@Someone,

Perhaps 'neo-skeptic' in place of 'anti-vax'? Thereby adopting a more relevant, progressive form of skepticism to represent a critical position towards vaccine policy while allowing potential to highlight the self-proclaimed skeptic's perversion of the term.

For Jeannette Bishop and Grace Green,

In case you haven't heard about the UK doctor whose career was recently destroyed b/c she dared to challenge the status quo re. Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS):

http://healthimpactnews.com/2016/world-renown-neuropathologist-has-career-destroyed-for-disproving-shaken-baby-syndrome/

For Sean Burke,

Vaccine safety studies are NOT done according to the gold standard of medical research, i.e. that of a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Rather, the "control group" in vaccine safety trials is given either another vaccine, multiple other vaccines, or an adjuvant (e.g. aluminum; remember that adjuvants cause adverse reactions in and of themselves). Placebos are NOT used (you don't have to think hard to know why). Yet, our inept and corrupt government regulators accept such "safety" studies, to the grave detriment of our children, and to people of all ages.

So, to explain "vaccine safety" studies, I came up with an analogy I like to use:

Saying "Vaccine X", which was tested against "Vaccine Y", is safe because it was no more dangerous or deadly than "Vaccine Y" is analagous to saying that heroin is safe and non-addictive b/c it's no more dangerous or addictive than crack.

Furthermore, there has NEVER been a study undertaken in the U.S. comparing the short- and long-term health and development outcomes of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated (again, you don't need to think hard to know why). This should have been done before the approval or recommendation of any vaccine, and before the inception of our nation's dastardly vaccine program...for each and every vaccine, and for each and every combination in which they might be given. Of course, had that been done, we would have no vaccine program. The proof would have been in the pudding, so to speak, with the unvaccinated having superior health, development, and longevity as compared to the vaccinated. The study should have included very longterm follow-up, b/c research is now showing that naturally contracting some of the childhood illnesses against which we vaccinate is protective against cancer, both in childhood, and later in life.

Germany, by the way, has conducted such a study, and sure enough, the unvaccinated showed themselves to be far healthier than their vaccinated peers (covered in this article):

http://vactruth.com/2014/02/26/unvaccinated-children-healthier/

We now run into the problem that even unvaccinated children may suffer health and development issues due to the vaccines their parents received. In other words, there are generational effects...which the vaccine profiteers didn't care to take into consideration as they damaged multiple generations in one fell swoop with no regard or regrets.

Jeannette Bishop, Yes. And it's interesting that there's increasing evidence that Shaken Baby Syndrome is also caused by vaccines. Some people are losing their other children and even going to prison to serve this cover-up!

Tim,

"...it's amazing how Dorit can be 100% wrong/lying/misrepresenting and sound so plausible..."

She sounds just like a troll to me.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2016/people-take-to-the-streets-protesting-cdc-corruption/

March on the CDC Georgia tmrw - Come on Atlanta - DO IT

@Eddie I love "Pro-vax extremists." We should make this the new meme :-)

the film they dont want you to see ...... I like that

JoyB - scream away - more of us should be , given what is at stake

DORIT'S ALREADY ON THE JOB, ladling out the same old moldy oatmeal:

Dorit Reiss April 21, 2016 at 8:44 am

"It’s very distressing to see distributor Diaz buy into anti-vaccine claims to this degree. Among the problematic claims in this op-ed:
A It is not censorship nor problematic for film makers to criticize the selection. Tribeca is a private festival and has a choice of whether to listen or not. The personal attack on Penny Lane, who criticized the film, is troubling.

B. The conspiracy theory behind the movie’s withdrawal: it must be the Sloan Foundation! Tribeca may have asked Penny Lane to start a campaign against the movie. Really.

C. Calling the movie anti-vaccine is not incorrect. The creators did not directly call for not vaccinating, but they went out of their way to scare people from vaccinating – with scary images, false claims vaccines are not tested, claims vaccines cause autism, appeal to emotion against vaccine by using parental anecdotes to claim vaccines harm.

D. If you have read the Thompson documents you would see that Wakefield and Hooker did engage in misrepresentations of them. As analyzed by Matt Carey, the film’s trailer also misrepresented Thompson’s points. By the way, the “biased” description is repeated in reviews. and was admitted by Jay Gordon, who is sympathetic to the film.

E. Describing Andrew Wakefield as “framed for daring to say that his research showed a potential link between MMR vaccine and autism and that more studies were needed.” Andrew Wakefield was found, after a lengthy process, guilty of serious ethical violations, among other things, for hiding conflicts of interests. There is documentation suggesting research manipulation if not outright fraud. He was not framed. He stands discredited by his actions. His repeated misrepresentations in this affair further show his lack of credibility.
Downplaying the credibility problems with the film maker – like not including his license revocation in the biography on the film – is problematic. His credibility is directly relevant to assessing the film he directed.

F. Repeating a set of anti-vaccine tropes about Dr. Paul Offit, such as falsely describing him as an industry pawn and an opponent of preventing autism.

This op-ed is trying to white-wash a movie that is very clearly an unreliable piece of anti-vaccine propaganda and trying to delegitimize its critics with attacks and conspiracy theories. It’s very problematic."

In 2004 another controversial documentary, The Origins of AIDS, had a campaign mounted against it. No doubt Tribeca was lobbied not to show the film and threatened if they did so, but the festival must have been made of sterner stuff back then: https://tribecafilm.com/filmguide/archive/512d00521c7d76e0460023eb-origins-of-aids

I woke up this morning to the news on the radio.
Seems like the CDC is whinning to Congress that they need money to fight the Zika virus. Could they have some more - and Congress wanted to know why they could not wait till the next physical year?

The zika virus - sounds like vaccine injuries to me, but that is just me being paranoid -- and I make no apologies when it comes to the CDC -- cause I am not PARANOID ENOUGH!

Probably needing the money to pay all the trolls, and Jane Rosenthal's husband, or ex husband - and sister all involved in the - "professional drug trade", and not that illegal drug trade, both depending heavily on damaged mental health; well, ill health for the entire body.

You know it takes a lot of tax payer money to keep this all under the carpet.

"They were effectively telling the festival’s sponsors that it was perfectly OK to censor a film they didn’t like."

The following quote is attributed to someone representing Tribeca:

"We have a responsibility as artists to challenge the world."

Apparently it is one thing for Tribeca's "fearless artists to challenge the world .. it is quite another to ask "fearless artists" to challenge Tribeca's sponsors.

When all is said and done .. I believe Tribeca has paid a high price .. lost integrity .. in order to placate the agenda of their sponsors.