An Open Letter to Bob De Niro!
By Louis Conte
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. In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening VAXXED. I am not personally endorsing the film, nor am I anti-vaccination; I am only providing the opportunity for a conversation around the issue.”
Robert De Niro, March 25, 2016
“My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family. But 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 I had hoped for.
The Festival doesn't seek to avoid or shy away from controversy. However, we have concerns with certain things in this film that we feel prevent us from presenting it in the Festival program. We have decided to remove it from our schedule.”
Robert De Niro, March 26, 2016
Dear Mr. De Niro:
It occurred to me that I should write you a note about your decision to not screen Andrew Wakefield’s documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 24th.
The media feeding frenzy you endured was typical for anyone with a certain degree of fame who ventures into questioning – or in your case – providing a venue for discussion of vaccine safety. What you experienced in the two days leading up to your decision to accept the censorship of Vaxxed is something that we in the autism community have seen and experienced for years.
Censorship and suppression of our rights to speak out about what happened to our children has been going on for a while now.
As the father of two sons with autism, I want you to know that I’ve never accepted it because I want my sons, who struggle with language, to know that you have to speak out even when finding the words isn’t easy.
Even when the words bring you criticism.
That those who oppose our views exerted enormous pressure on you and the Tribeca Film Festival team to pull Vaxxed from your line up is not shocking. That you brought in “others from the scientific community” to help you accept censorship is profoundly disturbing.
Frankly, many (but certainly not all) of the scientific community, particularly scientists with ties to the pharmaceutical industry or the Centers For Disease Control, have turned their backs on people with autism. These scientists will get up and leave the room if you talk about vaccine injuries.
Since when do we ask the scientific community about whether a film should be screened? Who were these scientists? Shouldn’t we all know which scientists were on the Tribeca Censorship Panel?
Perhaps one of the scientists was David Gorski who blogs under the name Orac. Gorski spent the last few days spewing vitriol at you before you pulled the film. Gorski attacks anyone who questions vaccine safety and is particularly brutal to those who also have children with autism. In his 3/25 post, Gorski admits that he had anonymous associates spying on your wife. The great and powerful Orac has a nameless friend “in the business” who informed him that your wife had the audacity to have a friendly conversation with Andrew Wakefield on a movie set.
Nice guy. Was he on your panel?
Perhaps one of the scientists was Dr. Paul Offit.
Offit has made millions on vaccines and now enjoys a marvelous second career as a spokesman for the vaccine industry. Offit believes that children can receive 10,000 vaccines at once. Although he regularly appears in the media, his ethical issues while on the federal Advisory Commission on Immunization Practices never come up in news reports. Congress noted Dr. Offit’s conflicts of interest in the approval process on his rotavirus vaccine in 2000.
I’ve heard that Offit loves Hitchcock but loathes films with religious themes. Was he brought in?
Maybe you brought in Dr. William Thompson. Although Thompson doesn’t get out much these days, this would make sense.
From what I’ve heard, Vaxxed is built around Thompson and a statement he made on August 27, 2014 through his attorney, Rick Morgan, a Whistleblower Attorney from Cincinnati, Ohio:
“My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.
My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.
I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.
I am grateful for the many supportive e-mails that I have received over the last several days.
I will not be answering further questions at this time. I am providing information to Congressman William Posey, and of course will continue to cooperate with Congress. I have also offered to assist with reanalysis of the study data or development of further studies. For the time being, however, I am focused on my job and my family.
Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community.
My colleagues and supervisors at the CDC have been entirely professional since this matter became public. In fact, I received a performance-based award after this story came out. I have experienced no pressure or retaliation and certainly was not escorted from the building, as some have stated.”
Omitting statistically significant information is another way of saying research fraud.
I’ve heard that Vaxxed details this fraud at the Vaccine Safety Division at the CDC.
When the CDC altered the data in the 2004 Pediatrics article about the MMR Vaccine and autism it did so for good reason - to protect their boss, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who was facing thousands of cases alleging vaccine-induced autism in litigation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Thousands of families were denied justice because the CDC buried the data. And, even worse, thousands of other children continue to be needlessly exposed to harm.
I’ve heard that this is one of the key points made in Vaxxed but I’m not quite sure because now I won’t get to see it. At least not at the Tribeca Film Festival.
Perhaps you brought in this fellow:
OIG Fugitive: Poul Thorsen
- From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.
- Thorsen worked as a visiting scientist at CDC, Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, before the grant was awarded.
- The initial grant was awarded to the Danish Medical Research Council. In approximately 2007, a second grant was awarded to the Danish Agency for Science, Technology, and Innovation. Both agencies are governmental agencies in Denmark. The research was done by the Aarhaus University and Odense University Hospital in Denmark.
- Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants. The invoices were addressed to Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The fact that the invoices were on CDC letterhead made it appear that CDC was requesting the money from Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital although the bank account listed on the invoices belonged to Thorsen.
- In April 2011, Thorsen was indicted on 22 counts of Wire Fraud and Money Laundering.
- According to bank account records, Thorsen purchased a home in Atlanta, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, an Audi automobile, and a Honda SUV with funds that he received from the CDC grants.
- Thorsen is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States.
(http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp)
Poul Thorsen is still looming about Denmark like the ghost of Hamlet’s father. Thorsen was brought into the autism research world by the same CDC people Thompson says committed research fraud. Wayne Rhode and I wrote about the connection between those Thompson has called out for research fraud and Thorsen in Age of Autism article in September of 2014 (http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/09/manifest-injustice-the-end-result-of-scientific-fraud.html).
