Glamour DON'T (Think For Yourself)
The Country Bunny and the Little Gold Shoes

The Lies About Andrew Wakefield

Pariser'If the vaccine program is so good, why the dirty tactics? Why the straw man? Vaccine safety and effectiveness is a messy business: making Wakefield the scapegoat won't work much longer.'

This morning Age of Autism re-posts a brief article published last year about the key allegations against Andrew Wakefield, which have been long disproven but go on being endlessly recycled by a  mainstream media in the pay of, and intimidated by, the pharmaceutical industry.

By John Stone

 Before yesterday morning I had not heard of ‘Upworthy’ which according to Wiki is a “website for viral content” founded by Eli Pariser (Chairman of AVAAZ, pictured) and Peter Koechley (former managing editor of 'The Onion'), for which Kim Kellerher of 'Wired' is also a board member. A presentation “curated” by  Adam Mordecai and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation states:

"After years of controversy and making parents mistrust vaccines, along with collecting $674,000 from lawyers who would benefit from suing vaccine makers, it was discovered he had made the whole thing up. The Lancet publicly apologized and reported that further investigation led to the discovery that he had fabricated everything."

What, of course, this does not tell you is that the senior author and clinician in the paper, Prof John Walker-Smith,  who also compiled eleven of the twelve case histories appealed to the English High Court over the GMC findings and was completely exonerated nearly three years ago – Walker-Smith, unlike  Wakefield, was funded to appeal. All that ‘Upworthy’ are doing is playing the same trick as CNN and Wiki – which I reported on last year - and peddling disproven stories without mentioning that they have been disproven.

CNN, having cited wiki, blocked the following comment:

But this is a flawed account. The findings were confirmed by both histopathologists in the paper subsequent to the hearing. [See also here]

When the Deer/BMJ findings came under the scrutiny of Dr David Lewis in November 2011 they were forced to re-trench (reported in Nature):

“But he (Bjarnason) says that the forms don't clearly support charges that Wakefield deliberately misinterpreted the records.

"The data are subjective. It's different to say it's deliberate falsification," he says.

“Deer notes that he never accused Wakefield of fraud over his interpretation of pathology records…

“Fiona Godlee, the editor of the BMJ, says that the journal's conclusion of fraud was not based on the pathology but on a number of discrepancies between the children's records and the claims in the Lancet paper…”

Although Godlee had previously stated in February 2011:

“The case we presented against Andrew Wakefield that the1998 Lancet paper was intended to mislead was not critically reliant on GP records”. It is primarily based on Royal Free hospital records, including histories taken by clinicians, and letters and other documents received at the Royal Free from GPs and consultants."

But it is clear that the judge who presided over Walker-Smith's exoneration and reviewed the Lancet paper in detail could not find any evidence of this. His one major quibble was over the statement about ethical approval in the  paper which Walker-Smith says he did not see - however this is accurate too.

"Ethical approval and consent

"Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent."

The paper did not have ethical approval and consent, and did not need it because it was simply a review of patient data (which was what was on the tin). The procedures needed ethical approval and consent and had them.

So Wiki does not tell you any of this but repeats an account that is long disproven.

Having considerable respect for the good works of AVAAZ I think it is a great pity that Mr Pariser - author also of  'The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You' -  should be associated with this travesty, and he really ought to look into it. It seems that the entire defence of the vaccine program hinges on the false claims that have been made about the Wakefield paper (which did not even purport to prove that vaccines cause autism). If the vaccine program is so good, why the dirty tactics? Why the straw man? Vaccine safety and effectiveness is a messy business: making Wakefield the scapegoat won't work much longer.

John Stone is UK Editor of Age of Autism.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Linda1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Ru-Tp27AM

Autism & Vaccines: Hannah Poling On Good Morning America

Benedetta

It was on the National News - this morning - the canning of a movie about vaccines at a film festival, and a famous actor has a child with autism.


'nuff said,

Heeee, heeee, heeeee!

Birgit Calhoun

Thanks you! John Stone!

Robert De Niro should not have caved in. He is the parent of an autistic child. He must know what that is all about. Unless the nanny kept him from the heavy lifting. He should be able to take it when someone treats him the way they have Wakefield. I have become so steeled by my having to put up with people who say: "We could have been friends if it were not for that child." De Niro is a good actor, but a backbone he does not have. Somebody needs to stand up and be counted!

