Vaxxed Q&A Viewer Insults Andrew Wakefield.
Awkward moment alert. A women at a Vaxxed showing does not recognize Andrew Wakefield at the Q&A and then proceeds to insult him. You have to watch this to believe it. Andy responds with courtesy and aplomb to a woman who is as rude as can be - despite her quiet Looooosiana voice. "Where I come from...." ma'am, maybe go back.
It was a painful and an acutely embarrassing moment for that self satisfied woman in the video to have her ignorance exposed so publicly. Andrew did deal with her non comprehension on so many levels, with his customery politeness and patience. But these non believers always rest their laurels on that one word that is always applied by such people at even
the mention of his name, the word 'discredited'. That word alone gives rise to the smug attitudes of holier than thou critics of him and his work. I wonder exactly what would happen if in fact Andy did attempt, successfully to have his name cleared of all wrong doing and his licence returned to him. What then? To whom then would they refer their contempt and dismissive contemptuous comments.? Oh how I long for that day to come.
Posted by: Patricia | October 13, 2016 at 11:05 AM
Ronald Kostoff, I'm sure that's true (and here in the UK it would very soon become available on the new NHS) but Hera's point is also true, that Penicillin saved many lives at that time, which fanatical pro-vaxxers are wrongly ascribing to the advent of vaccines.
Posted by: Grace Green | August 30, 2016 at 11:25 AM
Hera and Ronald,
It is true that penicillin only became available to everyone in the '40s, and it was a godsend. It cured serious infections in many thousands of people who would earlier have died. Sulfa drugs were available earlier, but were not as effective in many cases as penicillin. Yes, they gave it too often, like vaccines, believing there was no danger or downside. My mother got me eight DPT or dT vaccines by the age of eleven, too many, and all with mercury that it turned out that neither I nor my parents were able to detox, so it accumulated in our brains and bones until it caused severe symptoms which ruined our lives. Like the mercury in Calomel and other medical products, as Jenny describes. But the upside of penicillin was breathtaking, and it did do a lot to prevent death from diseases like diphtheria and meningitis. (Not pertussis or the viral diseases, unless treating bacterial complications.)
And doctors have been aware of the dangers of overuse of antibiotics for several decades now, and most are prescribing them far less than before, a good thing. But I would not want to live in a world with no access to antibiotics. The problem here is that on the one hand vaccines are extremely profitable for the medical industry, and on the other, parents have been indoctrinated into believing that the recommended schedule is the only thing enabling children to reach adulthood still alive. I think the reptile side of their brain has been engaged, the instinct for physical survival, and they do not engage their faculty for critical thought at all.
Posted by: ciaparker | August 30, 2016 at 11:05 AM
I'm SO sorry you are going through all of these things with your daughter (and for all the other families who are dealing with these issues as well). Words fail me at this point.
I follow the Vaxxed team's Periscopes every day. I've viewed countless of parents' stories they've covered while on their tour. I've had to stop viewing those stories for a bit, because it's just so difficult to watch and to hear about the heartache these families are suffering.
One can only hope and pray that the light at the end of this very long tunnel will soon be seen.
Posted by: Bayareamom | August 30, 2016 at 10:40 AM
"Penicillin didn't come into use until the 1940's, and then I assume it was only for the rich; there were no pharmacies to get our many prescription medicines"
Not true. Penicillin was very affordable, and it was dispensed similarly to how vaccines are dispensed today. People would get penicillin 'shots' for the slightest fever. This was the 'magic bullet' that would protect against the body's pushback from the junk food lifestyle that was emerging (or perhaps accelerating is a better word). There were plenty of pharmacies. Just like today, no one questioned the value of, or potential harm from, these antibiotics and other drugs.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | August 30, 2016 at 07:18 AM
Yes- Hera's reference to 'Mrs Winslows Syrup ' is not the only historical infant horror inflicted on babies. How about Steedman’s Soothing Powders, around 1882- 1938? This stuff, fed to infants, contained mercury. God only knows what damage it caused. A Government Select Committee criticised the manufacturers in 1913, "for failing to warn parents of the dangers of giving their child a
mercury-based medicine over a long time period" . It seems the dangers of mercury were well known to the medical community long before the widespread inclusion of Thiomersal in vaccines.
Why on Earth was this dangerous neurotoxin EVER added to injected substances in the first place, not to mention the use of dangerous and unsightly mercury amalgam in tooth fillings? The American Adademy of Paediatrics succeeded in persuading the UN to allow mercury to be retained in child vaccines destined for the third world. This dangerous neurotoxin with no admitted 'safe' levels, (unless you are Dorit Reiss, Eindeker or Poul Thorsen et al), is still in Flu and a few other vaccines. in use in the 'developed' world. WHY!!!!?
Museum of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, 2008
Posted by: Jenny Allan | August 30, 2016 at 06:19 AM
CiaParker; my heart goes out to you and your daughter. Wanting a big house shouldn't have to be too much dream for a child.
Was so proud of Andrew Wakefield and how he answered the ladies questions. And he is right. I pray that at some point the tipping point will come and many people will speak out.
Pat Victor; I am so glad you wrote. Please keep commenting.
For your relative, when she talks about the children in the graves of yesteryear, you may want to ask her what types of medicines that had available in those days. Penicillin didn't come into use until the 1940's, and then I assume it was only for the rich; there were no pharmacies to get our many prescription medicines, no IV antibiotics or even antibiotic pills , no IV fluids or even pedialyte for dehydration . Surgery was a crude affair and cocaine was used as an anaesthetic.
A favorite medicine for teething babies was Mrs Winslows Syrup, which contained morphine. Some medicines contained arsenic.
