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.

 

Houston Film Fest: "Very Threatening Calls" from Government Officials Forcing "Vaxxed" Pulled

page: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha


My friend, I keep on checking FB to see if either Hunter Todd or Sylvester Turner have issued a statement, but so far nothing.


Thank you for that. I keep looking for a statement from Hunter, but I'm not on FB and didn't even think to check there. I'll be interested if you find anything.


Whatever reason Hunter had to remove Vaxxed from the listing we may never know but we have to remember that this is not a government censorship as the movies has been showing in NY since 1st April (still running now, at the Angelika Film Centre).


Yes, you're right, this is not censorship in the sense of government shutting it down. I did link to that article that suggested censorship in the title; it wasn't my title, but I coulda/shoulda made that clear.

Right now, I'm waiting on Todd Hunter. He made some very specific accusations... unless everyone is lying about him... or someone is impersonating him... In any event, Todd needs to speak up. At least the mayor's office stood behind their words/actions publicly. I may not like it, but they owned it.




posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Does the government make a habit of going to film festivals and coercing the promoters into removing certain movies or is this a one- off? Because with the kind of publicity this is generating every film maker that I know, myself included, would kill for this kind of coverage.

Who benefits from it's " disappearance" from the world?



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mrgone
Does the government make a habit of going to film festivals and coercing the promoters into removing certain movies or is this a one- off?


Good question. I'd say this is the exception rather than the rule; but then again we have no idea how much it happens and we just don't hear about it. This Todd Hunter guy thought he would remain anonymous when he made the accusations initially, and changed his story after his name and the story went public.

I doubt the mayor and other Houston officials expected this to go public, and certainly didn't want the negative attention, but they owned it -- they admitted it and they defended it. (Although we haven't heard from the federal officials or health officials Todd Hunter also spoke of in one of the articles. Nor the Texas judge that got the ball rolling). We might hope they would reconsider their methods, but I think they'll just figure out better ways to not get caught.


Because with the kind of publicity this is generating every film maker that I know, myself included, would kill for this kind of coverage.


I understand any publicity is good publicity, but I also think it's a rather small segment of the population that's even heard about this -- the mainstream media sure isn't reporting it. And among those who do know, a good portion is all for shutting down the movie any way (and in any way possible).


Who benefits from it's " disappearance" from the world?


Lots of people. In lots of ways. Directly and indirectly. Directly, it mostly implicates government officials and agencies. Indirectly, it most implicates Big Pharma, and the medical establishment as a whole. It casts serious doubts on the honesty and trustworthiness of both, and any crisis of confidence by the public threatens their power (and profits)...



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese



Bearing in mind that the anti-vax movement, like most anti-intellectual movements flying the face of considered evidence,

Where the Hades did you get that idea ? There is a lot of factual evidence both for and against autism being connected to vaccinations.Anti-intellectual ? Why is it always name calling ?


Correction. There's a lot of factual evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

I didn't mean anti-intellectual in a perjorative sense. I meant it in a factual sense.

There are many movements that reject considered evidence and proven methodologies. They not only ignore the facts but replace them with some fairly spurious thinking. They then generate a controversy that assigns their anecdotes and magic methods equal value with the fact as we know them.

When they are quite reasonably challenged, they circle the wagons, lending credence to their assertion that they are being shut down by a cabal because they and only they know the truth.

This applies to any number of "controversies".

In this case, one hand we have:

- Repeated studies have found no causal link between vaccines and autism.

- The most promising research suggests a genetic cause.

- An increase in diagnoses of autism driven by market forces in the US medical industry.

- Andrew Wakefield struck off the medical register and proven a fraud.

On the other, we have:

- Lots of anecdotes.

- Lots of inference - eg leaflets in vaccines telling us about reported (not proven) side effects.

- Big Pharma working with governments to shut down any dissent.

- Andrew Wakefield making a good living from talking at conspiracy conferences, just like he made the best part of a million dollars from his original paper.