Betty Bona

@Ronald,
I think you give far too much credit to the typical everyday person who is unaffected by vaccine injury to think for themselves. Most of us are governed by a set of social mores that includes the prohibition against believing in conspiracy theories or even listening to a conspiracy theory. The establishment supports the ridicule of conspiracy theorists in so many ways that it requires an act of courage just to give a conspiracy theory your attention. I think that's why so many scientists who should be able to understand the problem continue to believe that there is no problem with vaccines. The socially acceptable thing to do is to join in the ridicule of the proponents of a conspiracy theory. I personally have been changed forever by the realization that the CDC and establishment have injured so many of us with vaccines, that I would go to a documentary at Tribeca, such as one on 9-11 conspiracies, with an open mind. I have even watched some 9-11 conspiracy videos on youtube, but with somewhat less willingness to give the ideas credibility. People who have not been changed as I have would only possibly entertain the idea of a 9-11 conspiracy theory at the Tribeca or some other well known film festival where it might be considered acceptable to allow yourself to consider such theories. I have heard that releasing a video direct to DVD is like releasing it direct to the wastebasket. In this case, I think there is some truth to that. I like the idea of showing the film on April 24 as planned. There's still some street cred with film goers just because of the controversy. On reviewing the film topics at Tribeca, I now actually think that only films with acceptable controversies are included.

Ottoschnaut

Very good piece here, interview with Vaxxed producer Del Bigtree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvcdh7KlgPI

Ronald Kostoff

Reading is Fundamental,

"The value of a screening at a high-profile festival lies in trying to attract distribution deals, that is, money. Making a feature-length film isn't inexpensive. Direct-to-video is one thing, but direct-to-youtube isn't even in the barrel, to paraphrase Roger Ebert."

I understand the motivations behind these festivals and screenings quite well. It would be great to both inform the public and make money at the same time. But, in the present case, unless INFORMING THE PUBLIC IS PRIORITY NUMBER ONE by a large margin, the truth will remain suppressed. In many great social advances of the past, such as civil rights, better working conditions, anti-war, etc, great sacrifices were necessary, including the ultimate sacrifice. Given the resistance to change and exposure of the truth in the cases of vaccines and many other contributing factors to disease, making money from films or any other actions will have to be sacrificed. If you have a better idea than posting the film on youtube and using modern communication tools to advertise it, by all means let's hear it!

Ronald Kostoff

In my previous post about the Sloan Foundation (related to its sponsorship of Tribeca), I described a grant they gave to to Johns Hopkins. One of the sentences in the description was: "A $2 million grant supported the Center which played an important role in passing the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act, legislation essential to vaccine development." So, what is this Act?

A statement by an HHS Assistant Secretary includes the following

(http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2013/03/13/assistant-secretary-nicole-lurie-statement-pandemic-and-all-hazards-preparedness-reauthorization-act.html#):

"In a pandemic or in an act of terrorism, our nation will need drugs, VACCINES, and medical equipment and supplies to protect health and save lives. PAHPA authorizes funding through 2018 for buying these MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES under the Project BioShield Act, and increases the flexibility of BioShield to support advanced research and development of potential medical countermeasures. PAHPA also enhances the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to support rapid responses to public health emergencies by clarifying that even before an event, FDA may issue an emergency use authorization to allow emergency use of certain products as medical countermeasures. This approach supports more responsive, flexible, and streamlined processes before and after an emergency.

Companies that develop these medical countermeasures and the medical professionals who administer them may be protected under an antitrust exemption in PAHPA. With this provision, these partners can step up in a time of need and collaborate to provide our nation with the maximum supply of needed vaccine in the event of a pandemic."

Not exactly the type of sponsor who would be interested in a film that raises questions about the safety of vaccines.

Reading Is Fundamental
You are over-rating screening at the Tribeca Film Festival. For myself, I never even heard of Tribeca before this incident. Being rejected by Tribeca is no great loss; if played right, it could be a benefit!

Getting broad viewership for Vaxxed requires some creative thought. I'm not all that familiar with social media, so I don't know what's possible. I do read a few blogs, and most have comment sections. If Vaxxed were placed on the Web, why couldn't a brief comment in each thread of the most popular blogs be posted with a link to the film....

The value of a screening at a high-profile festival lies in trying to attract distribution deals, that is, money. Making a feature-length film isn't inexpensive. Direct-to-video is one thing, but direct-to-youtube isn't even in the barrel, to paraphrase Roger Ebert.

Jeannette Bishop

Thanks, John Stone, for this post and the WaPost and truthbarrier links.

It seems this withdrawal of the film is all over in the media, and I'm almost excited as it is a Sunday, but since it's also Easter I'm not certain it's not one of the best Sundays to cover something you don't want many to pay attention to...but still I'm surprised at the level of attention.

PANDAS Mom

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation granted $375,000 to the Tribeca Film Festival in 2014. That was the most up-to-date financial info I found. Their film grants come under the heading of "Public Understanding of Science, Technology, & Economics."

When I saw the news on Friday I wondered two things: Whether Robert DeNiro had any clue as to the shit-storm he was walking into, and would he possibly be able to hold up under the enormous pressure. Given that he completely reversed course within 24 hours of his announcement, looks like no on both accounts.

Ronald Kostoff

John Stone,

Your lead about the Sloan Foundation is interesting. You might want to check out the Board of Trustees, recent and present. The President of Merck was on the Board in 2009, and perhaps later. One of the present members is also on the Board of Directors of Sanofi, which includes in its thrust areas 'human vaccines'. I suspect there are other direct and indirect links.

