Dachel Wake Up: CDC Urges Americans To Get Flu Shot.....
Who is Telling Flu Vaccine Truth? The CDC or Vaccine Makers?

Gainesville Sun VAXXED Review Fails To Mention Crux of the Movie

Empty headBy Anne Dachel

Here is a review of "VaxXed" that never mentions William Thompson, the 2004 MMR study, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Perhaps this reporter was at the wrong theater.

Nathan Crabbe at the Gainesville Sun is just the latest example of bigotry and sloppy reporting when it comes to the vaccine controversy.

Crabbe says he watched "VaxXed," but you'd never know it from this article. Instead of writing about an alleged whistleblower at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a fraudulent study on the MMR vaccine and autism, he devoted most of this piece to slamming Andrew Wakefield and defending vaccines by saying, "The most important thing for parents to know is that repeated studies have found no connection between vaccines and autism."

Crabbe mentioned that his son spent time in the hospital as a baby because of a virus, but what was lost on him were the stories in "VaxXed" of normal, healthy babies who suddenly got very sick and descended into autism following routine vaccination. Crabbe is proof that no matter how much evidence is out there, the media will never honestly and thoroughly cover this controversy.

Sept 30, 2016, Gainesville (FL) Sun: Nathan Crabbe: Lies about vaccines cost lives

 In any case, I wasn’t enthusiastic about watching this particular movie.

But I felt bad about bashing the movie without seeing it, so I told the reader who made the offer that I would watch it without payment. The documentary, "Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe," claims a connection between vaccines and autism....

The cover of the “Vaxxed” DVD proudly includes the logo for the Silver Springs festival as well the crossed-out logos for two festivals where showings were cancelled, including New York’s Tribeca Film Festival. “The film they don’t watch you to see,” it says ominously.

As a journalist, the idea of restricting access to information goes against everything I believe in. But there is a difference between someone's opinions and scientific claims that have been refuted through research. Film festivals have no obligation to screen films that spread lies, and are being downright irresponsible when those lies cause the spread of diseases that cost lives.

"Vaxxed” begins by confronting that very issue, showing news coverage of a measles outbreak that started at Disneyland in California in 2014. The outbreak’s subsequent spread across several states was linked to parents who opted their kids out of getting the measles vaccine.

For a moment I thought the film might actually be an evenhanded documentary, but that thought was dispelled once Andrew Wakefield appeared on the screen. Wakefield, the film's director, also happens to be the author of a discredited study published in the British medical journal The Lancet in 1998 linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism....

The most important thing for parents to know is that repeated studies have found no connection between vaccines and autism. My son spent the first couple weeks of his life in the hospital due to a nasty virus, so I find it particularly loathsome to use made-up threats to discourage the use of vaccines that prevent real diseases.

After watching “Vaxxed,” my suspicion that it was a propaganda film masquerading as documentary was only validated. You couldn’t pay me to recommend it to parents.

Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.

Comments

Narad

@Science is pure

Perhaps we can use Ray Peat's term "product science" to differentiate between pure science and the stuff prostitute-scientists create under duress. This has as parallel in reporting; some modern journalists will say just about anything for money [Crabbe], but some journalists still do their best to be impartial.

Do you read about biochemistry? I am reading Gilbert Ling's Association Induction Hypothesis right now and I find it amazing. You need to read this book.

John Stone

OK Barry

But it is quite clear what I was driving at - perhaps I should have used inverted commas: "science".

Barry

Dear Dr Gaunt

The phrase "he didn't get it" is an interesting one. Perhaps that is what he expects: if the science doesn't say what you believe then you tamper with it to make sure it does.

***************

With all due respect John, what science exactly are you referring to ?

As the parent of a vaccine injured child, I'm getting a little tried of people who keep referring to vaccines in context of 'science'.

I think that gives them undeserved credibility. Because in the years since my son was disabled by vaccines, I have yet to find a single shred of science to convince me that vaccines are effective, OR safe.

John Stone

Science is pure

Oddly enough one of the first steps of Theresa May as UK Prime Minister was to hand back the running of Higher Education to the Department of Education from the Department of Business (whence it had been poached by Lord Mandelson aka the Prince of Darkness in 2009). I suppose it won't make too much difference to the realities of patronage and cronyism, but it is an interesting gesture.

Science is pure.  People are corrupt.

