VAXXED: the ABC News interview that Big Pharma didn't want you to see

The long and short of it is, once again we have been conditioned into feeling stupid for believing something which goes against the norm. If we are so stupid then why is Vaxxers film being censored? Why not let us have healthy debate and discuss the film's presented information?

Here is an interview with the producer Del Bigtree -

This is the full UNCUT interview that ABC World News conducted with Del Bigtree of the "VAXXED" documentary now censored by Robert De Niro and the Tribeca Film Festival.

Looking at Wikipedia's information on the film it's clear for me to see there is over-egged negativity:

Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe is a 2016 American documentary film about the involvement of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the MMR vaccine controversy. The film was directed by discredited former physician and anti-vaccine activist Andrew Wakefield and was set for premiere at the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival before being removed from screening.[1][2] In 1998 Wakefield published a study in The Lancet suggesting that vaccines caused autism. In 2010 the study was retracted, and Wakefield's medical license was revoked due to "ethical violations and a failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest" and for his invention of evidence linking the MMR vaccine to autism.[3][4]

Wiki
Wikipedia cannot be trusted, as we all know, however it is many people's first port of call for research. It helps plant the seed in everybody's mind.


Most on here will think they know Andrew Wakefield is a fraud. Most of us also know how the media works, we know their tricks - Now is the time to question what you think you know.

Scientific denialism is alive and well.

The good news about science is that there are right and wrong answers.

The jerk who made this film had his license to practice medicine revoked for falsifying data.

Also, no one is being censored. The film can be uploaded to the Internet so all the anti-vaxxers can use it as "evidence" for arguments that have been proven patently false.

a reply to: projectvxn

Thanks for the input. Perhaps censorship is the wrong term, however the film has been 'taken down' from the Tribeca Film festival. I guess it's a case of semantics, I feel 'censored' still fits on this occasion. Most censored items are available on the internet. That's the beauty of the internet.

a reply to: and14263

It's good to see a celebrity coming down on the right side of a manufactured controversy for a change. De Niro has autism in his family, and was no doubt initially swayed by the film's attempt to find a scapegoat. It seems reason eventually triumphed over hysteria in his case.

a reply to: and14263

the ABC News interview that Big Pharma didn't want you to see

Big pharma, doctors, scientists, responsible people .. the list is long.


Look, I am all for disclosing wrongdoings, but science and an incredible amount of data really has prevailed here. The case really is as closed as science ever allow a case to be. People promoting this BS are promoters of anti-science, and their ramblings can - and probably already have - cost lives.

a reply to: DupontDeux

I understand your concern, it may seem irresponsible of me to 'promote' such things, such views. I'm directly asking why the film was censored and suggesting we should question what we think we know. I'm not suggesting you let me make decisions for you but I do understand that others would be swayed by what I am posting/reposting here.

I'm not sure how I feel about being responsible for influencing people's decisions on this. I am sure that we should question what we think we know. Especially in the case of a mafia run pharmaceutical industry.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: projectvxn

Thanks for the input. Perhaps censorship is the wrong term, however the film has been 'taken down' from the Tribeca Film festival.

Yes, because it's bs propaganda created by people who want to profit out of putting kids lives at risk around the world.

The people who perpetuate this disgusting lie should not only be fought against throughout society, they should be charged with a crime. They are KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY attempting to make money by lying to people, and putting the lives of millions of kids at considerable risk.

These people are disgusting Humans.

a reply to: and14263

As someone else posted on another thread:

Storyline

An investigation into how the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the government agency charged with protecting the health of American citizens, destroyed data on their 2004 study that showed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

www.imdb.com...

Maybe it's not so much about whether or not there is a link between the MMR vaccines and autism. Maybe it's more about the CDC destroying data from their own study that they would prefer to see hidden. If it were just a matter of flawed data or research, put it out there and explain, no problem. But if a CDC study accidentally showed links between a major pharmaceutical company and, say, illegal biological weapons development, that could be a problem.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Perhaps they believe they are not lying? It's hard for people to trust a business/process driven by making money and not driven by making people better/healthier.

As VictorVonDoom says above, the CDC have destroyed information relating to a link between vaccinations and autism, we should question that at the very least? Because it is that sort of action which leads people to believe there could be a link.

I hope you don't think I am disgusting for bringing this subject up for debate because I honestly think that is not a constructive way to critique or educate me. But as with everyone else here, I respect your opinion.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Maybe it's more about the CDC destroying data from their own study

hey hey man...who gave you permission to discuss the real issue here ?

Now get back to destroying Wakefield.

a reply to: and14263

I've wondered if part of the reason the film was not/could not be released has to do with confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure clauses and other such legal issue. Maybe De Niro/Tribeca were threatened with legal action.

Even the whistleblower who let the cat out of the bag about the 2004 study, which found that African American boys who were vaccinated before the age of 3 were exponentially more likely to develop autism than other races and/or ages, had to get official approval to even be a whistleblower, due to such legal issues.

How many other would-be whistleblowers have been prevented from spilling the beans because one way or another, telling the truth is criminal???

Between the forced secrecy, and the forced-vax bullies, I don't trust any of it any more...

a reply to: and14263

Who is censoring this film? The company who was showing this film is a private organisation, and quite simply, they can do as they see fit. It's entirely possible they don't want their theatre being used to show something they believe could be damaging to their reputation in any way.