I can't locate a list of specific projects supported by the Sloan Foundation, but I show some relevant general programs below. Vaccines have been suggested decades ago for use against bioterrorism agents, and if one needs to stockpile separate vaccines against myriad potential agents, the market could potentially be huuuuuuuge (to paraphrase D.J.T).

There is a longstanding Sloan Foundation investment in bioterrorism/biosecurity (p.67-68) (http://www.sloan.org/fileadmin/media/files/general/sloan_hist_bk_text_version.pdf).

Grant made prior to 2001:
"International AIDS Vaccine Initiative ($5,000,000): Support to help launch
and then further support a project to accelerate the development of an effective
AIDS vaccine."

"Bioterrorism
In 2000, the threat of bioterrorism was identified as an important national issue.
Since then, the Foundation has made almost 150 grants and committed about
$42.5 million to this program. Some of the most noteworthy projects supported
over the years include":

" Johns Hopkins University ($3,500,000):A2000 grant supported the Center
for Civilian Biodefense Studies. The Center, one of the first working to improve
bioterrorism preparedness, became the international leader in civilian
biodefense. In 2003, the Center moved to the Medical Center at the
University of Pittsburgh and became the Center for Biosecurity. A $2 million
grant supported the Center which played an important role in passing
the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act, legislation essential to
vaccine development. The Center also led policy discussions on business
continuity, corporate security, emergency preparedness and response, and
risk management as part of its Pandemic Flu Initiative. A $3 million grant
in 2006 renewed support for Center work."

Gary Ogden

Joy B: You are so right. Robert DeNiro no doubt received enormous pressure from that organized criminal enterprise known as the United States government. We know clearly that they will stop at nothing (remember waterboarding and Abu Graib?) to protect the economic interests of the ruling class. And this goes back at least to the war against the Philippines, when our military forces massacred the Moro's, who were trapped in a volcanic caldera, down to the last man, woman, and child. And the genocidal campaign against the native people here. The public sometimes does manage to hold them accountable. Nixon's downfall was enabled by the press, which is totally useless here. But this is a vastly greater crime. Dr. Wakefield said he's not going away, and we aren't either. And we will bring the criminals to justice.

Ronald Kostoff

Betty Bona,

" Ronald,
One thing that was great about the Tribeca forum is that it gave the film enough legitimacy so that regular uninformed people wouldn't feel foolish watching the film. Many of the people who would be contacted by today's twitter and other non-media forms of disseminating information aren't the one's we need to reach. I don't need to see the film to understand that we have a problem with who controls our vaccine program. I like your idea, but we have to find a source of legitimacy so that it's not just preaching to the choir."

Who are "the ones we need to reach"? Those in power? Remember Chomsky's adage: speaking Truth to Power is a waste of time. Power knows the Truth!" The goal is to make Power admit and follow the Truth!

The problem we have is that the requisite information is not reaching the larger mass public because of the mainstream media blackout. Those are the people that need to be reached. Their votes are the only realistic way the present politicians can be thrown out of office, and hopefully those who represent the interests of their electorate can be installed.

"gave the film enough legitimacy so that regular uninformed people wouldn't feel foolish watching the film"

Do you actually believe 'regular uninformed people" would feel foolish watching a film if it hadn't appeared at some film festival, Tribeca or otherwise? The only time I feel foolish watching a film is when I have high expectations and it turns out to be a piece of junk and a waste of time! 'Legitimacy' would be preferable, but real legitimacy would consist of support and recommendations by leading immunologists, pediatricians, CDC, FDA, NIH scientists, etc. Good luck on finding that! You are over-rating screening at the Tribeca Film Festival. For myself, I never even heard of Tribeca before this incident. Being rejected by Tribeca is no great loss; if played right, it could be a benefit!

Getting broad viewership for Vaxxed requires some creative thought. I'm not all that familiar with social media, so I don't know what's possible. I do read a few blogs, and most have comment sections. If Vaxxed were placed on the Web, why couldn't a brief comment in each thread of the most popular blogs be posted with a link to the film; e.g., (http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/blogs)? There are e.g. political blogs that have threads with thousands of comments, and the readership must be in the hundreds of thousands, or more. One could easily have a two or three sentence comment relating the film to Trump's comments about vaccination. Maybe a quote from DeNiro could be included in these brief comments (if no legal issues), from the time long ago when he supported the screening of Vaxxed!

But, I would suspect there may be dozens of opportunities like these, where millions of people could be reached easily. Rather than myriad posts on AoA complaining about censorship and doing nothing about it, how about some posts suggesting creative ways to exploit this opportunity.

Angus Files

By not showing it I think will make the topic of the film more powerful in its own right and the problems they are trying to pre-empt will get worse for them ,if they had just shown it.

So thanks Mr DeNiro for the free PR.

MMR RIP

Joy B

(sorry, I promise to start proofreading my comments. ugh)

Bayareamom


"The Alfred P Sloan Foundation also censors, oops, I mean contributes to PBS. As it ever is, the donors make the laws.