John Stone -

Ike's warning was extremely prescient and Richard Feynman's lament on Cargo Cult Science delivered in 1973 was a reflection on how science was transforming; nonetheless when scientists are given the necessary freedom they can advance understanding in a way that forces an end to the abuses described. The girls who a century ago were painting the dials of luminous watches with radium and then went on to develop cancers in their fingers should have served as a warning against the use of troops as human test subjects for the effects of nuclear weapons that took place under the Eisenhower administration, but instead it took the work on DNA done at Cambridge during the fifties and sixties to provide the basis for an investigation of the relationship between ionising radiation and human illness which ultimately led to safety limits on exposure.

Likewise it will take major advances in immunology to understand what drives the chronic inflammation in illnesses such as autism before the appropriate environmental exposures are regulated, and that knowledge may also pave the way for cures for some chronic illness - although I fear that recovery may be limited for the children whose neurological development has been disrupted.

By way of example, most of what we know about the structure and function of the filaments in muscle comes from a biophysicist named Hugh Huxley, who set himself the goal in 1947 of discovering how it was possible for biological structures to create a large force and worked on the problem until he died three years ago. In his final months he reflected to me how privileged he felt to have been in science during the fifties and sixties when he was able to perform his work without interference. There are plenty of scientists across the universities of the world now who would perform at the same level given the opportunity.

John Stone

Science is pure

These are good points, and there were times in some places where things were much better. I was thinking that one might be able to look back over the decades and centuries for cases scientific authority has been spuriously invoked to support policy (institutional/professional/commercial). Dan O has been describing here how institutional thinking failed to look at the obvious pointers about the polio epidemic a century ago - just didn't do the research. Likewise environmental factors for the beginnings of autism c.1940. If Kanner had asked some basic questions he would already have found himself up against government and the lobbies - it was easier to blame mothers. There has always been a risk that scientists will not choose to look at what is inconvenient. There is also Eisenhower's famous warning in 1961:

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity...

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/ technological elite."

Of course, it is not as bad as now but these problems were already endemic.

Science is pure.  People are corrupt.

John Stone_

'Perhaps science never was what it used to be: the trouble is society giving into egregious vested interest in the name of science.'

My father spent his whole working life in molecular biology, and his generation unanimously recall their early years with a lot of nostalgia as a time when they enjoyed the academic freedom to pursue lines of research as they thought important. As young men my father and his friends completed their wartime service and then went to Cambridge with a blank slate and a remit to research the fundamental questions of medicine, many of them later became part of the Brain Drain to the US where funds were even more free flowing, and what they achieved over the course of the next twenty years during which modern biochemistry was essentially built from scratch is beyond dispute.

But in the 1970s things started to change with ever growing restrictions on research grant allocation, some of which were inevitable due to the huge number of universities opened during the 1960s which necessitated greater scrutiny of return on investment, but nonetheless caused Nobel laureates to have to justify their goals to accountants. Then in the 1980s there was a shift to commercial sources of funding which increasingly led to funds being granted according to the potential for a future line of profit in drug sales, with a commensurate shift in the lines of research followed. According to Scientific American, in 1980 75% of medical research was publicly funded whereas by 2010 75% was commercially funded, and the return has been as was predicted in the 1980s.

All environmental changes in the modern world are man made, and finding whatever is causing the massive increases in chronic inflammatory illnesses in the modern world, including autism in children, and trying to find cures where they are possible, will only happen when research funding is reconfigured to see life destroying illness as a problem to be solved rather than a bonanza to be reaped.

John Stone

Dear Dr Gaunt

The phrase "he didn't get it" is an interesting one. Perhaps that is what he expects: if the science doesn't say what you believe then you tamper with it to make sure it does. That's what a "good" servant of the state does when the facts don't fit what they do. And what, after all would happen, if other people stopped believing in the vaccine program? There would be no end to it.

It is also the mentality of totalitarianism. Anyone who questions any aspect of the program is an existential threat. Just stick to what you've been told.

whyser

William H. Gaunt,

I think we all appreciate the effort you made to get him to see VaxXed.

Perhaps another strategy would be, rather than pointing to studies that show vaccines are associated to autism, it's easily arguable that the majority of scientific research that shows a lack of association between vaccines and autism is fraudulent.

The problem with the majority of vaccine/autism studies is that they study only one vaccine (MMR) or one vaccine ingredient (thimerosal). If you're looking at studies like these to prove to yourself that vaccines are not associated to autism, then it should be easily shown that there is a huge scientific flaw with this kind of thinking.