Here is a photograph of the (not yet) indicted Poul Thorsen smiling next to Marshalyn Yeargin-Alisopp, Diana Schendel and other CDC’s staff members.
Thorsen’s research has been criticized for also playing fast and loose with data – just like the CDC did (according to Thompson). Thorsen withheld data showing that autism rates declined in Denmark after mercury was removed from vaccines and published a paper showing the opposite because of the way he played with the data.
Great scientist. But given his status as a fleeing felon, maybe he was just conferenced in by his friend Jose Cordero?
Jose Cordero, pictured above, smiling at the far right, is the man who asked the Journal Pediatrics to publish the paper after other journals turned it down (see letter HERE). Cordero - a government employed scientist - had to put the arm on a journal to publish Thorsen’s paper. Was this conduct ethical?
Despite the data shenanigans and his fugitive status, Thorsen’s research has never been retracted and continues to be presented as proof that mercury, a known neurotoxin, can be safely injected into women and children.
Bob, did you ask the scientists on the panel if they believe that mercury suddenly becomes safe when you inject it into pregnant women and children? It would be a good question to determine if they were capable of suspending their disbelief. One needs to do that to truly judge the art of film.
From what I’ve seen in the trailer, Vaxxed is about the conduct of the scientific community. Maybe asking scientists to judge this film wasn’t really a good idea.
To be honest, I bet that the panel of Concerned Tribeca Film Scientists never really convened. However, I’m hearing that your decision to pull the film really happened because some of your donors with pharmaceutical and government connections gave you the Cordero treatment. If so, your decision to accept censorship is truly an infamnia.
Tribeca had every right to show this film. Tribeca is showing controversial films about abortion and police brutality which some might object to.
However, only this film has been censored.
Think about that.
After more than two hundred years of the American tradition of protecting free speech, you are accepting censorship and pulling a film about scientific misconduct around a class of drugs that the vast majority of American children are mandated to take. One would think that the American public would expect full transparency and discourse on vaccines safety.
Except that a small group of influential people don’t want you to show this film. Why? What are they afraid of if there is nothing wrong with vaccines?
Accepting censorship of Vaxxed is a devastating blow to free speech. If I was a film maker, I will pull my film from your festival in protest. Because once censorship is allowed, it will happen again and again.
What if the pharmaceutical industry had been able to censor the journalists investigating the misconduct around Viox? Around thalidomide?
They would have – if they could.
Now they know that they can.
Because you let them.
Louis Conte is the father of triplet boys, two with autism. He is the author of The Autism War, a novel and co-author with Tony Lyons of Vaccine Injuries.
Credit: Thank you to James Grundvig for the Cordeiro letter. He is the author of a new book forthcoming from Skyhorse Publisheing. about Poul Thorsen called MASTER MANIPULATOR.
Wasn't it Poul Thorsen's research that suggested that mercury might "help kids", and "improve their behaviour and mental performance"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20IhxCzeuDU
Posted by: ATSC | March 30, 2016 at 06:42 PM
Holy cow! Dr. Fletcher speaking out is quite something. An example to people like Bob Wright. Rats look to be at the point of jumping ship.
Posted by: @Hans | March 30, 2016 at 02:55 PM
Bahaha, President Obama chastising media for not digging deep enough, asking more of the tough questions in terms of Presidential candidates. The nerve he has to say this, while under his presidency autism and all the tough questions have been allowed to be silenced by pharmaceutical interests.
Posted by: Open letter to Obama | March 30, 2016 at 02:38 PM
@ronald kostoff:
I agree with you that it is not just vaccines, but a combination of synergistic toxins, among which vaccines are one of the worst. If we banned all vaccinations, we would have a dramatically more healthy population.
James Lyons-Weiler has a book coming out in Nov, The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism, that explores this in great detail. http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Genetic-Causes-Autism/dp/1510710868/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1459360811&sr=8-3&keywords=james+lyons-weiler
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | March 30, 2016 at 02:06 PM
@Louis Conte re "We are everywhere."
My wife said just yesterday that when she comments on forums now, lots of people have her back. A year ago, she was very alone. The expertise our community has acquired is impressive, with excellent links to peer-reviewed research, good counters to trolls/pharma, and an implacable focus on facts in the face of invective.
Also encouraging that the petition to reinstate VAXXED at Tribeca got 30,000 signatures in about 48 hours, and is still going strong: https://www.change.org/p/tribeca-bring-vaxxed-back-to-tribeca
Thanks for all you do!
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | March 30, 2016 at 01:58 PM
John Stone: Thank you for the clarification about the Daily Mail article. How low we've sunk in just a decade, that such a piece would not likely be run today by any newspaper anywhere. Does it seem to anyone else that our age feels somehow reminiscent of (what we know from historical sources)the 1930's?
Posted by: Gary Ogden | March 30, 2016 at 01:14 PM
I read both Rappaport's and Mike Adams on my own yesterday, and have been following it all since I first read about it here. None of us know what really happened, but for sure, the bigger the stink we can all make about it the more people will hopefully become aware of it and want to see the movie. Americans are becoming more and more alarmed at the threats to our rights and freedoms -- from within our own country. And by "our own country" I mean our bought and paid for government. Thank you, Louis Conte, Thank you A0A. Oh yes: thank you Andrew Wakefield.