The leader of the Sloan foundation is a professor emeritus with 45 years at MIT. He's on the Council of Foreign Relations. You really can't get much upper establishment than that.

In his research and teaching, (Paul)Joskow focuses on industrial organization, government regulation of industry, competition policy, and energy and environmental economics.

(sorry if any this has already been stated in the previously linked article)

One of the great tricks of the vaccine regime is the seeming artlessness of its promoters. I think we can safely say now that a Pharma politburo exists much in the same way that the CIA exists, for the benefit of whichever well-heeled entities may be threatened, with the backing, and often accompanying unnaccountability of government power. The CIA is openly involved with the Council on Foreign Relations. Anyway, I think the word that sums it up is fascism. The upper manangement is the gov, and vicey versey.

I wish Wakefield all of the deserved luck and strength in the world. The worms are all coming out of the auld woodwork."


@JoyB:

I LOVED, loved your comment; you are right on the mark!

Joy B

The Alfred P Sloan Foundation also censors, oops, I mean contributes to PBS. As it ever is, the donors make the laws.

The leader of the Sloan foundation is a professor emeritus with 45 years at MIT. He's on the Council of Foreign Relations. You really can't get much upper establishment than that.

In his research and teaching, (Paul)Joskow focuses on industrial organization, government regulation of industry, competition policy, and energy and environmental economics.

(sorry if any this has already been stated in the previously linked article)

One of the great tricks of the vaccine regime is the seeming artlessness of its promoters. I think we can safely say now that a Pharma politburo exists much in the same way that the CIA exists, for the benefit of whichever well-heeled entities may be threatened, with the backing, and often accompanying unnaccountability of government power. The CIA is openly involved with the Council on Foreign Relations. Anyway, I think the word that sums it up is fascism. The upper manangement is the gov, and vicey versey.

I wish Wakefield all of the deserved luck and strength in the world. The worms are all coming out of the auld woodwork.

VaccinationCasualty

The comments about this documentary on yahoo (https://www.yahoo.com/movies/niros-tribeca-festival-pulls-anti-vaccination-film-003957551.html) are overwhelmingly appalling. We all need to comment or just rate the comments to show the world that we are alive and fighting this war on freedom of speech (especially when it is about vaccines).

John Stone

Posted by Celia Farber earlier today on her blog The Truthbarrier:

An Email From Andrew Wakefield Today
March 27, 2016 By Celia Farber Leave a Comment

To The Truth Barrier, regarding Tribeca Film Festival’s abrupt about-face cancellation of the film Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe:

It read:

“The pressure came from the Sloan Foundation in New York, that apparently has some financial ties with Tribeca Film Festival. Worth Investigating.”

A cursory Google reveals this orgy of tangled big money, big vaccine dreams, and big scientific bankruptcy...

More at the Truthbarrier http://truthbarrier.com/2016/03/27/an-email-from-andrew-wakefield-today/

Barry

Anyone with a teenager knows that forbidding them to do something, just motivates them to do it even more.

I think people are going to be compelled now more than ever to watch this documentary.

And now, they're going to watching it more attentively than ever. Because now they know that it contains something that someone was desperate for them not to see.

annie

Have the DeNiros publically stated if they believe their son's autism was vaccine-induced?

Despite yesterday's disappointing news I am still grateful for the attempt to screen Dr. Wakefield's film. Blacklisted artists face overwhelming pressure, not just in their public life but in their personal one as well. I'm sure Mr DeNiro gravely considered the toll this would take on his family. I wish them peace.

John Stone

Yes, I posted a comment on Washington Post and immediately there were four hostile comments - but these people know nothing about anything.

It is, of course, an issue of censorship because mob tactics and worse are being used to shut up comment. There are not millions of people out there in the US who personally angry with Wakefield: these are organised cyber-thugs following up on the organised corporate arm-twisting that we remember from Katie Couric and Jenny McCarthy:

http://davidhealy.org/the-couric-incident-hpv-vaccine-mass-bullying/

James Grundvig

Like author John Stone did, he outed some of the media involved in their scam. Were they protecting their Big Pharma ad dollars? Their PR firms with Big Pharma ties? The outing on them and labeling them for their censorship would be a step in the right direction.

Linda1

Also, to the Washington Post journalist's credit, the movie trailer was included in the article. That makes me think the author is not convinced that what happened was right.

Linda1

Interesting that the Washington Post article actually is not as negative as most others, calling the film "controversial" instead of "antivaccination" and in the first line of the article stating that it reports fraud within the CDC. The comments are mostly from trolls. Seems like they were lined up ready and waiting to stomp.

Betty Bona

If we ever actually get a congressional hearing, I wonder if DeNiro could be subpoenaed to testify about continuing cover-up. I feel a bit sorry for him. He didn't ask to be thrown in to the middle of this controversy. But very few people get the opportunity to be a hero. Maybe the pressure was just too great.