And of course, poor children starving to death or dying in the cold in houses without heat,was not unknown.
here is a link to Web MD on some of the medical techniques of the past.
If you get a chance, would you pass this on to her, please?
Posted by: Hera | August 29, 2016 at 10:49 PM
I forgot to mention that our case manager told me a couple of months ago when discussing my daughter's future that a number of autism parents here have bought houses at the bottom of cul-de-sacs for their autistic children and have an aide to live with them full-time. Even have Labrador Retrievers, she said. Well, I can't afford to buy a house for my daughter. She said my daughter could live in an apartment with an aide. I assumed she meant the state would pay for it, since we're talking about young adults over 18. Last week I talked to her again, and it turns out that no, the state would NEVER pay for an aide for its handicapped adult citizens. Am I missing something here? So disabled people are just going to be substantially on their own? They'll get state help paying for Voc Rehab to help them get and keep a job. But if it doesn't work out? I asked her if there are any plans for group homes or day programs for those who are not employed, and the answer is no, there aren't.
So, rich people will be able to ensure their children's happiness and safety, and those who aren't won't, and the state doesn't care. What does this mean?
Posted by: ciaparker | August 29, 2016 at 10:45 PM
I am sorry CI Parker;
Every generation thinks and dreams that they will do better then their parents
That is not how it has been working though, for the last two generations. I guess we should have that third generation by now - but it is not going to happen.
Posted by: Benedetta | August 29, 2016 at 07:45 PM
I'm sure she was embarrassed, as well she might have been, and wanted to get out of there. I think most people are very hard-headed on this subject. I have several friends, old boyfriends, relatives, neighbors I have talked about this with for many years. You'd think that seeing my daughter, hearing what happened to her (complete with a lot of supporting evidence), reading about what is happening all over the country, would give them pause, wake them up, make them wonder if they have not bought into a lie. I'm trying to think if any of them believe that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism, autoimmune disease, etc., that the VPDs are not enough of a threat to Americans at this time to justify this holocaust, and the vaccine companies are playing us for fools. I'm sure you realize how eloquent I am on the subject, how much information I have, how many studies I can look up to provide them with.
My ex-husband and his current wife believe me. She said she works with a woman (in Italy) whose son regressed into autism after the DTaP vaccine. No one else. It's very frustrating and lonely to be Cassandra crying in the wilderness. The others it's just in one ear and out the other. They have been told that without vaccines contagious disease would spread like wildfire across the country, killing millions. I don't know why they believe it, it's so obviously untrue. I think they don't even believe it, don't even analyze it to that degree, just feel comfortable trusting the medical authorities. I don't know. What I can say is that you can take them by the hand, point out this, this, and that fact, the resulting damaged children, explain very carefully that this proves this and that proves that this vaccine caused this result, and they will STILL say that that couldn't happen to them or anyone they know. One friend said recently that I couldn't have all this stored mercury causing my MS, or that they gave C a Recombivax with a lot of mercury in 2000, a year after Merck admitted it was very dangerous and that they wouldn't make it with mercury anymore, but they sold what they had on hand for several more years, including to the hospital which gave it to my newborn, who reacted with both screaming encephalitic syndrome and symptoms of mercury toxicity. She said the authorities would have realized long since and put a stop to it.
And everyone has a mental block too, being well aware of the unprecedented nature of millions of Americans being entitled to millions each in compensation and damages when this is all proven to everyone's satisfaction. They've got a mental block now about the woeful lack of provision for the autistic kids on hand now. Our county case manager said that at most they will provide state-sponsored apartments for two disabled persons each. No supervision. They're on their own to shop, cook, clean the apartment, and hold down their jobs. Heaven forbid, do you have any idea how much it would cost to provide full supervised care for life for millions of autists? And so, so far they just deny that it's going to come to that, since it's just better diagnosis, somehow all of this is going to straighten out, and the kids will settle into full-time jobs and it's not going to melt down the world as we know it. Our county case manager knows my daughter and how little language she has, but says blithely that there are a lot of good jobs for those who have no language at all. Really? Do they understand what developmentally delayed means? What they're proposing is putting handicapped children into the traces of a plow horse, 40 hours a week for the next forty or fifty years. And they think that's going to work out?
My daughter wants me to read the same Curious George story to her every night. Has branched out enough to want an Alvin and the Chipmunks story too. And she's going to cope with full-time employment? She said last night that she wants to be independent and buy a bigger house than ours. I said she's not ever going to have enough money to do that, and big houses would have a lot of expenses in upkeep. I told her she'd have to have a job and work every day forty hours a week to even get maybe a thousand dollars a month, not enough to live comfortably on. She said What else can she do? I said that was about it, until we have our day in court and get a lot of money for the crime that was committed against us. She asked when that would be. I said I didn't know, but it won't be forever.
I think the next five years are going to wake a lot of people up when they see the problems inherent in tens of thousands of autistic kids aging out of the school system with nowhere to go. No, I think the vaccine companies are going to put a lot of thought into how to continue shielding upstanding Americans like this woman in Austin from the cruel reality. They don't want to know the truth, and I'm sure those not compelled to work with these kids will be able to continue ignoring the problem. Until, like my parents, they themselves are disabled by vaccines with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or paralysis. Won't that be poetic justice.
Posted by: ciaparker | August 29, 2016 at 06:26 PM
Pandas; The thought occurred to me also?
She might have attention deficit and while movie is going on - "like my daughter" She squirms, textes, gets up to go get a treat and thus did not even see the movie.
Posted by: Benedetta | August 29, 2016 at 05:22 PM
"I don't think she had her light-bulb moment. We just assume that even a conventional person must have realized how wrong they had been in their assumptions after such an encounter, but I don't think that's the case..."