Posted by: Denise Anderstrom Douglass | March 30, 2016 at 12:11 PM
Hi Ronald,
I do believe that the Mail now has an on-line US edition and I couldn't say there is any equivalent, but they also haven't welcomed anything critical of the vaccine program for several years now. I would say 2006 was almost the last gasp. However, by updating this old story yesterday so that it was picked up by search engines perhaps they are putting a toe in the water, in the light of the Tribeca debacle.
Posted by: John Stone | March 30, 2016 at 08:29 AM
John Stone,
The Daily Mail article was quite interesting. Kudos to Peter Fletcher, the author, and the newspaper. Question: what paper in the USA would be a reasonable analog to the Daily Mail?
The article states: "He added that the risks of brain and gut damage from MMR injections seem to be much higher in children where a brother or sister has diabetes, an immune disorder.....That is a very strong clinical signal that some children are immunologically at risk from MMR".
Sounds to me like the brothers and sisters are the 'canaries in the coal mine' for the family. Diabetes, like all chronic diseases, has MANY contributing factors. It is reasonable to assume that close relatives would tend to be exposed to many of the same contributing factors (lifestyle, iatrogenic, biotoxic, environmental, psychosocial). The effect of these contributing factors is to weaken not only the immune system, but the neural, endocrine, and other major systems as well. The weakening would serve to enable and enhance the ability of the MMR (and other) vaccine to produce serious damage.
This is similar to the argument I've made on previous posts linking the MMR vaccine IN COMBINATION WITH glyphosate and/or non-ionizing radiation and/or ........ to the increases in autism that parallel the increases in these contributing factors. Peter Fletcher's comments/observations further strengthen that argument. However, not only is increased safety testing of the MMR (and many other) vaccine required, as Fletcher suggests, but increased safety testing of ALL the potential contributing factors is required as well.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | March 30, 2016 at 07:02 AM
Instinctively, I find it implausible that Robert DeNiro would have deliberately engaged in a tactic which ended by damaging his reputation, whichever side of the fence you are sitting on.
Posted by: John Stone | March 30, 2016 at 05:39 AM
Thank you Hans
Just to correct myself the article says updated 29 March 2016 not 16 March. Odd business.
Posted by: John Stone | March 30, 2016 at 05:20 AM
For John Dan Stone
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html
Posted by: Hans Litten | March 30, 2016 at 05:11 AM
Dr. Kostoff,
"Doesn't pass the smell test. While anything is possible, it's hard for me to believe that a worldly and sophisticated person like DeNiro with all sorts of connections to the media and with at least two decades of involvement with autism would be unaware of the MMR vaccine-autism controversy, and especially the fallout from Dr. Thompson's and Rep. Posey's revelations."
We're both making assumptions. Of course, neither of us is privy to the inner workings of DeNiro's mind. But I find people every day who are otherwise considered worldly and sophisticated with all sorts of connections and even involvement with autism who do not have a clue about what is really going on. Maybe DeNiro realized from the outset that he'd have a hard time getting the film screened. Maybe he put it on the program anyway. It looks like he was naive to the depths and pervasiveness of the power of the corruption that could clamp down on free speech. A lot of people living in this country don't know what's happening to it. That could be because the truth is so unbelievable. It could also be that because his child has been so affected, he has not been able to face the controversy. That happens too, that people can't go there because it hurts too much - to acknowledge that there are people in power who would harm innocent children (and everyone else). But maybe you're right, that certainly he would know better. Neither of us know him.
Posted by: Linda1 | March 30, 2016 at 04:49 AM
Just to clarify the article by Sue Corrigan from the Daily Mail (Mail on Sunday) which reports Former Chief Scientist at the Department of Health, Peter Fletcher, telling the truth about MMR and power cabals dates from 2006 - for some reason it now has the information that it was last updated on March 16, 2016 (it was from memory March 2006). I am not sure how it has been updated (perhaps it has been shortened) but the main substance is still there. However, you would be no more likely to see an article of this kind newly published in the British mainstream media in 2016 than you would in US.
Although by no means as august as Peter Fletcher the one time confidante of Cherie Blair, Carole Caplin, also wrote in the Mail on Sunday in 2004 as the allegations of Horton and Deer were beginning to circle Andy Wakefield:
“Ever since concerns about a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism first surfaced more than seven years ago, it's been crystal clear that extremely powerful forces would like nothing better than to suppress public debate about the issue and discredit anyone questioning MMR.
'“These forces consist of very senior Government health bureaucrats, who advise our politicians, and leading figures in the British medical establishment, who advise the bureaucrats.
'“Senior civil servants and doctors are people who do not like their authority challenged in any way.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-259834/Why-allowed-question-MMR.html
Posted by: John Stone | March 30, 2016 at 04:44 AM
A little while ago I came across a paper which rattled my confidence in the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
This paper summarises the results of a study comparing highly vaccinated general populations against unvaccinated orthodox Protestant communities in the Netherlands. The abstract concludes: "Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella, have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations."
