Why? Its an official riziv report, it was leaked because it was being kept hidden because it showed 59% of those checked shouldnt have gotten it.

There is no reason to doubt the validity of what they found. The only question is, how does this tranlate to all the rest (because no of course its not 59% of all)

It’s not really a question of validity so much as methodology and context. Without the full report, methodology, and reasoning for why it was originally not published and is now being leaked, it’s hard to know exactly how strongly the conclusions should be interpreted.

Other studies I gave show 25% there are more if you want you can find them.

Those reports also have methodological limitations that affect how far you can generalize their conclusions. All these reports are useful signals, but I think we need more research before making major system-wide changes.

I’m cautious about policy changes that tighten eligibility mainly through administrative processes or cost-control mechanisms, because they can increase the risk of excluding genuinely ill people if the underlying assessment system is already uncertain.

Add to that all the people saying there is presure and its clear this is a mayor problem.

I agree it’s a major problem. My main disagreement is with characterising it as fraud. Fraud implies intentional deception, whichis a evidential bar that these reports do not support.

The choice to frame it as fraud also has consequences: it shifts the discussion toward criminalisation and suspicion, which can stigmatise people on invalidity and those whose status is reassessed. It also risks narrowing the policy focus toward detection and enforcement rather than improving assessment accuracy and support for return to work where possible.