It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Robert De Niro pulls anti-vaccine film from Tribecca film festival

page: 2
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: thebtheb

Hardly the only thing. How are you going to take 12 kids, who's parents were looking for vaccines to be the cause, and then say you had enough evidence to say anything? 12 kids is not the sample size you need.




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
a reply to: thebtheb

Brian Deer, a co-author on the discredited Lancet Study, has blown the whistle on Andrew Wakfield.

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed and How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money.

If the deck was really stacked against him and he was defamed - it should be easy to win in court...

Court Case 8/31/2012 of which you can read the full judgment here


Again showing the absolute misinformation out there. Brian Deer is a journalist, NOT a co-author of the study. Brian Deer is the MAIN journalist that attacked Wakefield. Brian Deer started his career as a journalist who "policed the pharma companies" covering bad drug reactions, vaccine reactions, etc. That was years before he apparently went to the other side and instead attacked Andrew Wakefield. But let's get facts straight: Brian Deer was NOT a co-author. He wasn't even there.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: thebtheb

Hardly the only thing. How are you going to take 12 kids, who's parents were looking for vaccines to be the cause, and then say you had enough evidence to say anything? 12 kids is not the sample size you need.


Yes, Dr. Wakefield knew this. Again, no one seems to know or understand that Wakefield's purpose was not to prove that vaccines cause autism. Hie mistake lay in publishing the results of this study in a medical journal. While that may be fine to do, unfortunately it was others who made the vaccine link so VERY important and attacked Wakefield. He NEVER said vaccines cause autism in this study. He said he saw the possibility that the MMR may have been an element in these children's diseases, and he voted to go back to the separate vaccines just in case.

And there is NO evidence the parents were "looking for vaccines to the cause." They approached Wakefield because he was a gastroenterologist and their kids had stomach problems.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I remember reading about contaminated vaccines. A big problem with a certain percentage of vaccines having contaminates knowingly be issued to the public.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Another thing that comes up constantly in ANY thing you read about the Wakefield study is that "the results have never been able to be duplicated." Total fallacy, as they've been duplicated three other times, below is one of them. But just keep listening to the mainstream media!

MMR study duplicated



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: thebtheb
The climate around vaccinations has literally become one of NO DISCUSSION ALLOWED, plain and simple. All discussion must be relegated to conspiracy theorists, tin foil hat wearing forums only.

Because Wakefield is a con-man, and has been proven to be one.




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Oh, and for a challenging feat, please debunk all of these other 28 studies supporting Wakefield:



The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: thebtheb

There are no 'normal' savants.

The autistic spectrum encompasses those whose cerebral capability far exceeds anything in the 'non-autistic' world.

In those situations, autism then becomes an enhancement rather than a disability.

It follows, then, that some are suggesting an improvement to neural organization as a secondary symptom of vaccination.

edit on 27/3/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: thebtheb
Another thing that comes up constantly in ANY thing you read about the Wakefield study is that "the results have never been able to be duplicated." Total fallacy, as they've been duplicated three other times, below is one of them. But just keep listening to the mainstream media!

MMR study duplicated


justthevax.blogspot.com.au...


That – Martha and friends – is because no one (apart from Wakefield and his buddies) has ever been able to replicate Wakefield’s claims. I had previously looked at 5 studies supposedly „independently“ replicating Wakefield, but this list was 28 citations long (I guess the length is supposed to duly impress AND to keep anyone from checking). To quote Kenneth Branagh: “There is safety in numbers”. Luckily, both Chris and Liz Ditz were bothered enough to spend their valuable time to debunk the list (THANK YOU!) – I have created a synthesis of their and my previous searches and comments to create the “one stop copy and paste resource for the evidence minded”. Links add extra depth - sorry about the length, it may exceed the number of characters allowed for blog comments...



originally posted by: thebtheb
Oh, and for a challenging feat, please debunk all of these other 28 studies supporting Wakefield...



Consider them debunked.

justthevax.blogspot.com.au...



To summarize re-using Martha’s words: you may have been tricked into believing that Andrew Wakefield’s claims had been independently verified in 28 publications from 5 different countries. I’m afraid that is false. For those of you who have swallowed this type of reporting hook line and sinker, the below debunks each of the 28 studies from around the world that have been cited in his support.

1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63 =
Horvath K., Papadimitriou J.C., Rabsztyn A., Drachenberg C., Tilden J.T. 1999. Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autism. J. Pediatrics 135: 559-563.

This study did not look for measles virus. Instead it looks at gastrointestinal (GI) malabsoption as an underlying mechanism for autism. It does not appear to have controls with autism & without GI symptoms OR controls without autism & with similar GI symptoms. Most children with autism & GI symptoms had upper GI problems such as reflux
This in no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”, which have been shown repeatedly to have been manufactured or the result of laboratory contamination.


