Jan. 6, 2011 British Medical Journal’s Credibility questioned as yesterday in order to discredit Dr. Andrew Wakefield they released inflammatory statements about the doctor.From the British Medical Journal’s Own Revenue Disclosure Pages:
BMJ Journals’ sources of revenue- take directly from their website
BMJ Journals receive revenue from a range of sources to ensure wide and affordable access while maintaining high standards of quality and full editorial independence. These are:
- subscriptions from specialist societies, institutions and individuals
- display advertising for pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical products
- author charges for open access articles – BMJ Unlocked
- sale of article reprints
- sale of rights and royalties
- fees for providing publishing services for products not owned by BMJ Group
- sponsorship for supplements
Separation is maintained between the editorial team and the advertising and sponsorship sales team. Where sponsorship has been obtained for any content, for example as the result of an unrestricted educational grant, this is clearly indicated. ”
On Examination sources of revenue
BMJ OnExamination receives income from a range of sources, to ensure wide and affordable access while maintaining high standards of quality and full editorial independence. These are:
- subscriptions from institutions and individuals
- commissioning fees for customised content
- advertising and sponsorship
Separation is maintained between the editorial team and the advertising and sponsorship sales team. Where sponsorship has been obtained for any content, for example as the result of an unrestricted educational grant, or where content has been created under contract, this is clearly indicated.
It is noted in their sponsorship policy that the BMJ Group sells advertisements, they have seminars and conferences, and that they have commercial intent and principals.
The British Medical Journal is in it for the money, what other reasons would they have to promote vaccines as safe and discredit a medical doctor? After all there is no financial gain in supporting Dr. Wakefield’s findings in fact they would incur the wrath of pharmaceuticals.
There in lies the meat to this tale of false claims and headlines by the BMJ group who have tainted their own reputation deeply by this assault on the character and findings of Dr. Wakefield. Needless to say they are calling 12 parents liars, cheats and their stories are bogus but they still have autistic children to this day.
You also have to find who is on their board of directors at the British Medical Journal -who runs the board and by what means are they financed? Still you can’t find this information in the television media tripe that comes out of CNN these days.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a bowel doctor he was not out to discredit MMR vaccines but found a direct correlation between children who received the MMR vaccine and within hours, days or weeks developed neurological, intestinal and serious side effects.
The BMJ is incredible falsifying information about Dr. Wakefield which is ludicrous false and bears a great investigation.
Brian Deer well knows that he has dug up an old story of a journalist now becoming a doctor with the credentials to be a medical expert on vaccines. One would have to understand how he is compensated by investigating his back payments, secret bank accounts and any payment he received in connection with discrediting Dr. Wakefield or any author of any document that supports the dangers of vaccines especially the MMR?
How many years did Deer study medicine? When does a journalist become an expert for drugs or vaccines who has a vendetta against Dr. Wakefield is this guy credible? Brian Dee also does stories on love sickness or sexual interests disorders as a claim to fame.
Who Owns the British Medical Journal? Pharmaceuticals do.
Who Owns the Lancet? Pharmacuetical funds.
Parents really need to go back and do a little history on Dr Andrew Wakefield for themselves before taking the BMJ’s word for what is good for your children.
Read More here: http://www.politicolnews.com/british-medical-journals-credibility-questioned/
No comments:
Post a Comment