John Stone

Washington Post report

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/27/filmmakers-accuse-robert-de-niro-of-censorship-after-he-yanks-anti-vaccine-movie-from-tribeca-festival/

go Trump

As always, it is a bit of a mystery on “who showed up” to see that the Vaxxed film was banned from the Tribeca event.

However, due to the similar pattern of mystery.... it looks to be the same group that moved Dr. Bradstreet to a river,

and the same group that perhaps know how our Supreme Court justices can suddenly pass away without the need for a simple autopsy.

Betty Bona

@Linda1,
I had 't thought of Francis Collins. I think I remember that he played a role in keeping the XMRV link to autism under cover. (From the book Plague by Kent Heckenlively and Judy Mikovits.). Of course he called unless he's got some lower level bum to do his dirty work.

Linda1

Francis Collins' March 22nd blog post. Coincidence? I think not. Some great comments to this sham of an article.

http://directorsblog.nih.gov/2016/03/22/resurgence-of-measles-pertussis-fueled-by-vaccine-refusals/

Betty Bona

Ronald,
One thing that was great about the Tribeca forum is that it gave the film enough legitimacy so that regular uninformed people wouldn't feel foolish watching the film. Many of the people who would be contacted by today's twitter and other non-media forms of disseminating information aren't the one's we need to reach. I don't need to see the film to understand that we have a problem with who controls our vaccine program. I like your idea, but we have to find a source of legitimacy so that it's not just preaching to the choir.

Tim Lundeen

Petition to reinstate the film: https://www.change.org/p/tribeca-bring-vaxxed-back-to-tribeca?recruiter=38472473&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&u

Linda1

I think we should not be too hard on Mr. DeNiro. I'm sure he was barraged with the slickest most intimidating enemy fire they could muster. I bet he got at least one call from Francis Collins, head of NIH. Obama might have called him for all we know. As disappointing as it is, I don't blame him for stepping back under that kind of pressure. But, I feel certain that the Hollywood elite will not ignore what they now know or soon will know.

I'm sure the significance of his son being African American has not been lost on Mr. DeNiro. In the grand scheme of things, I see this as a minor setback. The massive energy of the storm unleashed on DeNiro that just might end up directed at the criminals once he recovers from the attack and puts all the pieces together.

Betty Bona

If there is government participation in the pressure to remove the film from the festival, maybe a first amendment, freedom of speech lawsuit could be used to do some discovery of why the film was pulled. Of course we will probably never know who pressured the festival to remove the film, but if we did, there might be some possibilities under the first amendment. It reminds me of book burnings and blacklists. It's scary to think that governmental powers might be involved in this.

Earl Worthington

How can I get a copy of the full movie: Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Conspiracy's

Ronald Kostoff

A couple of days ago, I posted some thoughts on the uselessness of the mainstream media, which included: "The mainstream and semi-mainstream media are basket cases; it is getting worse and, I believe, beyond repair. Any messaging attempts to present the facts about industry-sensitive or government-sensitive foundational causes of disease (including vaccines) to the public through the mainstream media will be spun beyond recognition.....To avoid the mainstream media spin [or censorship], the constituents have to be informed directly. Some of the politicians have recognized this fact. Trump, and others, are making extensive use of Twitter, which allows them to bypass Salon, HuffPo, NYT, and WaPo."

The point is, the middle-man has to be avoided in today's climate. We have a completed film, Vaxxed. Perhaps I'm not aware of all the legalities, or illegalities, or subtexts, but why couldn't this film be posted on Youtube, or on the non-Youtube Web? Additionally, why couldn't millions of people be notified of its posting, through Twitter or some other communications tool? Wouldn't the above combination achieve the objective of providing the requisite information to the public, without having to go through the censors and spin artists?

Bob Moffit

Just sent the following response to NY Post regarding today's article: "Vaxxed"

"Sir

It would be very interesting to learn "why" Robert De Niro reconsidered his original decision to show the film "Vaxxed" at the Tribeca Film Festival .. a decision that De Niro defended by stating: "Grace and I have a child with autism and we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined"?

Obviously .. something happened in the "past few days" .. that caused De Niro to withdraw the film stating: "after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion that I had hoped for".

In any event .. "whatever happened" .. De Niro's decision to reconsider showing "Vaxxed" all but guarantees .. the most "critical issue" .. of the many issues surrounding the causes of autism .. will remain .. as it has for at least a full decade .. "undiscussed and unexamined".

Thanks for nothing Bob.

BOB MOFFITT

Angus Files

Sad day indeed, I thought we had a break through,and I guess we had some positive circulation from this association with the Holywood List A celebs,I guess De Neros phone will be engaged from other list A Holywood stars asking what we are asking, WHY? but as Dr Wakefield says "onward"...


MMR RIP

Linda1

Is this how it's done in China?

Now the filmmakers can change the beginning to read

"Tribeca Film Festival Official 2016 CENSORED Selection"

John Stone

Betty

Exactly so. Why is it that this is the one issue we may not discuss - all it tells you is that the other side would lose their case if it was. I think it is very sad that Robert DeNiro could not just say that whatever people thought of the film the Thompson issue had to be addressed and it has not been.

