Video 04 - What The BMJ’s False Allegations Were - 15m 33s - Andrew Wakefield v The British Medical Journal
"How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed - a 21st Century Controversy"
Anyone can read the text of this post. The video and podcast are for paid subscribers only.
If you do not yet have a paid subscription and want to read about the false BMJ fraud allegations you can read free of charge a journal paper pre-print by Dr Jacob Puliyel who explains with remarkable clarity and brevity why the BMJ editors’ false fraud allegations are and remain false:
The Scientific Record: Examining some of the claims and counterclaims in the MMR saga Dr Jacob Puliyel
SCROLL DOWN FOR THE TEXT AND VIDEO AND AUDIO
ANDREW WAKEFIELD
NAVIGATION
Back to How to Get Best Use of this Site page
Video 04 - What The BMJ’s False Allegations Were - 15m 33s
In this video you will see for yourself the exact words and the exact accusations the three BMJ editors made when accusing falsely Andrew Wakefield of fraud. There is so much wrong with their accusations it is bizarre the world’s press did not question them.
Accusing a doctor of fraud is bad enough if he only made a mistake. But Wakefield did not make a mistake. He faithfully reported the outcome of his twelve expert medical professional colleagues treatment of the twelve 1998 Lancet paper children at The Royal Free Hospital, London, England.
The fraud allegation was made despite the remarkably odd fact that if Andrew Wakefield had changed the results reported in the 1998 Lancet paper a lot of expert medical professionals would have noticed right away - like his 12 co-authors. And the senior management of the Hospital would not have issued a press release and held a press conference in February 1998 announcing the publication in The Lancet medical journal.
You will also learn some facts about the BMJ’s commissioned author including his complete lack of any medical expertise and how he had based his allegations on the wrong list of children so that it would have been impossible for their medical records to have matched what was published in the 1998 Lancet paper.
You will also learn how he removed his wrong list of children from his website in the first week of the GMC hearings because the GMC prosecutor, Sally Smith QC, read out in the charges and in her opening remarks the real list of children with the main aspects of their medical histories.
This is not about gaffes by the British Medical Journal editors. The current and previous BMJ editors-in-chief were notified of the facts reported in this video series.
Their response was not to threaten legal proceedings nor to make needed corrections to stop misleading the World, but to state they stand by the publications and the processes by which they were produced. In all the circumstances that is one of the most damning and damaging quotes any editor of any journal could make. The three BMJ editors concerned were responsible for publishing entirely false allegations against Andrew Wakefield whilst failing to declare the BMJ’s commercial agreements with the MMR vaccine manufacturers which help provide millions of US$ equivalent in £ sterling annually to fund the British Medical Association.
In other words, the leading organisation for medical professionals in the UK is taking the money. Yet over 7% of British school age boys are autistic and the percentage rises each year. And as this has been happening since the mid 1980s we now see 40 year old autistic males.
There are fewer female victims as 4 in 5 cases occurs in male children.
Dr Jacob Puliyel’s paper: The Scientific Record: Examining some of the claims and counterclaims in the MMR saga was submitted to the BMJ for publication and to the Lancet for publication. The editors of both journals refused to consider the paper for publication. Every scientific journal and every scientific journal editor has an obligation to correct the scientific record.
So here we can see that the BMJ and The Lancet are not scientific medical journals but political publications which publish false claims about medicine and medical science which they then refuse to correct when given the opportunity after their behaviour has been discovered and proven.
Simply put - how can anyone trust a word these supposed journals publish?