I usually use this analogy: let's say you want to find out whether cigarettes are associated to lung cancer. Specifically, you want to know whether Marlboro cigarettes are associated to lung cancer. For your study, you take a smoking population that (hypothetically) smokes a variety of cigarettes a day. You split the smoking population on whether they smoke Marlboro (case group) vs whether they do not (control group). Upon comparing both groups, you find that the rate of lung cancer is similar between them. From this, you conclude that Marlboro cigarettes are not associated to lung cancer. Therefore, you make the sweeping conclusion that cigarettes in general are not associated to lung cancer.

Does the study design and their conclusions make ANY SENSE to you?! Because that is EXACTLY how many vaccine/[any adverse reaction] studies are designed.

John Stone

Birgit

Perhaps science never was what it used to be: the trouble is society giving into egregious vested interest in the name of science. Once society stops protecting itself against liars and charlatans there isn't really any alternative to the liars and charlatans taking over.

Birgit Calhoun

Bob Moffit! "We need more with integrity who refuse to be shills."
The problem, I am sure you know, is that science is not what it used to be. There is some resemblance between journalists and scientists. They both want to bring to light unknown facts. And both need to be paid. Scientists get paid by getting grants from pharmaceutical companies, and journalists (the media) get paid by pharmaceutical companies for the story they are promoting. There are few scientists and journalists who can still make a living by simply describing the honest results of their labor even if it is highly relevant.

See: http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/miller.pdf

Morag MacDonald Lyons

Age of autism is showing fab articles and info .
This evening on BBC UK Documentary about People with Downs syndrome, totally chilling !

angus files

Mr Gaunt,
You tried the journo shill thinks, not my problem my kids fine, Wrong. Its the kids of the kids just now that will have damaged DNA carrying through into the next population. No doubt the dying bees are not his problem either as he can still pack a big fat burger in his mouth and he hasn't been stung yet..yet being the key word.

MMR RIP

g

Nathan Crabbe may want to attend "Vaxxed 2"

where they will cover the Simpsonwood / vaccine mercury meeting, the research fraud of Dr. Thorsen of Denmark, mumps vaccine fraud, DPT shot deaths, SIDS ... sudden inoculation death syndrome, flu mist fraud, and on and on ....

ASDfatherPA

Ooops......... forgot the following:

https://www.facebook.com/nathancrabbe/

ASDfatherPA

Just wrote this on Nathan's FB pg:

Sir, you mean to tell me that you went to watch the documentary movie, heard the evidence that fraud was perpetrated while completing the 2004 IOM study......... according to the whistleblower scientist who released what were thought to be destroyed documents (thousands of pgs)........ to Brian Hooker who then submitted them to Rep. Posey who entered them into the U.S. Congressional record......... and you still came up with the conclusion that studies proved no link? Based on what? Scientific studies? The fact that fraud was committed should signal your mind's logical apparatus to conclude with.......... maybe these studies are not to be trusted?

That was a very nice display of cognative dissonance, young man.

Here is his FB address if you want to add to my comments

nhokkanen

According to my college journalism instructors, writing for newspapers means reporting facts without inserting oneself into the article. (And it's important to insert the main character of a film one is reviewing.)

Nathan Crabbe writes like a blogger, not a reporter. But at least he clearly states his bias, rather than forcing readers to investigate what motivated his closed-minded reaction.

Fear of disease is justifiable, but should not be leveraged to deny others' adverse experiences with a failed medical intervention.

Fear can make people behave irrationally. We see fear of disease within the mob mentality driving state vaccine mandate legislation. The mob doesn't see that their fear is selective and their chosen mode of problem resolution is unreliable. They refuse to face the horrific reality that their push for 100% vaccination is damaging and killing a substantial portion of the "herd" they claim to protect.

Ultimately vaccine injuries cannot be wished away by denialist word tantrums. Only honest science and objective reporting will promote patient-focused research into effective medical treatments for both diseases and vaccine adverse reactions. Right now we have too little of both.

Rae

The so-called journalist who self-righteously congratulates himself on refusing a $100 bill to watch VAXXED was undoubtedly well-rewarded in more subtle ways, such as career advancement, for his hit piece. He states he "wasn't enthusiastic" about seeing the film. Perhaps his squeamishness resulted from knowing in advance what kind of drivel he would then be expected to produce.