The discussion part of the paper provides more detail: "Our observations suggest that mass vaccination with MMR shortens, in due time, the duration of protection by maternal antibodies against measles, mumps, and rubella. Our study was conducted 20 years after introduction of the MMR vaccine, in 1987, when about 25% of women of childbearing age were vaccinated with MMR vaccine when they were young. This proportion of women of childbearing age who have been vaccinated with MMR will increase rapidly in the coming years because the vaccination coverage of each age cohort is >90%. We expect that this will further shorten the duration of protection against measles and rubella by maternal antibodies in infants and that a decreasing duration of protection against mumps by maternal antibodies will become more detectable among infants in the near future.”[1][2]
From my layperson's perspective, it seems that mothers naturally infected with measles will pass on maternally derived antibodies of longer duration than mothers who have been vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. It seems children of vaccinated mothers may become vulnerable to disease earlier. I find this very alarming. It seems nature provides protection for babies of naturally infected mothers until an age when they may be more likely able to fight the disease themselves. But artificial interference with vaccination could have repercussions over coming generations as the children of vaccinated mothers may become vulnerable to disease at a younger age, when they may be ill-equipped to deal with the disease, with possibly disastrous consequences.
I make no pretence to having any expertise in this area, but the implications of this paper are very concerning from a big picture, long-term view perspective re vaccination for future generations, including with other vaccine products, and we’re already seeing problems with the pertussis vaccine.
A serious problem is that we appear to have little or no independent experts in infectious diseases considering big picture issues in regards to vaccination policy and practice, as so many of them are conflicted by their associations with the pharmaceutical industry, including members of vaccination committees in various countries which obligingly endorse and promote the plethora of vaccine products (and revaccinations) being produced by the vaccine industry.
Another serious problem is the hostile climate which hinders and censors discussion on vaccination policy and practice. This is undermining democracies such as Australia, where aggressive pro-vaccine lobby groups such as SAVN and Friends of Science, and the Murdoch Media, have hijacked the agenda and lobbied the Australian Federal Government to make vaccination compulsory to access financial benefits and childcare, i.e. the No Jab, No Pay law.
References:
[1] Ref: Sandra Waaijenborg et al. Waning of Maternal Antibodies Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella in Communities With Contrasting Vaccination Coverage. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. First published online 8 May 2013:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/29/infdis.jit143.long
[2] Also see Editorial Commentary: Loss of Passively Acquired Maternal Antibodies in Highly Vaccinated Populations: An Emerging Need to Define the Ontogeny of Infant Immune Responses: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/29/infdis.jit144.full.pdf+html
Posted by: Elizabeth Hart | March 29, 2016 at 10:04 PM
Lou
Stai parlando a me?
Bravo giovane
Posted by: Wayne Rohde | March 29, 2016 at 08:43 PM
I only read about half the posts above and don't have time to read them all right now but I want to say that I believe this was a set up from day one. And De Nero was the star of this plot. I've covered too many stories like this with Pharmaceutical industry involvement to not know a pattern when I see on. But that said, this time I'll admit that it might backfire due to the publicity the story is getting. I surely hope so.
Posted by: Evelyn Pringle | March 29, 2016 at 08:32 PM
In the Daily Mail article, Dr. Peter Fletcher also clearly and fully validates Wakefield, et al., and I hope has made Fiona Godlee and Richard Horton to face some uncomfortable questions.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | March 29, 2016 at 08:28 PM
Tim Lundeen: The Daily Mail article is a must read! Can you imagine the former top drug safety official in the U.S. calling "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks [of the MMR] properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history," and having it published in a major newspaper? Astonishing! Notice he didn't say "may make it," but "will make it." Could the end be near for the House of Pharma? Could all the lies come crashing down upon them? Might Tribeca filmmakers pull out in protest? Wonder what John Stone has to say about this article.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | March 29, 2016 at 08:22 PM
You would think that DiNiro, as the father of a black Autistic boy, would want the movie shown since it exposes CDC's own findings that black boys receiving the MMR had a 300X greater risk of Autism. I don't about him, but it does concern me that black children apparently are considered expendable. I think parents need to be informed.
Not explaining publicly why he chose to reverse his decision and pull the film only opens himself up to scrutiny and speculation. My guess is he has an affiliate or family member who has an monetary interest in the vaccine industry. Conflict of interest!
Posted by: Debbie McQueen | March 29, 2016 at 08:06 PM
I believe the Tribeca Klan Sponsors knew the film was scheduled to be shown. They had their online Machiavellian Trolls all on alert, had their celebrity paid for Doctors on alert and their paid for MSM plus internet paid for sites like the L.A. Times and the others who bow down to their altar on alert so the minute DeNiro made the announcement of the showing they could activate their plan. They would initiate the take down within 24 hours and they did.
The problem is and continues to be when you head is so big and you are so arrogant and feel invincible, when you feel you are untouchable you make mistakes. Protection of corporate profits from vaccines and protection of their eugenics program is what they were so concerned about they miscalculated and didn't think about the fact that the orchestrated suppression and censoring of the film, most likely through coercion is a First Amendment issue. They rely on the indoctrination of pro-vaxxers and the rest of the country to protect their vaccine program they forget that despite the pro-stance, suppression of speech is another who thing. I have read countless comments from people who have declared themselves pro-vac but are in favor of the film being shown. Some have stated on facebook that if vaccines work what is the problem.
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington
The one thing that makes people want to do or see something they are forbidden to is to tell them they are forbidden to see or do something. There is a saying: Find the Crack.
Posted by: Danchi | March 29, 2016 at 07:54 PM
Anita:
I often use sarcasm and irony in my writing. Given what we have seen happen to our children and loved ones, frustration and weariness is understandable.
However, please know that I am actually very hopeful about what the future holds. Our opponents are resorting to more and more extreme antics to silence us and are only finding that we can't be silenced.