Just follow the link to see the remaining 27 so-called confirmation cases debunked.
edit on 27-3-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: thebtheb
The climate around vaccinations has literally become one of NO DISCUSSION ALLOWED, plain and simple. All discussion must be relegated to conspiracy theorists, tin foil hat wearing forums only.

Because Wakefield is a con-man, and has been proven to be one.





Yes, because that video was so full of proof....



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold

Ohmygod, you win. I give up - the debunking of those 28 articles is RIDICULOUS. Mostly on technicalities and semantics such as "was authored before Wakefield's study" so doesn't count. Give me a break. Plus it's someone's frigging blog by "Catherine and Science Mom" - real researchers and docs who know what they're talking about. I give up. You all win. Line up for your vax, please, be my guest. Over and out.
edit on 27-3-2016 by thebtheb because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: thebtheb
Oh, and for a challenging feat, please debunk all of these other 28 studies supporting Wakefield:



The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303




None of these studies mention MMR?

For instance, the first one: The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63 is A study of Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autistic disorder.

The next is titled: Colonic CD8 and γδ T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in children with autism.

The next is titled: Intestinal Lymphocyte Populations in Children with Regressive Autism: Evidence for Extensive Mucosal
Immunopathology.

The next: Immune activation of peripheral blood and mucosal CD3+ lymphocyte 3 cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms.

... and so on.

How do they support Wakefield in any way?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: thebtheb
a reply to: cuckooold

Ohmygod, you win. I give up - the debunking of those 28 articles is RIDICULOUS. Mostly on technicalities and semantics such as "was authored before Wakefield's study" so doesn't count. Give me a break. Plus it's someone's frigging blog by "Catherine and Science Mom" - real researchers and docs who know what they're talking about. I give up. You all win. Line up for your vax, please, be my guest. Over and out.


So did you actually read the articles cited from medical journals, or did you just decide to ridicule the source citing these studies? Essentially, it compiles a whole bunch of peer reviewed studies which prove Wakefield's so-called studies are a steaming pile of BS.

I'd hazard a guess that your mind is already made up, and no amount of evidence will change your mind.

By the way, the Daily Mail is about as trustworthy as Natural News. Huckster sites full of nonsense, and I'd give the blog I referenced far more credibility than these clickbait/conspiracy scam sites.
edit on 27-3-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
For FU*KS sake you lot love to shout censorship at the first little thing don't you?

It's a private film fetival. They can do what they want.. get over it. Or keep crying about it. I don't really care.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Dunno what to think about vaccines overall. It's right to question what's in them and examine the cumulative effects of taking numerous vaccines at an early age but I'm not sure Wakefield is the guy to bring any light to it.

Maybe De Niro did actually sit down and look at the evidence then decided it was irresponsible to screen the film based on his findings. It doesn't have to be some kinda conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015


Maybe De Niro did actually sit down and look at the evidence then decided it was irresponsible to screen the film based on his findings. It doesn't have to be some kinda conspiracy.




Bingo, we have a winner



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: FullBloodedNative
Umm maybe because there is no correlation. Think of it, millions upon millions of people get vaccines yearly and no cases of Autism in the millions yearly, hell even a 1000 or 100 yearly. Is there even 10 a year connected to vaccines?

Billions drink water daily and some of those people had heart attacks, strokes or even got the common cold, would you say there is a correlation there? Of course not.


You understand the government has a fund for vaccine injuries? Of course, though, there's no correlation.


Or the fact a multi billion dollar industry can't afford bad publicity for their only money maker that CAN and IS state sponsored?

Nah, of course pharmaceutical companies want us healthy. Who cares if a healthy population defies the theory of supply and demand and pretty much all economic theory of the last three hundred years. We'll just throw that out the window for the sake of "health."
edit on 28-3-2016 by Flesh699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699




You understand the government has a fund for vaccine injuries? Of course, though, there's no correlation.

You understand that legal settlements can be far less costly than defending a lawsuit.

But there is no question that vaccines can be harmful, allergies and such. As far as autism? Much question. Little to no evidence for causation. Much evidence against.
edit on 3/28/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: thebtheb




This is censorship 100%. Clearly, De Niro had seen this film before making either statement and would presumably have already carefully considered everything BEFORE his first statement defending the screening. He was already under pressure not to screen the film, so the pressure must have been stepped up.


"No more Hollywood for you Bobby, you have been warned" 6 children and many wives make for expensive upbringing.

We cant have high profile people questioning the status quo.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: thebtheb




There are people calling this film "dangerous", "putting the health of the world at risk", "anti-science."


good.

That's my cue to go check it out.

Otherwise I might not have seen it. Thanks Tribeca.





top topics



 
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join