, 5 and 6 is what is behind them - the basis for the allegations - it is the approach adopted of “Make it up and then claim fraud”. There is no basis for the allegations. They are all false.
The BMJ’s author simply invented false claims so that the BMJ’s editors could claim falsely fraud against Andrew Wakefield when there was none.
You have already seen in earlier videos in this series Allegations 1, 3 and 4 are false and how blatantly false they are – with the truth hiding in plain sight in the text of the 1998 Lancet paper.
Allegation 6 for Step 8 is dealt with in the final video in the series, Video 14.
Here you will see how the BMJ’s commissioned author set about inventing false allegations whilst the BMJ editors claimed the evidence to back up the false allegations was contained in the transcripts of the GMC hearings. That evidence is instead what proves the BMJ editors’ invented allegations are false.
The ‘Big Lie’
Whilst the Big Lie is commonly associated with Nazi propaganda in 1930s Germany, the big lie approach to propaganda has a far longer history in its use to deceive entire nations. And whilst this sounds counter-intuitive to the degree of being unbelievable, it is an approach which is used because it works.
If you are going to lie, make it such a big lie and ensure it is repeated so often that no-one will believe it cannot be true.
But here you will see not just one big lie but one big lie built upon layer after layer of large and blatant lies.
In the US Office of Strategic Services psychological profile of Adolf Hitler by Walter C. Langer, Langer wrote, summarising Adolf Hitler’s primary rules, these included:
“….. never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
You will see that in fixing the case against Andrew Wakefield, this approach has been adopted throughout by the BMJ’s author of the “How the case was fixed ….” article but it has been taken much further in constructing this complex false fabricated narrative – this legend or cover story – to accuse and blame falsely one man – Andrew Wakefield of doing what Wakefield never did.
Adolf Hitler: Psychological Analysis of Hitler’s Life & Legend By Walter C. Langer, Office of Strategic Services