We are everywhere.
This unjust status quo will not stand and the truth will come out.
Thank you for your kind words.
Louis
Posted by: Louis Conte | March 29, 2016 at 07:38 PM
This is a good read for those of you who may not understand how things operate in Hollywood re censorship, etc.:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/medical-truth-canceled-due-to-hollywood/
SNIP:
"...Big Hollywood and Big Medicine meet in an unholy embrace.
And here is the kicker. At the most basic level, all this is happening because the medical cartel considers celebrities “wild cards.” Who knows what these celebs will do or say? A stray remark from a world-famous actor could reveal a number of corrupt lies. He could torpedo miles and miles and miles of carefully laid PR groundwork that has taken decades to install.
Suppose, for example, a massively popular celeb told a gaggle of reporters, at a press conference, “Hey, guess what I just found out? The medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year.” And suppose he reached into his pocket and produced the study that proves it?
Celebrities are wild cards.
They have to learn the unspoken rules.
So we’re not just talking about Big Pharma and its allies taking a friendly interest in the industry that makes movies. No, this is an effort to control a territory, make it their own, dominate it, and keep the lid on.
The medical cartel keeps an electronic fence around Hollywood.
Ditto for the music business and big-time sports.
All the alternative news about predictive programming in Hollywood, and Satanic influences, and secret-society symbols flashed onscreen? Well, move over a few feet and you’ll bump into the medical control apparatus, a truly sinister force, when you know how much damage the medical system does.
This is what’s going on, and you should know it..."
Posted by: Bayareamom | March 29, 2016 at 06:19 PM
Linda1,
"Your suggestion doesn't make sense from any angle. The best way to make this movie go away would have been to ignore it, not put it front and center in a media blitz where the entire world will get the announcement that there is a film about CDC vaccine fraud - that was first selected for Tribeca and then unselected."
If you read my original statement, nowhere do I say his objective was to 'make this movie go away'. I don't know what his real objectives are, and neither do you.
"I do think he was very likely blind-sighted by the backlash."
Doesn't pass the smell test. While anything is possible, it's hard for me to believe that a worldly and sophisticated person like DeNiro with all sorts of connections to the media and with at least two decades of involvement with autism would be unaware of the MMR vaccine-autism controversy, and especially the fallout from Dr. Thompson's and Rep. Posey's revelations.
"People, probably including DeNiro, have no idea. Certainly, he didn't expect a call from the board of health demanding that he not show the film. If he knew that in advance, he would not have accepted the film in the first place. Why would he want to make a fool of himself by having to reverse his position only hours after expressing it?"
You're making many assumptions with no evidentiary basis. We would have to know what his goals and objectives were to place his actions in their proper context. You have no idea what penalties he would have had to pay for allowing the film to be shown. Would he have been blacklisted from Hollywood, as Rappoport suggests? Would he have made the career, financial, and perhaps freedom sacrifices that people like David Lewis, William Marcus, William Thompson, Julian Assange, Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, William Binney, et al made in part to surface the truth? Or, would there have been none so drastic?
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | March 29, 2016 at 06:09 PM
Your book was awesome and this letter is Awesome.
But I am so filled with despair. How do people not see how dangerous this is?
My 2nd Husbsnd came late to this fight as he learned about my son. But he says even if he had never heard of autism and vaccines the idea of forced vaccines (sb277) and a movie being withdrawn would get him very scared. Hope!?
Posted by: Anita Donnelly | March 29, 2016 at 05:51 PM
It's not censorship, it's threats. If someone who speaks out in any way other than pure status quo, and then retracts those statements, they have not been censored, they have reacted to threats.
It has happened over and over. Threats are more powerful than censorship. Censorship is thrust upon you, but threats can get people to volunteer to be quiet.
Posted by: Cynthia Cournoyer | March 29, 2016 at 05:51 PM
Dr. Kostoff,
Your suggestion doesn't make sense from any angle. The best way to make this movie go away would have been to ignore it, not put it front and center in a media blitz where the entire world will get the announcement that there is a film about CDC vaccine fraud - that was first selected for Tribeca and then unselected.
Regarding controversial topics, Tribeca is known for screening controversial films. That's what they do.
While I don't think DeNiro just got "off the boat", I do think he was very likely blind-sighted by the backlash. Most people don't know that we are just past the half way mark of the WHO and CDC's "decade of vaccines". Most people don't know that our government, in bed with Pharma, is plotting and planning to push as many vaccines on us as they can come up with. If one hasn't been following the corruption, one wouldn't have any idea of what was coming. People don't know that the plan is to demonize the unvaccinated and to make them civilly and criminally liable for disease. People don't know that our government and Pharma have hired trolls planted all over the place to protect their interests, trolls that include blogging doctors like Gorski. People, probably including DeNiro, have no idea. Certainly, he didn't expect a call from the board of health demanding that he not show the film. If he knew that in advance, he would not have accepted the film in the first place. Why would he want to make a fool of himself by having to reverse his position only hours after expressing it?
Posted by: Linda1 | March 29, 2016 at 05:10 PM
Sorry; forgot to put the link to that Rappoport article after my last comment:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/vaxxed-how-did-they-threaten-robert-de-niro/
Posted by: Bayareamom | March 29, 2016 at 04:16 PM
I checked the three links I've posted today (below), and they are all still working for me, but possibly are cached locally.