You misunderstand 'my' meaning of light-bulb moment. I am not saying that this woman had a sudden 180 degree turn around with her thinking on this issue. What I am saying is that 'perhaps' that one spark in time, FOR HER, which will then lead her eventually onto a different path with all of this, occurred during her moment of interaction with Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
Awakenings, or whatever you wish to call them, do not suddenly inspire us into an all or nothing turn around on our past belief systems. IT TAKES TIME for that paradigm shift in all of us, to occur. Don't for one moment think that this woman has not had some sort of shift occur WITHIN HERSELF after she left that movie theater.
I don't presume to know precisely what she must be thinking now, or what she was thinking during that interaction with Andrew. But I know from my own past experience with my own paradigm shift with this issue, that that shift STARTS when that one seed takes root.
A HUGE seed was planted within that woman's mindset that evening, of that I can be certain. How far that seed will grow, or how quickly, is up to her.
Unlike many (judging by the comments I've read here), I do have some sympathy for this woman, if only because I know her perceptions about vaccination are firmly rooted in FEAR based scenarios, just as with all the rest of the world's populous who bought into this vaccination agenda many years ago. We were ALL 'indoctrinated' at some point in our life times. When that indoctrination is as insidious as it has been for most of us, it takes a long time to rid oneself of that conditioning.
From what I understand, this woman walked out of that theater before the Q&A was over. That speaks volumes to me. That confrontation she had with Andrew Wakefield was NOT a coincidence.
Posted by: Bayareamom | August 29, 2016 at 12:59 PM
I'm very keen to discuss your comments further. Could you contact me offline at firstname.lastname@example.org?
Posted by: Jonathan Rose | August 28, 2016 at 07:43 PM
Pat, thank you for further explanation of these events. I'll venture to recommend Dr. Suzanne Humphries new and I think courageous, autobiography, Rising from the Dead. It may give some in your circle an insight into the actual educational level and some of the fallible human aspects of much of what doctors do.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 28, 2016 at 12:54 PM
Well, I was the person who brought the lawyer to the Austin Vaxxed movie (8/23)! She is my sister-in-law by marriage. She was visiting Austin for a few days with her daughter and I took the rare opportunity to “kidnap” them, take them to lunch and then to the afternoon showing. I was well aware of her stance on vaccines but thought she’d appreciate having more knowledge and possibly sway her opinion. Boy, was I wrong! Though I still am hopeful that the seed was sown for her “belief” to change in the future.
I do believe that it was more beneficial for my niece to have seen it since she may have a child/children in the future and this was an opportunity for her to know the other side of the argument. Indeed, she was very receptive – loves documentaries – and was definitely accepting of the information and will no doubt do more research. She was quite uncomfortable with her Mother’s discourse.
I know Andy doesn’t like to be called a hero but he has been one for me since I heard a 20 minute talk that he gave for the 2009 NVIC Conference. It was 2011 when I ordered the CD and that day I listened to a number of the recordings I told my husband when he came home in the evening for dinner that he could not eat until he had heard this one talk. He also was moved and has since studied many of the original papers on vaccines. He’s a biochemist/botanist here in Austin and can work his way through the technical literature that I can’t comprehend. Andy was the one who drew me in.
It’s almost impossible to share this information with family members who are stuck in the belief that doctors “know what’s best” for us and our children. My own daughter-in-law has made sure that our twin grandsons (4 years old) have all their shots up to date! She only declined the HepB in the hospital but they soon got them all starting at 2 months. She let me know it was none of my business and that I should be careful whom I listen to!!! Our son is somewhat receptive to what we’ve told him but he can’t sway her. I have a nephew with Asperger’s, one of his sons has Autism from birth!, my niece has a daughter with a seizure disorder and learning disabilities from the age of 2 months…. So, our family is riddled with possible vaccine insults.
I’ve read AoA for years now but have never sent in a comment. With fibromyalgia for 22 years, my brain is somewhat muddled and I find it difficult to express myself. I cannot begin to tell you how much it has meant to me to have so much knowledge available almost daily. You are an amazing group of people and I so appreciate all your dedication.
Posted by: Pat Victor | August 28, 2016 at 12:02 PM
Not sure if Dr. Wakefield introduced himself at the beginning of the questioning or not...
Even so, I doubt it would have “soaked in” for this woman of “above average” intelligence. I wonder if she has written over 140 legal papers published in law journals ???
Perhaps during future screenings Dr. Wakefield could carry out a ladder, climb up and point out with a large stick..
“To avoid future confusion, for those NOT SO intelligent...this is me.... “
Posted by: go Trump | August 27, 2016 at 07:31 PM
We should have a 'not afraid to appear stupid' day whereby everyone is allowed to babble whatever scientific inanities may be bubbling inside without fear of losing face. That way the Ben Goldacres of this world would discover an appropriate context for their arguments. And if, owing to any self-professed superiority, they had nothing to contribute, well then they may be appropriately ridiculed, you know, receive the 'too fearful to appear stupid' award.
Posted by: Benjamin | August 27, 2016 at 07:02 PM
That, of course, is a related problem. A key player in the UK was Ben Goldacre who heaped scorn and contempt on anyone who might credit Wakefield using a lot of junk epidemiological papers which should not have deceived anyone with ordinary level of English comprehension and maths. Likewise, the Cochrane review of MMR safety 2005, which included a "plain language summary" which if short wasn't particularly de-jargonised, and gave zero idea of the true content. A little easier to understand and considerably plainer was the abstract conclusion "The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR studies, both pre and post-marketing is largely inadequate". Anyone who has studied English a little will know that "largely inadequate" is the opposite of "largely adequate". Goldacre poured particular scorn on columnist Melanie Phillips. Phillips, Goldacre maintained, did not understand science, but at least she understood English!