Tracey

Interesting his baby spent 2 weeks in the hospital ... Did his baby receive the Hep B ? If so his journey into the vaccine nightmare has begun ... Watch out sir your day of eating your own words will come back to HAUNT you... It's so heartbreaking to see the crime going on and on... I work in a newborn nursery and let parents know why their newborn baby needs ( NOT ) the Hep B .... Another one saved when they check the refusal box.. I can't save them all but I won't give up trying....

William H. Gaunt

I'm the one who got Nathan Crabbe to watch Vaxxed. He saw it but he didn't get it. I've told him that the studies which prove that vaccines don't cause autism are fraudulent and I've predicted that Andrew Wakefield will eventually be viewed as a medical hero. He clings to his pro-vaccine point of view. It was naive of me to think Vaxxed would put a dent in his thinking.

Christina Waldman

There is plenty of instruction on how to write a movie review online. Wikihow's six steps begin with "Create an original thesis..." Duke University's Thompson Writing Program's online pdf suggests multiple viewings might be necessary. https://twp.duke.edu/uploads/media_items/film-review-1.original.pdf. The BBC 's "GCSC Bitesize" advice includes telling the reader "who is in the film, who it is by, and where or when readers can see it." Also it should describe some of the action without giving away the story. There is also https://www.AcademicHelp.net. "Useful and free advice on how to write a movie review. Great tips for students." At classroom.synonym.com, Timothy Sexton, Demand Media, "How to Write a Film Review for High School," suggests bringing a pad and paper along so you don't forget important elements. Some of the K-12 sites even provide a template for those who don't understand what a movie review is supposed to be. There are plenty of writers who will write whatever is asked of them for money. We need more with integrity who refuse to be shills.

Andrea

I don't know how anyone can watch Vaxxed and come away and write this garbage.

Every preconception he had before the film he clung on to. Maybe he's aspiring to move on from his little local paper to a national "news" organization? Hey maybe Forbes might call now.

Investigative journalism is dead dead dead.

Gary Ogden

Hans Litten: I woke in a bit more charitable mood. I would ascribe it to ignorance, and the astonishing power of the Big Lie. For many Americans, reality is the picture the media paints, and the public schools train us to be obedient, compliant, docile, and unquestioning. A recent study, though, says confidence in the media is at an all-time low, as I recall somewhere around 30%. This reporter is probably a young guy who doesn't realize he forgot how to use his brain. Hard to believe he actually watched the movie. He came in with an agenda, and left with it intact. He and his ilk are the reason folks don't trust what they say any longer.

Bob Moffit

"As a journalist, the idea of restricting access to information goes against everything I believe in. But there is a difference between someone's opinions and scientific claims that have been refuted through research. Film festivals have no obligation to screen films that spread lies, and are being downright irresponsible when those lies cause the spread of diseases that cost lives."

As a "journalist" .. the idea of restricting access to information goes against everything I believe in?

Really? Unfortunately ... at one time .. decades ago .. a "journalist" could make that statement and really believe it to be true.

That was then .. BEFORE "advocacy journalism" .. became the model by which today's "journalist" .. such as .. Nathan Crabbe at the Gainesville Sun .. have been "taught" ... "rejecting access to information" .. that offers science or opinion that disagrees with HIS own opinions .. or .. those of the Secretary of Health and Human Services .. is not only permissible ... IT IS REQUIRED IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR JOB .. as evidenced by HIS comment .. which in fact .. is eerily similar to that of the HHS and "journalism":

"Film festivals have no obligation to screen films that spread lies, and are being downright irresponsible when those lies cause the spread of diseases that cost lives."

If Nathan and the HHS fees "no obligation" to afford "access to information that THEY disagree with" .. why not require the same of Film Festivals?

After all .. who among us doesn't want a "journalist" deciding what information or opinions the rest of us should have "access" to? Goebels and Baghdad Bob would agree.

Patricia

He says boldly that 'repeated studies have found no connection between autism and vaccines'.......yet provides no facts, no figures, no backing up scientifically of what is essentially his 'own opinion'. He is a mouthpiece for the establishment. He has no mind of his own. Is he in fact simply a robotic typing machine on auto?

Hans Litten

Nathan Crabbe is a liar then . Simple as that .
Operation Mockingbird - the media is fully controlled .

"You couldn’t pay me to recommend it to parents."
But Nathan you could easily be paid to lie , evade and thieve .Which you are doing .

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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

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

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

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

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

Your Information

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