Via Mike Adams, there is also this link to a mainstream article on Alfred P Sloan enabling the Nazi war machine. There is a certain irony in Tribeca taking money from his legacy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html#ixzz442IQyVKk
http://www.naturalnews.com/053468_Sloan_Foundation_Nazi_eugenics_Sundance_film_festival.html
http://www.today.com/video/robert-de-niro-pulls-anti-vaccine-film-from-tribeca-film-festival-653408835987
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | March 29, 2016 at 03:58 PM
Teresa Conrick,
"shows that you might not be getting the importance of all that is happening"
Sorry, but this whole incident does not pass the smell test. I have been aware of myriad 'false flag' operations to be skeptical of many events and controversies I see reported in the Press.
When a grantee receives funds for a Workshop, Convention, or similar gathering, the first action they will take is to run a tentative agenda before the sponsor, especially if any part of the proposed event is the LEAST BIT controversial. The whole purpose is to avoid the level of controversy we are seeing now for Vaxxed. I think we can agree that all parties to the Tribeca Film Festival knew how controversial this film would be, and the reaction that it would generate from many stakeholders. If this film had been about a topic that no one had addressed previously, and it generated the same level of vitriol, then I could understand DeNiro's (and many others in his situation) reaction and possibly yielding to unexpected external pressure. But, given the history of the topic addressed by Vaxxed, there were no unexpected surprises in the media's and other stakeholders' reactions.
That's not to say that your interpretation is incorrect or mine is correct. We just don't have enough information to draw conclusions anywhere near definitive.
And, I certainly don't view these comments as 'perseverate'. This issue is by no means settled!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | March 29, 2016 at 03:36 PM
@Hans Litten thanks!
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | March 29, 2016 at 03:30 PM
"...Three, De Niro decides he’ll not only screen the film, he’ll introduce it himself, live, onstage..."
Doesn't appear to me De Niro planned all of this in the manner in which it's played out (if the above is true). At any rate, I agree with Linda1's scenario - spot on. They had to take the lesser route and chose option no. 2.
I still feel this documentary will find its way into the mainstream somehow. Everything happens for a reason; I'm sure there's a bigger plan for all of this - it just needs to play out.
Posted by: Bayareamom | March 29, 2016 at 03:25 PM
Hmmm.... here's Mike Adam's take on the Sloan Foundation: http://www.naturalnews.com/053468_Sloan_Foundation_Nazi_eugenics_Sundance_film_festival.html
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | March 29, 2016 at 03:25 PM
Yep, still can't get it to load. Has it been removed?
Posted by: Betty Bona | March 29, 2016 at 03:24 PM
@Tim Lundeen
I can't get your link to load. That always makes me wonder whether someone is removing it because it angered the bosses of the news show (the ones at the pharmaceuticals). Maybe it's just my computer.
Posted by: Betty Bona | March 29, 2016 at 03:20 PM
Ronald Kostoff - With all due respect,you perseverate a lot on how things don't jive with your thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but this reflects a lack of understanding of Lou's excellent article, which is based on some sarcasm...some truth...and much past history--
You write :
"It's not clear to me who gains by what transpired."-- shows that you might not be getting the importance of all that is happening. Also-- I have not said it before but you continually spell Dan's name incorrectly -- It's OLMSTED.
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | March 29, 2016 at 02:57 PM
Just terrific Lou. I hope it is really goes to him. just bravo.
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | March 29, 2016 at 02:54 PM
Worst case scenario in my mind would have been to let the film screen (on the last day) with typical mainstream "coverage," or maybe possibly somehow scrap it on the last day (I mean I was expecting something like that more than an actual screening), again with typical mainstream coverage.
So with all the actual coverage of this, albeit probably mostly in the Entertainment sections of various outlets, I'm really having a harder-than-usual difficultly making sense of things...(is it ridiculous to wonder if those aware of vaccine injury are the only audience the media gets when they cover these things...and that they might be that desperate for someone to lie to?)...hope this is going to be a further awakening for some.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | March 29, 2016 at 02:35 PM
SO GREAT!!!
Thank you so much Mr. Conte for all you do!!! I agree with Best.Letter.Ever. - this definitely needs larger circulation.
Thank you again so much!!!
Posted by: Annie | March 29, 2016 at 01:43 PM
@linda1 I think your analysis is spot-on: they had to decide on the least-damaging course.
Because it is essential for them to deny any credibility to Wakefield, autism parents, and vaccine-injury-concerns, they didn't really have any choice but to pressure Tribeca to remove it. The damage to them from giving it credibility would be in the billions: it could kill the entire business.
This course they took may still fail, and this film could be the straw that brings discussion of CDC lies and fraud into the mainstream. We can only hope, and do our best to leverage it.
They are taking a pretty big hit, and it will get worse. For example, see http://www.today.com/video/robert-de-niro-pulls-anti-vaccine-film-from-tribeca-film-festival-653408835987 -- this mainstream coverage shows clips of seriously vaccine-injured children, which will be a major concern for any parents seeing it.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | March 29, 2016 at 01:34 PM
Dan Olmstead/Linda1,
"that's preposterous...it's ridiculous...less credible".
Only because it doesn't comport with what you want to believe. The scenario I describe is no less credible than yours. Yours might be right; mine may be right; both may be wrong. Until you know what the intent and motivations of all the players are, definitive assertions are meaningless.