Posted by: John Stone | August 27, 2016 at 06:03 PM
Everyone sitting around her were so polite and patient. I don't know whether I could constrain myself that well. Watching her was very painful.
Posted by: Elizabeth Gillespie | August 27, 2016 at 05:56 PM
It follows that that is precisely why many pro-vax trolls intentionally post arguments that supposedly are 'only to be understood by the scientifically trained' so that one who cannot follow them will feel inclined to give them their assent lest their neighbour can understand them and might potentially highlight their ignorance.
Posted by: Benjamin | August 27, 2016 at 05:36 PM
I don't think she had her light-bulb moment. We just assume that even a conventional person must have realized how wrong they had been in their assumptions after such an encounter, but I don't think that's the case. I've had many discussions with my neighbor these past ten years about what happened to my daughter. I sent her something Laura sent me about how to recognize vaccine-damaged children, number one was vaccine encephalitis, and she said, Yes, that does sound like what happened to C. She said a few weeks ago that it isn't a real increase in autism, it's just better diagnosis, and I sent her proof that it's a real increase. She said, Well, I guess that would explain the exploding numbers. Then I send her something about the lawsuit of SB277, and she says she'll accept and believe whatever the California judge decides. I sent her the link to this woman and Dr. Wakefield this morning, and she says Well, that's just exactly what she would have done, but this time it wasn't her.
She didn't even WATCH it, or she wouldn't say Well, I would have been PROUD to make a fool of myself just the way this woman did. This woman didn't even WATCH the movie, she's so certain she's right. Closed minds, and PROUD to be closed and ignorant!
Posted by: ciaparker | August 27, 2016 at 04:28 PM
Sorry, I meant to say PANDAS Mom, not Shelley. Although I liked your comment too!
Posted by: ciaparker | August 27, 2016 at 04:19 PM
But it was both the face and the voice. I don't see how an American could watch a movie with such a distinctive face, voice, and accent, and make no connection with the man with the same face and voice a few feet away from her answering questions about the movie he had made. I think she went to the movie but paid no attention to it, telling herself the whole time how broad-minded she was even to descend to the level of watching such trash, but she was only doing it to ask her questions afterwards and draw public attention to the "fact" that they were all being bamboozled into endangering children's lives by not giving them every single one of the recommended vaccines. During the movie, I'm sure she was just looking at her watch and going over in her mind what she needed to do when she got home, without listening to a word of it. Maybe perusing her memories and congratulating herself for having had the courage to give her daughter the DPT and polio vaccines, and protect every child in the world from pertussis and polio thereby. The daughter wasn't that old, probably Hib and hep-B too.
Posted by: ciaparker | August 27, 2016 at 04:18 PM
I sent the link to the video clip to my neighbor this morning, who replied that she would have said the same as the woman (I had given her a one-line summary.) I don't think she even looked at it, just as this woman didn't even look at the movie, or she would at minimum have recognized Dr. Wakefield. I'd like to ask my neighbor what she thought of the woman's making a fool of herself with her closed, supercilious mind, which is causing the maiming of so many milions of children, but I'll try to restrain myself.
Posted by: ciaparker | August 27, 2016 at 04:07 PM
Only she knows what was going through her head, what prompted her behavior. We can only guess. Mine is that she was trying to rise above what she just saw. She might have walked out of there with a false sense of having overcome it if she hadn't come face to face with Dr. Wakefield. I doubt that she could walk away unmoved after both experiences. I could be wrong. We both could be, because we are not her.
Posted by: Linda1 | August 27, 2016 at 02:54 PM
I see you pipped me to the post.
Posted by: John Stone | August 27, 2016 at 02:35 PM
In one sense it is quite interesting. The fundamental strategy, which is the journalistic and quackbusting strategy is not to produce a proper argument but to tell people they will look foolish if they believe x (irrespective of whether x is really a foolish thought). In the Danny Kaye version of the emperor's new clothes he keeps repeating the phrase to the children "Not wanting to appear a fool". So this lady puts it into reverse "If I thought x I would be considered below average intelligence, so I will stick to anything which will mark me out as an intelligent person, or at least not stupid, because that is how I keep face in society". So much of this as we know is about social codes and status, and she has said it and it is just as stupid as that.
Posted by: John Stone | August 27, 2016 at 02:31 PM
I wondered if maybe she has face blindness. That would explain having just watched Dr Wakefield in the movie, but not recognizing him in person.
Posted by: PANDAS Mom | August 27, 2016 at 02:24 PM
This is an amazing example of "The Emperor Has No Clothes." The woman is so committed to arguing technicalities that the point is lost. Our children are having seizures, getting brain encephalitis, autism and dying at an accelerated rate as their bodies and brains were never meant to take in Aluminum, Thimerosal/Mercury, Formaldehyde and more shot into them…
Not even in "Soylent Green" was man meant to take in or eat other men yet our children are forced into doing this in the vaccines made with aborted fetal cell lines!
Pregnant women have been pushed to get 4 vaccines with Mercury/Thimerosal included as an ingredient . The package inserts say Not tested for safety or efficacy.. According to what I read there has been a 4000% increase in fetal deaths
Now they are pushing THIRTEEN vaccines into pregnant women Including ones made of other fetuses.
This DATA MINING must be stopped.