Patricia

http://deadline.com/2016/03/robert-de-niro-vaxxed-tribeca-film-festival-statement-1201726799/

This is the first comment I have come across by AW and the film makers.

Betty Bona

If you look at the list of films included on the Tribeca lineup, you'll see every other imaginable topic covered. There are old familiar topics like climate change and abortion to newer topics like gun trafficking and police/racial tensions. How can this be the one issue too sensitive to get past the censors? We really aren't free when Art can be censored to prevent ideas from circulating.

Barry

Extract taken from BBC web-site quote from De-Niro
But after reviewing with festival organisers and scientists he said we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.

Do tell Mr De Niro what actually do you want to discuss, not the real truth of course far too upsetting.

**********

I guess he's just one more in a long list of people, who can't stop victimizing vaccine injured children

Grace Green

ATSC, Signed it. Thanks.

bk

Extract taken from BBC web-site quote from De-Niro
But after reviewing with festival organisers and scientists he said we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.

Do tell Mr De Niro what actually do you want to discuss, not the real truth of course far too upsetting.

Jenny Allan

Another worldwide petition. Please EVERYONE sign and get all your relatives and friends to sign too. This is about free speech, democracy, freedom and justice.
https://www.change.org/p/tribeca-bring-vaxxed-back-to-tribeca?recruiter=38472473&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&u

Linda1

DeNiro and colleagues most likely got a visit from parties in the United States Government who do not want this movie shown. The film may not premiere at the festival, but that is not the end of it. Surely eyes have been opened. It may take a while to get over the shock of the reaction if he(they) weren't expecting this, but remember, THEY'VE SEEN THE FILM. They know what's in it and why the government would want to censor it. It' isn't over yet. I think it's just beginning.

ATSC

Aimee,

Danchi's link to the petition has a stop at the end so it wouldn't work for me either. Try this one:

https://www.change.org/p/anna-ponder-to-support-tribeca-film-festival-in-its-choice-of-screening-a-pro-truth-film-about-vaccines

Hit the Spot

The real purpose of Wikipedia is to SUPPRESS human knowledge, not document it

Nearly all of the seed money used to launch the site came from pornography trafficker Jimmy Wales, a co-founder.

http://www.naturalnews.com/052777_Wikipedia_TruthWiki_encyclopedia.html#ixzz443uvlv58


Susan

Very disappointing. I'm guessing the CDC doesn't want people to know that they're a criminal organization and they probably hired bullies to intimidate and threaten the festival organizers...just guessing.

Jeff

What a slap in the face to autism parents, salt on an open wound. Bright side, we are not back where we started because pulling this film after all the hype will only increase the demand for it, it has already gotten the exposure and this move only shows that there is most certainly more to cover up than the public ever imagined. The documentary is already made, advertised, and people will see it. Maybe this was the plan from the start, if not it was definitely not De Niros call. They were threatened in to pulling the film and the truth about that will end up coming out as well, cats not going back in the bag.

Joy B

So the "Scientific Community" got to him. I bet his lawyers did, too. "This will ruin you, Bob.."

Gary Ogden

John: How is the GMC panel chosen? I received a blog post yesterday which partly concerned the case of Waney Squier, which Cait from Canada discussed in her comment. According to this post, only one of the three on the panel was a physician (in geriatrics), and the poster appeared to be defending the good doctor and criticizing the GMC. Elsewhere on the website I discovered the phrase "anti-vaccine wingnut," which I thought odd, so I initiated a brief email exchange, after which I unsubscribed. Turns out the blogger unquestionably trusts the writings of Brian Deer! Gave me the creeps. So my day has been filled with cognitive dissonance. Evil certainly appears to be pervasive.

Jenny Allan

It's official.
Robert de Niro has just pulled Vaxxed from the Tribeca festival.
http://www.thewrap.com/robert-de-niro-pulls-anti-vaccination-documentary-from-tribeca-film-festival/

Carolyn Donnelly

I wrote to the public editor @ nytimes to point out that their article today about vaxxed did not pass 8th grader journalism guidelines. Recycled. They even said "vaxxed suggests there is a CDC whistleblower" (paraphrased). Really? The New York Times can't do a basic search and say, interview dr thompson's whistleblower law firm? They can't ask Dr W if he is anti-vax or pro safer vax? They did no reasearch. I no longer hold that paper in any esteem. They will be scooped by a real paper not on the take. We need a new Spotlight team to take this on.
If they succeed in stopping this film let's buy copies and have house parties to show it everywhere .

Betty Bona

I just signed the petition before I learned that De Niro decided not to show the film. I wonder if he might revisit his position if he gets enough protests. I'm so disgusted!

Jenny Allan

Danchi - I have signed and shared the petition in support of Tribeca, but the links (including yours below) are stating the petition is unavailable or has been withdrawn.
The links on my personal e-mails are fine. (I got a thank you from the petitioner). WHAT'S GOING ON???

