Step 2: The BMJ’s Switched Diagnoses Won't Match the Records - So Claim Fraud - Video 06 - 10m 47s -
Step 2: The BMJ’s Switched Diagnoses Won't Match the Records - So Claim Fraud - Video 06 - 10m 47s -
"How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed - a 21st Century Controversy"
You and everyone can read this post without payment. The video and podcast are for paid subscribers. Read on and you are reading history in the making.
How is it possible to publish this information without fear?
it is all true, every word of it;
and it is proven beyond doubt.
Take a paid subscription and be part of making history.
You can then see the evidence yourself laid out before you from the medical records of the 1998 Lancet paper’s 12 injured children.
SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT, VIDEO AND AUDIO
ANDREW WAKEFIELD
NAVIGATION
Back to How to Get Best Use of this Site page
The Scandal Continues
Step 2 shows us more meat on the bones of this scandal of the bent BMJ’s campaign against Andrew Wakefield.
This story of corruption in medicine and medical publishing continues with more shocking details. The British Medical Association earns millions of pounds sterling every year from the British Medical Journal and its commercial deals with the drug industry, including MMR vaccine manufacturers. Many BMJ members make money giving children vaccines.
Follow the money.
In short, the BMJ’s author, switching the 12 children’s diagnoses for confusingly similar looking fake ones, was the basis for three BMJ editors in January 2011 claiming Andrew Wakefield committed fraud by changing the medical records.
But it was the BMJ who published the fake diagnoses. Wakefield faithfully reported the 1996-1997 findings of his 12 specialist medical professional colleagues at The Royal Free Hospital, London, England.
The childrens’ real medical records are documented in evidence given on oath in the 8.5 million words of the transcripts of the UK General Medical Council’s prosecution of Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch.
You can read free of charge Professor Jacob Puliyel’s paper which explains with 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 Professor Jacob Puliyel
Professor Puliyel’s paper was submitted to the BMJ and The Lancet for publication. The editors of both journals refused to consider it. 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 claims about medicine and medical science which they then refuse to correct when given the opportunity.
But these are supposedly world leading scientific medical journals.
What conclusions should you draw from that?
Video 06 - Step 2: The BMJ’s Switched Diagnoses Won't Match the Records - So Claim Fraud - 10m 47s
As you saw from Video 5, the main switch was a combination of three fake presentations and findings to claim none of the 12 children had that combination of all three fake diagnoses - presentations and findings. And of course, that was true, because these were not the real presentations and findings at all. It was self-fulfilling.
In this video, Video 6 - you will see for yourself the BMJ’s fake versions are false from the real medical records of the 12 Lancet Children and then again in Video 8 where you will see the 3 children claimed not to have autism did have numerous entries in their medical records to their autism diagnoses.
In Video 01 C you learned in summary what the eight steps were.
In Video 04 you learned in summary the false accusations upon which the BMJ Editors’ false allegations of fraud against Andrew Wakefield were based.
Here you will see that the BMJ Editors’ Allegation 1, based on the fake switched diagnoses, the presentations and findings, is false and is false because of that:
“Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnoses at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism”.
You can see for yourself in this Video 6 what the 1998 Lancet paper reported as the conditions the children had, that they did have those conditions - those presentations - as confirmed by their medical records which were in turn confirmed, read out and reported verbatim in the GMC hearings and recorded in the transcripts of evidence given under oath.
You can see for yourself that the 1998 Lancet paper did not report any child had the fake BMJ finding of “regressive autism“ but what it did report as the conditions the children had, what they did have as confirmed by their medical records, read out and reported and confirmed verbatim in the GMC hearing transcripts of evidence given under oath.