Their venue, their rules.

a reply to: cuckooold

Officially yes. 100% correct. But we are conditioned to believe the official stories or to believe our peers and not question. So yes, in theory a private organisation can do as they please, but a nudge from above will influence matters. If the government doesn't want something to be given to the public it has total control/power. That's a downfall of how our society works and in extreme cases how whole nations can be brainwashed.

It could completely be down to 'quality issues' as you suggest. Just like 9-11 attacks could have been completely down to Al-Queada hi-jacking some planes - We have reasons to believe the officials and reasons as to why we should question everything.

a reply to: and14263

Tribeca has no obligation to present any content at all, let alone a propaganda piece by a proven liar and cheat.

The anti vaccine conspiracy theory is damaging, irresponsible for its reliance on false data, and fear for profit.

At best it is misinformed. At worse it is life threateningly dangerous.

I can forgive scientific ignorance. I don't expect everyone to know everything. But I can't forgive denialism and the wanton spread of lies that put people in danger. Mostly children.

I've had enough of this conspiracy. The only conspiracy I see is the continued trend in the whole of society to accept scientific denialism as a norm.

Between the climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, pro and anti abortion groups, anti-GMOs, anti evolution and even flat #ing earthers, the trend toward willful ignorance is frightening.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Maybe it's more about the CDC destroying data from their own study that they would prefer to see hidden.

What data was destroyed?

Data was omitted from the study because the children involved had no birth certificates. Without birth certificates a sufficient medical history could not be determined for control purposes in the study.

Data was not destroyed.

originally posted by: projectvxn

Between the climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, pro and anti abortion groups, anti-GMOs, anti evolution and even flat #ing earthers, the trend toward willful ignorance is frightening.

Just remember that ignorance is defined as the state of being uninformed (Wikipedia). Being uninformed about bad or junk science is just as ignorant as being uninformed about good science or well documented facts. For instance, I don't believe in Moon Landing Hoax theories. I'm aware of them, I know some people believe them, but I don't. For the ones that do, I feel it is their choice. Then again, there was a time I scoffed at the idea that the CIA would smuggle coc aine into the US.

I say put all the information out there, good and bad. Let people make up their own minds and make their own choices, and let Natural Selection take its course. Good decisions are rewarded with survival, bad decisions are punished with extinction.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Maybe it's more about the CDC destroying data from their own study that they would prefer to see hidden.

What data was destroyed?

Data was omitted from the study because the children involved had no birth certificates. Without birth certificates a sufficient medical history could not be determined for control purposes in the study.

Data was not destroyed.

I was just going by the IMBD sysnopsis. If you're correct, then the data was simply omitted.

I remember seeing something similar in a physics lab assignment once. The experiment was to use a spring to launch a steel ball and have it land on carbon paper some distance away. Ideally, the marks on the carbon paper should have a relatively close grouping, enabling you to calculate the force of the spring propelling the ball. You had to turn in the carbon paper along with your calculations. If there were too many marks outside the grouping, it counted against your grade. Those extraneous marks were usually caused by mis-handling or mis-aligning the spring/ramp setup.

With grades on the line, I noticed some students "fudging" their results. They would launch the ball two or three times, do the calculations, then just drop the ball on the carbon paper in the appropriate area for the remaining data points.

That little story probably has no relevance to the topic here. It just came to mind and I thought I'd share.

There is a lot wrong with the vaccines and even though this is genetic specific problems there is no reason that there should be coverups and misinformation coming from any agency overseeing these kind of things. I have lost faith in the FDA and CDC quite a while ago, trusting more in the European agencies but even they are following the leaders, pharma companies, on this issue. It is big business and this big business should be monitored properly.

I do not believe that vaccines cause autism but they might lead to the increase of the problem occurring in some people. Susceptibility seems to be genetic specific. Not all autism is bad, milder cases of this have been occurring throughout history. Also it usually takes multiple incidents to bring these genes expression to create a problem, one shot that induces a histamine response which creates increased susceptibility is not enough to do it. Even a severe illness can increase susceptibility from what I have read. Maybe multiple vaccinations in too short of a time can do this but I will not say they will because the evidence is all over the board and is dependent on genetic variances between people. So I would say, leave it up to the people who actually have to raise the kids. It is their decision, not societies which often labels these kids as retards. I think we have inevitable rights in things like this.

If a kid has a higher risk of autism then the child may also get autism from some certain illnesses they would get in normal contact with others also. Constant vaccinations could be a problem especially if the kid then gets sick some time.

I think more research should be done on this subject to identify people at risk better, there has to be some trait of the parents that can help to identify risk.

a reply to: projectvxn

Between the climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, pro and anti abortion groups, anti-GMOs, anti evolution and even flat #ing earthers, the trend toward willful ignorance is frightening.

What Victor said and may I just add that you are not thinking big enough. You see best obfuscation technique is to mix lies with truth and make sure it doesn`t lead anywhere. So the output will be 2 camps, those who believe anything like you propose and those who deny everything. It is a clear pattern but those who look in between the lines will see something different.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

Not all ideas are equal. Same with philosophies, religions, and ideologies.

The only set of tools we have for understanding our world is the basic rules of the Scientific Method.

I do not accept scientific denialism as a "point of view" willful ignorance isn't a point of view and denialism isn't legitimate opposition to established facts.