Betty Bona

Sad news.

http://deadline.com/2016/03/robert-de-niro-vaxxed-tribeca-film-festival-statement-1201726799/

Aimee Doyle

Danchi - I've tried to click on your link to support the Tribeca film festival - the first time I tried I was told the "petition was unavailable" - on subsequent clicks, nothing comes up at all about the petition.

Has anyone else successfully signed it?

Has Tribeca backed down to the pressure?

Danchi

There is a Change.org petition online:
We demand that the Tribeca Film Fest cancel the screening of this film as it is intended only to further the anti vaccination fear mongering that has made Andrew Wakefield rich on the backs of uninformed parents and the deaths of their children due to lack of proper vaccination. We implore the directors of the festival and the members of the board of the Tribeca Institute to remove this film from their program.


To counteract this petition this online petition has been implemented:
Support the Tribeca Film Festival for choosing to screen a Pro-Truth film about vaccines.
https://www.change.org/p/anna-ponder-to-support-tribeca-film-festival-in-its-choice-of-screening-a-pro-truth-film-about-vaccines.

Please sign and pass onto to others, put on facebook pages etc.

Carol

Every so often I think it's a good idea to publish the authors' "retraction" of the Lancet paper. Do they think Wakefield "made the whole thing up" or are they standing by their findings? They only wish they had not included parental observations that MMR triggered their children's regression. That landed the authors in one helluva shit storm:


"This statement refers to the Early Report 'Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children,' published in The Lancet in 1998. It is made by 10 of the 12 original authors who could be contacted. It should be noted that the statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the other co-authors.

The main thrust of the paper was the first description of an unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. Further evidence has been forthcoming in studies from the Royal Free Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology and other groups to support and extend these findings. While much uncertainty remains about the nature of these changes, we believe it important that such work continues, as autistic children can potentially be helped by recognition and treatment of gastrointestinal problems.

We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent."

Cait from Canada

John, re your comment about the requirement for deference in the UK.

Waney Squier – who has just been struck off the medical register by the GMC (shades of Wakefield) – is a case in point. For those who are not familiar with this story, Dr. Squier is a pediatric neuropathologist who questions the legitimacy of shaken baby syndrome, and has acted as an expert witness in several court cases in the UK in defense of parents or other carers accused of shaking a baby to death. Dr. Waney was found guilty of bringing the medical profession into disrepute. Surely the ones bringing the profession into disrepute are those who cling to medical orthodoxy regardless of the evidence.

Reader

Linda1, I believe you are right. I would have thought doctors, coroners or neurologists would speak out but I was wrong. Some are but many are simply trying to make a living. Some will find it simply too difficult (ego) to confront that they have harmed children in many instances by this practice.

Angus Files

Money has been ploughed into trying to silence us not scince,and as Dr Wakefield`s wife Carmel so clearly put it..

"My husband has been persecuted by extremely powerful forces for asking questions that his research findings made it morally and ethically essential for him to ask,’.......... ‘I used to believe that this country was a bastion of academic integrity and intellectual freedom. So this whole sad process of attrition, isolation and vilification, on a very personal level, has sickened and disillusioned me."

MMR RIP

Bayareamom

"...It will be the artists who turn this thing over..."


I've been wondering about this, too. WILL the artists be able to stop this? Have no real idea, but my suspicions are that there are many artists who have children, who have suspicions that vaccines caused their children's injuries and yet, have not spoken out publicly.

There are a few of whom I am aware who have mentioned the vaccine issue in passing, but don't forget...their livelihoods depend on towing the political lines in Hollywood, too (recall how Rob Schneider has been treated).

I am convinced more artists than not have deep feelings about this subject, but for political reasons have not spoken out.

DeNiro is older, doesn't have (most likely) $$ concerns at this stage in his life, and is willing to tackle this subject head on. I once said to my husband that it will take someone out there who has a name and someone whose life has been impacted by this vaccine issue in a very personal way, for this thing to implode on itself.

So perhaps we are now seeing this starting to happen; hope so, anyway.

John Stone

Linda

It is an interesting point. One difficulty with medical profession is that of course it requires great discipline, and particularly in the early years of study deference to the authority: it doesn't help that by now a great deal of this education is paid for by the pharmaceutical industry. The requirement for deference is much worse btw in the United Kingdom: the government/establishment can squash any doctor who stands out of line in any way - conscience and intellectual integrity count for nothing.

Linda1

All this time I was thinking that it would take the medical community to stand up and say no to the CDC/Pharma (written together because they are Siamese twins, joined at the head). I realized with the news about Robert DeNiro and possibly Leo DiCaprio, that I was wrong. It will be the artists who turn this thing over.

An artist's spirit is uniquely in tune to social conditions. It takes incredible intelligence to produce the kind of artistry that comes from a DeNiro or DeCaprio. Once they and their community of artists know what the CDC and Congress is guilty of, they will not let it go. They will save the children and our future. They have the money, they have the connections, they have the brilliant minds and the determination to do what is necessary.