Posted by: Shelley Tzorfas | August 27, 2016 at 02:05 PM
I didn't see any signs of her being perturbed by what she just saw. I don't think it was a meltdown. She had been shaped by the conventional memes to an irreversible degree. She said the young doctors she had seen attend her church since childhood had done large amounts of research, but there's no reason to believe that's true. Why would they? It would screw up their careers. They don't have to, so why would they do it? She presents zero evidence supporting her belief system. She believes that God and Vaccine Science are one entity which she staunchly believes in, and is literally blind to what contradicts her religious views. So what did she think about the children she saw who were normal until they got a vaccine which caused them to regress into autism. So what is her explanation? She had no reply to Dr. Wakefield's saying that the case study on which the Lancet article was based did not say that the MMR caused autism, it only said that it was unusual that these children developed both autism and bowel disease shortly after getting the MMR. Because, as Dr. Wakefield said, she had believed the Pharma lie, which defends vaccine safety and hangs the victims out to dry without a backward glance.
Pride is the worst of the cardinal sins in Catholic doctrine, and I think that's the fundamental problem here. This woman, speaking slowly and appropriating as much time as possible to place herself in the spotlight as the superior human being, presents herself to our view as studious, conscientious, highly intelligent and well-educated, sensible, discerning of the wiles of the unscrupulous snake oil salesmen, and fearless in confronting the hysterical masses gullible enough to believe the lies about vaccines causing autism. What a beautiful image of herself. Why bother to do any real research? She came to the movie, which she didn't watch and wasn't interested in, only to set herself up as the truth-telling watchdog, the defender of Conventional Medical Science and the American Way.
Posted by: ciaparker | August 27, 2016 at 01:57 PM
,..meant to state that I am glad this young girl was with her mom that night, not 'you.' Didn't proof before posting...
Posted by: Bayareamom | August 27, 2016 at 01:34 PM
"Please, enough with the 'on the spectrum" nonsense.,,:
Not saying AT ALL that I accept what my friend was saying. I thought about that statement after awhile and came to my own conclusion (after I posted my comment) that this woman is simply having her own 'awakening' moment. And what an awakening it must have been for her.
That moment in time, for her and for Andrew, was priceless. When it was apparent she'd left the theater after that exchange with Dr. Wakefield, I actually felt sorry for her. I can only imagine how badly her head must have been spinning.
And please, Barry: I understand your anger. BELIEVE ME. I'M ON YOUR SIDE. You are entitled to y our opinion, I get that. There are enough opinions on this topic to go around. I didn't make that comment - my friend did. There certainly was something 'off' with this poor woman, whatever it was. But in our own way, we've all been precisely where this woman was, at one point (at least most of us I would think).
She had her light-bulb moment that night, of that I don't think anyone would disagree. I'm glad her young daughter was there with you that evening. Hopefully, that young girl will learn from her mother's mistake(s).
Posted by: Bayareamom | August 27, 2016 at 01:33 PM
Did she sleep through the film?
People are that brainwashed?
Pediatricians are told vaccines don't cause autism. They are taught vaccines have saved countless lives. Taught when to give them.
Not taught what is in them or how to spot a reaction. It's never the vaccine always a coincidence. The child will be fine...
They can't be sued for vaccine reactions. They make their living giving vaccines and seeing children for the subsequent illnesses they cause. In their world vaccines are fabulous.
I guess when your child escapes injury you hold their pediatrician and pediatricians in general in high regard.
Posted by: Andrea | August 27, 2016 at 09:32 AM
I think what this was was a melt down of sorts - cognitive dissonance. She defends everything she thinks she knows, or what she has known before she saw the movie. She attempts to put the pieces back together by reminding herself of her careful, thoughtful nature, her intelligence, her expert sources that she grew up with, in her church. She displays short term memory loss in not being able to recognize the face and voice of Dr. Wakefield who she just saw on the big screen. Her mind wiped all that out in order to preserve what was there previously. For her to be confronted at that moment with the man responsible for shattering her reality, the director of the film and the victim of the propaganda that she's accepted as truth, is really something. That was a remarkable interaction.
Sincerely, my heart goes out to her. I hope she gets it now and I hope too that she gets over looking like a complete fool and having that on tape forever. Ms. South Carolina comes to mind.
Posted by: Linda1 | August 27, 2016 at 09:10 AM
Obviously this person in the audience paid little attention to the film. And her shameless ad hominem was simply a Pharma fantasy talking point.
“…so long as you’re leading the movement you’re not gonna get somebody like me on this. I trust all the pediatricians that I personally know, that I saw them grow up in my church, that they did extensive research at every step of the way…”
Dr. Wakefield and his co-authors reported their scientific work as a case study. Others have replicated and reported that work. Thank you Dr. Wakefield for your elegant response and clear explanation.
Posted by: Jim Thompson | August 27, 2016 at 01:53 AM
I wonder if her legal specialty is eye witness identifications?
Posted by: Jane | August 27, 2016 at 12:45 AM
God bless Dr. Wakefield for all he has had to endure ...especially this “attorney with above average intelligence”...
I am sure a bit of total ignorance is rather refreshing on long road trips.
I wish Dr. Wakefield would have played along with her for a while, perhaps brought her up to the front of the room where she could be seen better, this clip goes in the Vaxxed highlight reel
Posted by: go Trump | August 26, 2016 at 09:40 PM
Jake! Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it being you. You have got more handsome if that was possible.
I guess I am being too hard on the woman. Lordy knows I was an idiot when it came to vaccines and what the professors at school and the doctors , and text books and on and on - told me.
I guess I am the kind that needs to be weeded out, because I am probably that kind that if the authorities voice on the speaker told me to stay put during the twin towers - well I probably would have Sigh. My poor kids.
Posted by: Benedetta | August 26, 2016 at 09:20 PM
Above average intelligence... impressive. LOL! Seriously... go back and do a little more research before you step out like with your "knowledge".
