The BMJ’s Editors’ Bizarre False Fraud Allegations Against Andrew Wakefield – Video 04 – 15m 33s

How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed – a 21st Century Medical Controversy

Today the Euripides site releases Video 04 – What The BMJ’s False Allegations Were – 15m 33s – Andrew Wakefield v The British Medical Journal

Anyone can read the text of this latest instalment from Euripides. The video and podcast are reserved for paid subscribers.

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

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. If you subscribe to watch the video or listen to the podcast you will learn from reliable sworn testimony there is so much wrong with the BMJ editors’ 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 and accurately 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 BMJ Editors’ false fraud allegations were 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 immediately – 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.

Basic and obvious facts like that were ignored by the world’s media.

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 SmithQC, 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 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 give. 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 appears to be taking the money. This is in the context of the horrendous increases in autism in children. Estimates from official UK government statistics record now that over 7% of UK school age boys are autistic. 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 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 then to the Lancet. 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 behaving as scientific medical journals should. They publish false claims about medicine and medical science which they then refuse to correct when given the opportunity.

Simply put – can anyone trust a word these journals publish? The Wakefield case is testimony to that.

To watch the video and listen to the podcast visit Euripedes here:

Video 04 – What The BMJ’s False Allegations Were – 15m 33s

The Euripides video and podcast series is firmly grounded on and cites incontrovertible evidence. This includes from the extensive sworn testimony in the 8.5 million words in the General Medical Council transcripts of legal proceedings into this controversial medical case. That with other cited evidence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the BMJ editor’s 2011 fraud accusations against Andrew Wakefield were then and remain entirely false. Discrepancies in and lack of medical expertise for the allegations are highlighted along with conflicting interests of the BMJ which were undeclared on publication of its commercial agreements with MMR vaccine manufacturers.

Whilst the opposite viewpoints are well publicised and found across the internet, the Euripides site is the only site which successfully challenges the false claims with sound evidence proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

All the claims are supported by verifiable sworn evidence from the GMC transcripts and other reliable sources, which give Euripides credibility and transparency.

This controversy has a broader impact on public health because it demonstrates that official and establishment sources are not to be relied on, with false claims of such a serious nature to suppress the truth.

Obviously, as the GMC sworn testimony demonstrates the BMJ editors claims are false it is not possible to cite viewpoints in favour of the BMJ’s perspective. The BMJ was also given the opportunity to challenge these criticisms and failed entirely to answer and rebut them.

Sadly, when two of the worlds supposedly leading medical journals at the heart of the controversy are presented with the evidence and fail to correct the scientific record, this demonstrates that the only potentially reputable medical and scientific sources are unreliable to a remarkable degree.