You don't think DeNiro knew what the reaction and fallout would be beforehand; you think he just got off the boat? I'm not willing to take what transpired at face value. It may or may not have been the plan. I don't know, and neither do you.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | March 29, 2016 at 01:10 PM
Linda1,
Astute analysis of the criminals' 2 options. Thank you.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | March 29, 2016 at 01:07 PM
For Tim Lundeen
http://www.naturalnews.com/053468_Sloan_Foundation_Nazi_eugenics_Sundance_film_festival.html
Posted by: Hans Litten | March 29, 2016 at 01:05 PM
Soooo, that is what Jose Cordero looks like.
Like to see pictures of these guys. I mean some one that has had such an impact on our peon lives, people like to sort of see what they look like.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 29, 2016 at 01:00 PM
Where can we as thinking human beings find the truth anymore if it is not in science? The media have shown that they are bought, and so here is a film that had a chance of seeing the light of day and it is pulled by someone who is a celebrity. Instead of exposing the wrongdoing of several scientist in Vaxxed what we get is more of the libelous statements against Dr. Wakefield. Bob is helping muddy the waters. He is helping science to become just another "reality show" instead of giving the opportunity for a really necessary discussion. The lawyer who won the case for Wyeth in the Bruesewitz case will be eternally grateful because she by now probably knows that Poul Thorsen who helped her win, is a wanted man. Greed has no end in this and I really wonder, too, where you stand, Bob.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | March 29, 2016 at 12:59 PM
I notice lots of studies done by with the support of the pro-vaccine lobby saying they have found no correlation between the MMR and autism. In these studies I have never noticed any immune panel blood tests done on the participants such as T cell abnormalities, elevated measles titer antibodies or even tests done by Dr. Vijendra Singh showing children tested positive for myelin basic protein antibodies.
Where are the immune panel blood tests in these so-called "scientific studies?"
Just asking as a point of interest.
Posted by: Ray Gallup | March 29, 2016 at 12:51 PM
@ ronald kostoff -- your idea that de niro was planning to pull the film all along is in fact "less credible" by far than lou's. in fact, it's ridiculous. give it a rest, will ya?
Posted by: Dan Olmsted | March 29, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Dr. Kostoff,
No way was DeNiro acting when he scheduled the film to be shown. That's preposterous. I think this is a case of it is what it appears to be. The film was accepted on its merit by the screening committee with the endorsement of DeNiro. When the news was released that a Wakefield film about CDC fraud was in the Tribeca Film Festival, all hell broke loose - 100% aimed at DeNiro for maximum effect.
The criminals had to choose the lesser of two damaging scenarios - to let the film go forward in the festival, which would propel the film into theaters worldwide revealing to the world their criminality, or they could pounce and take the risk of creating widespread curiosity with the resulting public awareness. They obviously chose the latter banking on their ability to control and contain the media and the public. Looking at the two options, they really had no choice if there was to be any chance of their continuing to deceive the public. They still took a big hit to their credibility and the film hasn't even been shown yet.
Posted by: Linda1 | March 29, 2016 at 12:42 PM
And then there is this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html#ixzz442IQyVKk
The doctor who was Chief Scientific Officer at the UK Department of Health has this to say about the MMR vaccine: Dr Peter Fletcher has seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children".
If it is proven that the jab causes autism, "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history".
But somehow, the possibility that the MMR vaccine might be one of the greatest scandals in medical history doesn't register on the radar of the Tribeca censorship committee...
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | March 29, 2016 at 12:33 PM
Excellent letter Lou!! Bravo!
Posted by: Theresa Cedillo | March 29, 2016 at 12:33 PM
One of the "scientists" DeNiro probably talked with before pulling VAXXED from Tribeca is Peter S. Kim, Ph.D., who sits on the board of the Sloan . He was president of Merck Research Laboratories (MRL), 2003-2013 and is known as the "Father of Gardasil".
I say "scientist" advisedly, because true scientists welcome discussion and open debate.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | March 29, 2016 at 12:09 PM
Louis Conte,
With all due respect, neither you, nor myself, nor any of the other posters and commenters on this issue in AoA, know what really happened behind the scenes. Your assumption (and that of most of the posters) is that DeNiro initially wanted to screen this movie because he believed it contained a message worth hearing, but then was persuaded by sponsors et al to remove for nefarious reasons. Do you really know his motives and intent, and what went on behind the scenes? Perhaps what transpired was the plan all along! DeNiro would appear to support it, then withdraw support at the eleventh hour. Why is that any less credible than your scenario?
It's not clear to me who gains by what transpired. The withdrawal unleashed a tremendous amount of vitriol throughout the media, along with some small amount of allegations of cover-up. I can't estimate the net effect. While some of the commenters on AoA believe it will be positive by potentially attracting more viewers, that's not clear to me at this point. It's the analog of voluminous attack ads in a political campaign; they usually work against the candidate.
There is a price to be paid for taking a stand on this issue. Jon Rappoport identifies it clearly in some recent postings on his blog (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/); see posts in the past week especially. One would think that a seasoned movie star would be somewhat less concerned about being blacklisted, especially one who has been successful financially.
Bottom Line - We really don't know what the game was, and until much more information is revealed (if ever), many of our comments are pure speculation.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | March 29, 2016 at 12:04 PM
FANTASTIC letter, Lou!