Posted by: Martin | August 26, 2016 at 08:54 PM
A friend of mine suggests this woman may be on the spectrum. I have no problem accepting that she may be an attorney (or any other type professional).
Please, enough with the 'on the spectrum" nonsense.
Autism is just a name that the medical community invented, to describe vaccine injuries that THEY have inflicted on our children. An when WE as their parents repeat that bullshit narrative, the only thing were doing is delaying justice for our own children.
Posted by: Barry | August 26, 2016 at 08:16 PM
Haha the woman says she has higher than average intelligence? DR. Wakefield called her out and she looks none too bright.
Posted by: Reader | August 26, 2016 at 08:07 PM
Jake's expression at '26 is priceless, 'Ok, that just registered, hell'. Then to be stuck with her glorious continuation "a person like me who's a very thoughtful, careful...". She reminds me of C.M.Schultz's Marcie minus the perspicacity of thought.
Posted by: Benjamin | August 26, 2016 at 07:18 PM
Seriously? Holy Guacamole! Thanks for another shining example of Dr. Wakefield demonstrating why I always call him a Rock Star when I see him. Stay Strong and stay the course! Love you guys!
Posted by: Heidi Roger | August 26, 2016 at 05:45 PM
"I was sitting right next to her. lol"
I knew that was you, Jake. I think you handled yourself very well, considering what was coming out of this woman's mouth!
All things happen for a reason. I think it's a good thing this happened. Dr. Wakefield comported himself beautifully in response to this poor woman's lack of knowledge. He stayed calm and was completely articulate as he rebutted this woman's statements. I actually felt more sorry for this woman's daughter, who was sitting to this woman's right. She was clearly embarrassed as her mother was speaking.
A friend of mine suggests this woman may be on the spectrum. I have no problem accepting that she may be an attorney (or any other type professional). At least she was there and watched the movie. She may have learned far more that evening than she could possibly have by simply viewing the movie on live-stream or later, on DVD.
Posted by: Bayareamom | August 26, 2016 at 04:57 PM
I had to laugh watching the beginning of this clip — even Wakefield seemed to find it funny.
I think she is quite wrong in thinking that Wakefield's association with the film will only discredit it. In fact he is the perfect person to lead this charge. He has managed to stay standing for nearly 20 years in the face of an ongoing assault that would have had most people limping off to a dark corner to lick their wounds.
Even apart from that, he is an excellent spokesperson – lovely voice and accent, of course, but also articulate, eloquent, and extremely knowledgeable. No wonder no-one wants to debate him! And no wonder Vaxxed is getting the response it has received all over the US. I just hope it will make it to Toronto or Montreal one of these days.
Posted by: Cait from Canada | August 26, 2016 at 03:11 PM
I think it's like commenting on blogs. I really don't care at all what the shill I'm responding to thinks, or whether or not he is persuaded by what I say. The only important person in the exchange is the reader of our exchange who might learn something or be persuaded.
This woman thought she was the wise, savvy one to show that she only believed the pharma party line because it's the one broadcast 24/7 by corrupt industry interests. She apparently watched Vaxxed and emerged completely unmoved, solid in her continued conviction that vaccines don't cause autism no matter how many examples she sees of how they do. It's important that Dr. Wakefield is a principled gentleman who cannot be anything else, and showed his intelligence and patience in his interaction with this woman. Those with ears to hear will hear. Those who don't, won't. I have nothing but scorn for them. But not for those listening in.
Posted by: ciaparker | August 26, 2016 at 02:32 PM
Thank God for the amazing Dr. Andrew Wakefield. He is such an inspiration for me of how courage can be transformative.
Posted by: kapoore | August 26, 2016 at 01:57 PM
Friends, we need to see people like this because they rule the world. And many of us used to be part of the herd that imagined that if something unusual were true, that little genie inside the newspaper or magazine would want to tell us the truth. My good friend who is a good thinker in his own field, stated as one of his reasons for not believing me - That if it were true that mercury causes autism, someone would have proved it by now.
A great man in India once told my daughter, " We have no control over what other people say to us----but we have control over how we respond. " What a wonderful coincidence that I was thinking of this advice today, before I saw this beautiful l video of Andrew Wakefield . Dr. Wakefiield, thankyou for your inspiration. .
Posted by: Cherry Misra | August 26, 2016 at 01:31 PM
The woman is a dissimulator.
Posted by: greyone | August 26, 2016 at 01:28 PM
She went to the movie, but didn't understand a single thing in it. And then she wants to show off how knowledgeable she is(n't). I'd write her off. There are enough people with open minds and hearts that we don't need the wilfully blind sheep.
Posted by: ciaparker | August 26, 2016 at 01:24 PM
I wonder if she realizes she is pure satire? "Somebody like me...very careful, thoughtful...I'm above average in intelligence..." She neglected to add, "Nor do I ever seriously question what I am told to believe by people in positions of apparent authority."
The world is full of people like her: "above average in intelligence," but very easily manipulated. And there are many doctors and pediatricians among them.
Posted by: NWO Reporter | August 26, 2016 at 01:02 PM
I have sympathy because I was completely snookered by the sheer number of seemingly plausible people telling me that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Deceit on that scale didn't seem possible. I know better now.
Posted by: Carol | August 26, 2016 at 12:59 PM
I was sitting right next to her. lol
Posted by: Jake Crosby | August 26, 2016 at 12:39 PM
The woman in the clip is actually a perfect example of what most people think. "Oh, Wakefield, he's discredited, so the movie is discredited as well."
Hey, the programming runs deep. The woman should be supported. She's at the movie, she states she has problems with Big Pharma, and she IS above average in intelligence, based on her vocabulary and articulation of speech.
