Step 4: Redefine Medical Terms and Claim Fraud - Andrew Wakefield v The BMJ - Video 08 - 16m 20s
Step 4: Redefine Medical Terms and Claim Fraud - Andrew Wakefield v The BMJ - Video 08 - 16m 20s
"How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed - a 21st Century Controversy"
Here is yet another episode with hard evidence showing more clearly false health information published by the British Medical Journal in favour of the drug industry and vaccine makers with which it has commercial agreements.
You and your children and family pay the price whilst being farmed for your health.
The British Medical Association earns millions of GBP £ sterling/US$ every year from the BMJ. Knowing that, can you trust your doctor to give you medical advice not biased to make money out of you and your children?
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO, AUDIO AND THE FREE-TO-VIEW TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE
Everyone can read this article. The video and audio with the evidence and explanation is for paid subscribers.
The least cost is to wait until the last four episodes [see the publication schedule] and then pay just one month’s subscription - approx GBP £6 or US$10 - or the equivalent in your national currency.
Or choose a paid subscription to see each episode as soon as published - one per week at 10am BST on Mondays.
ANDREW WAKEFIELD
NAVIGATION
Back to How to Get Best Use of this Site page
Step 4: Redefine Medical Terms and Claim Fraud - Andrew Wakefield v The BMJ - Video 08 - 16m 20s
The focus here is on just the first part of the BMJ Editors’ Allegation 1 and how the BMJ and its three editors published blatantly false medical information to make their false fraud allegations:
Allegation 1: “Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnoses at all.”
You will see how the BMJ editors’ paid commissioned author redefined the term “autism” when claiming falsely three children did not have autism diagnoses when they did. This was in support of the claims vaccines don’t cause autism.
What you can also see for yourself are the children’s medical records from the GMC transcripts recording their diagnoses of autism – the three children concerned were 6, 7 and 12.
The BMJ falsely claimed they got their evidence from the hearing transcripts of the GMC trial of Professor Walker-Smith, Andrew Wakefield and Dr Simon Murch when in fact all three children did have autism diagnoses as recorded in those very records.
Despite being sent the evidence and information proving what they publish is false, The BMJ and its editors - which includes the current Editor-in-Chief, Kamran Abassi - continue to publish the same falsehoods whilst claiming in response, despite the clear evidence, to stand by their articles and the processes by which they were produced.
This proves The BMJ is a purveyor and publisher of brazen falsehoods making it not a world leading medical science journal but a world misleading publisher of falsehood.
Even if you do not yet have a subscription ask yourself again, how is it possible to publish this information and say these things about the BMJ and the three editors concerned without fear of legal action? It is because:
it is all true, every word of it;
and it is proven beyond doubt.
That is not to say some of the people involved will not try to get at Euripides in ways other than suing in the Courts.
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.
If you do not yet have a paid subscription 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