I know some people in our community are saying we need to go easy on Di Nero because he was pressured to do what he did. I get that. But how many people in the chain of bumbles and fumbles, lies and cover-ups, that destroyed so many of our kids futures, CAN we blame? Does everyone get a pass for passing the buck and allowing this atrocity to continue? And why can't we be furious each time it happens? This tragedy known as the Autism Epidemic didn't have to happen. But it has kept on rolling because no one of any power or stature wants to stick their necks out. The few who have, such as Wakefield, McCarthy, Schneider and a few others, were left high and dry by others in their community because they cave into pressure and refuse to publicly support their brave colleagues. Sure, we know many of them support them privately, but few are willing to speak out and run the chance of ruining their careers. And I can appreciate that dilemma they face. But my two vaccine injured boys futures are more a much more pressing dilemma. If more people spoke up, less kids would be harmed - it IS that SIMPLE.
Posted by: Sylvia | March 29, 2016 at 11:57 AM
Our nation fought wars for our freedom including speech, now Tribeca wants to help the Pharma interests take us back to those days, but they start with the children.
Posted by: victorpavlovic | March 29, 2016 at 11:53 AM
Someone put this in USA today or something equally large!
Posted by: Best. Letter. Ever. | March 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM
Hear hear!! Louis, you make a very interesting point. This is a watershed moment for censorship that lies at Tribeca and DeNiros' feet. They should be ashamed. I say this as a citizen who does not have a child with autism, but who works in special education.
Posted by: Educator | March 29, 2016 at 11:10 AM
Bravo, Louis! Spot on letter. Powerful ending.
Glad you called Mr. De Niro to the mat for what he did...allowing censorship...on what is arguably the one topic which, more than any other at this time, needs full and immediate disclosure...that being the countless LIES surrounding vaccines and our nation's vaccine program...lies which are told and promulgated to protect profits, not people.
Shame on Robert De Niro. He had the chance to be a hero, and he chose to be a coward instead. He has now joined the ranks of those aiding and abetting the continuance of vaccine-induced injury and death versus joining the ranks of those who have dedicated their lives to ending it.
There is still time to do the right thing, Mr. De Niro...to reinstate Vaxxed into The Tribeca Film Festival.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | March 29, 2016 at 10:48 AM
This is a great letter. I would add that Thorsen, as a supposed fugitive, is still publishing in the scientific journals alongside colleagues in Denmark. Our FBI knows exactly where he is and yet as a man on the most wanted list, he is not apprehended and brought to justice.
I still insist though, that Robert DeNiro is not at fault here. He was probably caught completely off guard by the enormity of the attack. I doubt that he went to the scientific community to find out how to censor. Rather, he probably went to the scientific community for answers and we all know what happened next. Does anyone really think that he could have stood firm with the NY Board of Health breathing down his neck? If he showed the film, the next child that died of anything in this country would have been blamed on him.
I hope that he reads this letter and understands all that has happened and what we are all up against.
Posted by: Linda1 | March 29, 2016 at 10:40 AM
I would like to draw the attention of everyone (including Robert de Niro) to the full, uncut interview conducted with the producer of Vaxxed, Del Bigtree.
It is remarkable clip in that a former vaccine supporter and Wakefield skeptic, Bigtree, came to see this film as the most important story in his lifetime and his anger over the fraud carried out by the CDC is evident.
Thanks to The Health Ranger for the YouTube post:
VAXXED: the ABC News interview that Big Pharma didn't want you to see
https://youtu.be/tvcdh7KlgPI
Posted by: David Taylor | March 29, 2016 at 08:50 AM
Sponsors Of The Tribeca Film Festival Revealed, AKA “Scientific Community”
https://truthkings.com/sponsors-tribeca-film-festival-revealed/
Posted by: Danchi | March 29, 2016 at 08:41 AM
Lou .. great letter .. you raise so many questions .. that again .. will be left "unanswered and unexplained".
"One would think that the American public would expect full transparency and discourse on vaccines safety."
Yes Lou .. one would think the American public would expect full transparency and discourse on vaccines safety .. but .. unfortunately .. after YEARS and YEARS of witnessing just how powerful, influential and vengeful the pharmaceutical/medical/media vaccine cartel has become .. knowing well the enormous effort to protect themselves and their unseemly profits .. by any means necessary .. such as .. launching vicious personal attacks on anyone who dares to question vaccines .. one would be undeniably wrong.
Now .. added to that ever growing list of people "silenced" by the vaccine cartel .. would be Robert DeNiro .. once remembered for his tough portrayal as the "Raging Bull" .. now forever remembered .. (the name plagiarized from someone on facebook) .. as the "Raging Bull s..t artist".
Posted by: Bob Moffit | March 29, 2016 at 06:46 AM
There is probably no serious political topic on earth where the argument might not be made that if we do not defer to authority and ask questions - simply report what happened - people might die as a result. But people also might die or be maimed if we are being lied to, and manifestly we are being lied to daily. Vaccine injury is an appropriate topic for mainstream public discussion. There is no citable scientific core to the belief that there is anything inherently safe about these products - last year leading British health official, Elizabeth Miller, for example was still citing Offit's 10,000 vaccine article as a strong argument for the expansion of the schedule. Miller lives in a bureaucratic wonderland where no one ever gets hurt. Unfortunately they do, and they are bound to - more and more of them -so long as we go on living in this state of denial.
Posted by: John Stone | March 29, 2016 at 06:24 AM
May the Hg-enocide continue .Thanks Robert , your characters all have a backbone . You are a great actor indeed .
Posted by: Hans Litten | March 29, 2016 at 06:01 AM