Sorry, folks, but this lady is EXACTLY who we should a good conversation with. She just needs a little help making the connection between "Big Pharma" and character assassination.
I might have responded to her with the following:
"Ma'am, thank you for your comment and for coming to the movie tonight. We're all at different stages of emerging from the "aren't-vaccines-the-greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread" propaganda that has been pounded into us for 50 years."
"Vaccines are VERY big business, and involve many billions of dollars. Now the question I have for you, is this:
Do you think that someone who questions the safety of a multi-billion dollar industry with a scientific study (that has now been replicated across the world) MIGHT be subject to character assassination?
What is the history of people who do such things? What happens to them? What happened to Edward Snowden? (NSA spying on the American public through PRISM program), Daniel Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers), Frank Serpico (NYPD corruption), Karen Silkwood (nuclear plant safety), Jeffrey Wigand (tobacco industry corruption), and so many more?
Answer: they were attacked! they were character assassinated! they were fired! they were threatened! Sound familiar?"
Andrew Wakefield is a courageous whistleblower who had, and still has, the courage to follow where the science leads.
Look, let's face it. Honest men are too much trouble. They have to be gotten rid of. History is full of examples. The best example is the life of Jesus Christ. It's a life of sacrifice. It's a commitment to telling the truth. But telling the truth to powerful people can get you crucified. Fast.
Sound like someone we know?
Posted by: Joe | August 26, 2016 at 12:34 PM
They say 'fools rush in' and this foolish woman made a complete fool of herself. Dr Wakefield politely, patiently and competently demolished all her arguments. I take issue with her 'above average intelligence' claim and like others, suspect she is not a qualified lawyer. If she was a paid 'plant' then whoever or whatever 'planted' her will be regretting it.
Paul Proffit and David Salisbury have both refused to publicly debate with Dr Wakefield. His skills are legendary. Bravo!!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | August 26, 2016 at 12:18 PM
My impression is she puts a lot of stock in authoritarianism, established institutions, etc., but it might be an attempt to float a meme and see how it sticks. I've seen "Andrew Wakefield is not the man to lead this charge" comments without any offered alternatives pop up before. Either we have a subset pretty certain there is a problem but wanting to see someone approved by those who are poisoning our kids take charge and give us a "solution" we can then have their permission to believe in, or ... Andrew Wakefield is effective enough that those intent on continuing the poisoning want to "replace" him.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 26, 2016 at 11:47 AM
"Awkward moment" .. maybe for the "look at me .. I am complete fool" .. woman in the audience .. not so much awkward for the always gracious Dr. Wakefield.
Here is this woman's rather self-complimentary description of HERSELF:
"Somebody like me, who is very careful and thoughtful. I research, I investigate, I have above average intelligence.
Really .. this very "careful, thoughtful" woman .. who "researches, investigates" .. with "above average intelligence" .. then foolishly had to admit she did not know she was speaking to Dr Wakefield himself.
Identifying herself as a "lawyer" .. she then expounded on all she has "learned about Dr Wakefield" in the pharma-media controlled "court of public opinion" .. which even the most incompetent lawyer should know is UNRELIABLE .. AT BEST .. DELIBERATELY DECEITFUL AT WORSE.
Any LAWYER knows their very first priority is to "personally discredit the accused .. by any means necessary" .. which ALL lawyers are trained to do .. and .. there is no easier court in which to "demonize the accused" .. then in the "court of public opinion" .. where the TRUTH .. as Dr Wakefield tried to explain to her .. is IRRELEVANT.
God Bless Dr Wakefield and his entire family ... for putting up with the antics of this obviously misguided fool.
Posted by: Bob Moffit | August 26, 2016 at 11:35 AM
michele b -- "wonderfully posh" is the perfect description of andy's accent. we are lucky to have such a decent, humane, educated and gutsy guy on our side. all that and a posh accent! == dan
Posted by: Dan Olmsted | August 26, 2016 at 11:24 AM
Why did she say that she only believes medical doctors, and Dr. Wakefield is not a medical doctor, just a gastroenterologist? And why did she say that all the studies support the mainstream consensus? And why did she go on and on about how intelligent, well-informed, and reasonable she was, when she really knew nothing and had closed her mind to learning anything?
Posted by: ciaparker | August 26, 2016 at 10:54 AM
Not sure what to make of this woman but this was a very interesting clip. Wakefield is more than a match for critics at this point and easily and gracefully defends himself. But why have such faith in your local MDs? On rankings of developed nations, we are near the bottom in terms of childrens' health. It is really appalling. Why have such faith in a system that is doing so poorly in terms of international ranking? Surely if a lawyer had such a low rating she would want to know why?
Our results are really dismal and we are paying more than all the other countries. Doesn't she think anything is wrong with this picture? By the way, someone posted a link to some VAERS pages recently with recent SIDS deaths. Many of these infants were vaccinated the same day. These pages were really shocking.
Posted by: Leah | August 26, 2016 at 10:51 AM
It is sad that so far after the event, the name Wakefield is synonymous to most "regular" people as a discredited doctor. The media sure did a number on him. I thank you Dr. Wakefield for not deserting our children - now young adults. I hear the California school system is worried about funding. Maybe the money lost to the school districts will have a bigger impact than all the voices of the concerned parents put together. I guess we will all have to see how this falls out.
The positive take away from this Louisiana lady and Dr. Wakefield's back and forth dialogue - the lady still came to see VAXXED. If she walks away from this movie and now sees Dr. Wakefield as a human, breathing person - she may just do some real homework and find that his results have been replicated many times in many different countries.