I include Dr. Wakefield in that category. Once I saw his first film, "Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis?", I realized that he is a very gifted artist. I think it may be that his being an artist was what separated him from the pack and enabled him to stand up to corruption and to not back down.

Jeff

Jenny, other bios still there, just Wakefields at the top was removed, hopefully nothing to worry about, at least the documentary is done and will get the truth out there. Robert Di Niro is very brave, thank you to him for defending his decision, even when stating he is not anti vaccination I am sure he will still be viciously attacked without just cause.

Jenny Allan

Jeff - They seem to have removed all the 'bios'. Probably a wise move, since most of the lies and bile have been directed at Dr Wakefield. We should all be supporting Robert de Niro's stance in favour of open discussion.

Joy B

AVAAZ has always serviced the party line, with a "hip" facade. They've been essential to whitewashing several US sponsored coups to the millenial crowd. It would be unsurprising if they were 100% on-the-books CIA. When they get involved with a "cause", you can bet it's in service to evil.

AutismComic

Two words about Andrew Wakefield: Rock Star!

Benedetta

Running for cover, like cock roaches; running under trash and garbage - which is what these sites are.

Jeff

Can you guys reach out to find out why Wakefields bio and pic was removed from the Tribeca line up on their website and please let us know? The astroturfers are on full attack in the comment section. I was one of the first commenters there a couple days ago and now they are reaching 4,000 already. I am biting my nails over the bio removal.

susan

Thank you for this post. I am so sick and tired of people believing the lies about Andrew Wakefield and I am in awe of his continued support for families devastated by autism. To me, he is a saint! I do hope the screening of this film will have the desired result, i.e that people will at last find out the truth and that Pharma will have to stop maiming children and destroying families.

John Stone

Thank you Martin both for you comment and and your monumental contribution. If you think it is about science you have to study history: with vaccine program we have the totem and taboo of ancient times (it becomes a kind of modern Moloch). How could the science and public policy be so flawless that it could never be discussed? Lives are at stake in a war situation but we are still allowed to engage in public debate. In this instance the issue is pretty clear: the US government lied and covered up and they are shooting the messenger. Of course, they lied and covered up about Andy too.

Martin Walker


I liked your contribution very much John, and it takes us closer to my continuing argument that while disputing the science, we also have to look much more broadly at the environment of the 'cover up'. We have to analyse and report on Astroturf turf oganizations, the employment of Trolls, PR agencies and of course the dirty tricks of the pharmafia. This work has got to be done.

Just to comment on Bob Moffits comment above. I'd like to say again, as I often repeat, Wikipedia, took down a conbtribution originating with a University lecturer in alternative medicine, because Wikipedia said, I was not a notable person. After all I have only written 12 books and campaigned for the parents of those whose children were damaged by MMR.

But perhaps what amazed me more than that, was the fact that they accused me and the writer of lying about basic things. At a time when I had some 80 political posters in the Victorian and Albert Musum in London, they claimed I had none. The contribution about me, eventually found its way onto WIKIBIN and to be honest I was much more comfortable with this. The lecturer who had written the original submission, found that his contract was not renewed after he appeared in a short BBC television programme speaking about homeopathy.

We have to address power,analyse the dirty tricks of corporations, the spread into all social organs of the pharmafia, Although it's exceptionally difficult in developed societies, we have to wage war for people centered democracy.

Bob Moffit

"Before yesterday morning I had not heard of ‘Upworthy’ which according to Wiki is a “website for viral content” founded by Eli Pariser (Chairman of AVAAZ, pictured) and Peter Koechley (former managing editor of 'The Onion'), for which Kim Kellerher of 'Wired' is also a board member. A presentation “curated” by Adam Mordecai and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation"

Here are the comments of Sharyl Attkisson's "TED TALK" on "Astro-turf" .. a well-funded practice devising false claims meant to "controversialize" persons and issues they want to discredit .. such as .. vaccines causing autism .. on the subject of Wiki-pedia:

"Wikipedia is an "Astro-turfer's" dream come true. Billed as a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit .. the reality can't be more different.

Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages on behalf of special interests .. they forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda .. by skewing and deleting information .. a blatant violation of Wikipedia's own established policies .. with impunity and always to the detriment of the poor schlub who actually believes anyone can edit Wikipedia .. only to discover they are banned from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies.

When author Philip Roth tried to correct Wikipedia's misrepresentation of a character in his book .. Wikipedia's editors refused his correction .. claiming Roth was not a "credible" source on his own work.

Not long after .. Wikipedia suffered a scandal when Wikipedia officials got caught offering a P.R. service's skewed and edited information on behalf of paid publicity seeking clients in clear opposition to Wikipedia's supposed practices.

All of this may be why .. when a medical study looked at medical conditions described on Wikipedia's pages and compared them to actual peer reviewed research .. Wikipedia contradicted medical research 90% of the time.

You may never trust what you read on Wikipedia again .. nor should you."

Gee .. being found to be WRONG .. 90% of the time .. is a pretty damning track record .. even for an "astroturfer".

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)