Oh, and by the way, they are now putting pharma ads in between kids games on Quiz Up. Start -em young!
Posted by: Jill in MI | August 26, 2016 at 10:17 AM
What's amazing is that not only dis she not recognize him, but how often do most people hear that wonderfully posh accent? She didn't make the connection--unreal.
Posted by: Michele B | August 26, 2016 at 10:04 AM
I don't for one minute believe this woman is an attorney. First, for an attorney her observation and listening skill are non-existence. Heaven help her clients. Second she would know that just because someone's license is removed doesn't not nullify their academic credentials. This woman went to see the film with an agenda in mind. The agenda was to disparage Dr. Wakefield on some level that could be used in future social media formats. Like many other so called professions who have written articles about the film on social media their focus is Dr. Wakefield and the so called fraudulent paper he wrote rather than the fraud committed by the CDC. I suspect if her name can be found somewhere in LA, if that's really where she is from, there will be an article written about her review of the film and it will focus on Dr. Wakefield-not the CDC. That's what I believe is her purpose.
Dr. Wakefield-Grace under Fire.
Posted by: Danchi | August 26, 2016 at 10:02 AM
Such grace under pressure...again, and again, and again.
Thank you, Dr. Wakefield, for your unending passion for and dedication to helping the vaccine injured, exposing the evil vaccine profiteers and their criminal behavior, and stopping the Vaccine Holocaust.
And as I wrote in the comments section yesterday to a different article:
The only way to stop the Vaccine Holocaust is to stop the vaccinating.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 26, 2016 at 09:50 AM
Bless you bless you bless you Andy Wakefield! I saw you present your research at a DAN conference 12 years ago, and I was able to repair his bowel damage, no thanks to our pediatrician.
God bless you for fighting for our children. You are my absolute hero.
Posted by: Lora Kenney | August 26, 2016 at 09:37 AM
She was sent there to promote negativity and doubt, along to insult, (planted) not fooling anyone, and they used her and just made a fool out of her because she obviously isn't the brightest shill I've seen.
Posted by: victorpavlovic | August 26, 2016 at 09:37 AM
My favorite part is when the daughter rolls her eyes when her mother says "I am of above average intelligence". LOL.
Re Dr. Wakefield stepping aside - he is right that then the criminals would win. No one is better equipped to fight than he is. What was done to him is the central issue, that these corporate/government/media thugs think they can rule by framing opposition, destroying careers and just getting people out of the way. Andrew Wakefield is an amazing man for standing up to the scheme. I bet this woman of above average intelligence (LOL) will eventually see things differently after her encounter with this man of above average courage.
Posted by: Linda1 | August 26, 2016 at 09:22 AM
I guess the lady was very short-sighted (in various ways). I don't know whether AW has ever said he was irrelevant - if so the point is of course that it is the problem which is the problem (Jim Carrey) but AW is the public scapegoat. It would actually be humanly disgusting to say "OK, we will dump AW" but I also don't believe it could get us anywhere. I am sure there were people in the Dreyfus affair who said "Maybe he is innocent, but more trouble he is worth" but the problem is that actually once you go down that line you become complicit in deceit, and actually it is the deceit that is truly disturbing, what really matters. You need to know why and how he was fitted up. The dumping argument is neither morally attractive, or a sensible propositon.
Posted by: John Stone | August 26, 2016 at 07:43 AM
Can't say that she inspired a sense of much hope in me. I'm not quite sure what she saw.
Posted by: Benjamin | August 26, 2016 at 07:42 AM
I thank Dr. Wakefield for staying the course. I know that there must have been many times - many times he has thought about walking away. Such people with such a high moral compass are sooo very rare, and so needed There is a God, and both God and I love Dr. Wakefield.
--- And I must add that there sure are a lot of people that think they are above average. There must not be any average people in the whole world, Those just average guys must be rare --rare -- to be average. LOL. Yes, let us get into a room of people concerned with probably low average or below average and make a comment of how above average you are. Missing something there.
By the way I am average - My Mom was a school teacher and saw what my I Q scores were way back 50 some years ago. I was Average.
I have a lot of cousins on both sides of my family that were high average - nuts every last one of them. Misfits - that were not understood by the school system until they found out they were high average.
My daughter is not above average, she is high average 130 - so the school system told me 25 or so years ago. She has bipolar too.
I now think that high average and for sure above average is really a Good memory and rote learning - taking up too much space in the brain and leaves no room for logical thinking.
As Dr Rimland described as the Dyslogic syndrome.
How dyslogic to get in a movie place and start telling how above average you are, while people right around you - beside you are shaking their heads -- Can't she read body language?
She might be more affected than she knows.
Posted by: Benedetta | August 26, 2016 at 07:08 AM
Its the fluoride ! Above average intelligence - perhaps it was an honest mistake on her part .
At least she had the intelligence to go and see the film - there is hope .
Posted by: Hans Litten | August 26, 2016 at 07:06 AM
Andrew has always said "I am irrelevant" and I do like this lady albiet that Louisiana must be a pretty small place. She asked some genuine questions, listened, asked some more. Although she didnt recognise him I dont think her further questions werent valid. I was suspicious but when she said she was an attorney I wasnt. She was against but reasonable. Did anyone take a photo of someone who was against but reasonable in this argument. They are few and far between because of the polarising.
Posted by: Robert Post | August 26, 2016 at 06:53 AM
Presumably, she had just seen the film as well, but perhaps she just had problems with her eyesight.
Posted by: John Stone | August 26, 2016 at 06:41 AM
If she was so well read and had done all of her research, you'd think she would know what Andrew Wakefield looks like...
Posted by: False Skeptics Make Me Laugh | August 26, 2016 at 06:37 AM