When the anti-vax movement can come up with some solid evidence for their claims, evidence that can be reproduced and more importantly, built upon, it will be taken seriously. But that requires intellectual rigour. Catch 22.


edit on 9-4-2016 by Whodathunkdatcheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




Nor is Dr. Wakefield the only professional to lose his livelihood for speaking out about things that shall not be spoken of.


He lost his license because of this...


Further investigations by other researchers in the decades since have failed to confirm his claims, and in January, the GMC ruled that Wakefield had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in conducting the experiments that led to the publication of the paper. According to the BBC, among his alleged acts of misconduct were conducting those studies without ethical approval of the hospital at which he practiced, and paying children at his son’s birthday party for blood samples. He also served as a paid consultant to attorneys of parents who believed their children had been harmed by vaccines.

In February, editors of the Lancet retracted Wakefield’s controversial paper, telling the Guardian “It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false.”


healthland.time.com...

You really need to do some better research on your so called truther of vaccines.

As for Dr Squier...why not say why she lost her license?

Here I'll help you out...she was not being unbiased in her expertise role in court and was using cherry picked data as her source for her testimony.

A big NO NO when your in that role. Seems you should know that as it was pointed out to you in your thread about her.



a Dr. Squier lost her medical license for testifying against another sacred cow: Shaken Baby Syndrome.


That is just your take on it, but in reality she didn't lose her license just because of that...seems your a bit disingenuous with your info there.

Seems you are using the same tactic she did...cherrypicking info to back your claim.
edit on 9-4-2016 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: DumpMaster

originally posted by: visitedbythem
I was vaxxed in the 50s and 60s, and I notice there are way more vaccination now then there were back then. Way more. My kids are now antivaxx and vegans as well. My grand children have not been vaxxed and I wont speak against that


That's sad. Not just for you and your kids / grandkids but for all of society.. Uneducated people like yourself ignorantly follow propoganda and BS causing everyone to have an increased chance of catching and easily preventable deadly diseases.

Anti-vaxxers disgust me. Ignorant naive and dangerous.

Im far more intelligent then you are sonny boy. It is genetic. I an the son of a genius research scientist. But tou are true to your name. You are a master of dump. You are naieve and trusting of a government that has a proven track record. I dont feelsad for you or your kids, just your parents, for raising such a fool. Go fight some more wars because of WMD. Here have some more quantom easing of your fiat money. Enjoy your make believe world



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Mrgone




Does the government make a habit of going to film festivals and coercing the promoters into removing certain movies or is this a one- off?


No they don't and they didn't here.

The movie is based on faulty science and a recorded conversation that was not consented to by the supposed whistleblower who has admitted to leaving out data in a study he was involved in.

SO in essence we have liars using manipulated info to push an agenda that has nothing to back the claims.

Which is why the movie isn't being shown, and this BS about being threatened is a farce to get the victim card played.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem




Im far more intelligent then you are sonny boy.


Smart people don't need to tell others how smart they are.



I an the son of a genius research scientist.


Really because it should be I am...not I an.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000hI know exactly WHAT you are.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h


You really need to do some better research on your so called truther of vaccines.


Not "my" vaccine truther... "a" vaccine truther. I am not a medical professional and I cannot competently judge his medical research/work/testimony. What I do know is that he was prosecuted/persecuted after loudly and publicly blaming vaccines for autism. I also know that he was simultaneously trying to develop/patent/market his own vaccine, so he was playing the same Big Pharma game -- just not as well, obviously. I also know that many people say the medical truth of what Dr. Wakefield claimed has never been disproved, and some who claim his work has been "vindicated."

Just because I understand that I do not and cannot know the whole truth, doesn't mean that I haven't done my homework. I know enough to know that we don't have the whole truth.


As for Dr Squier...why not say why she lost her license?


Because she didn't "lose" it... her license was taken away.


Here I'll help you out...she was not being unbiased in her expertise role in court and was using cherry picked data as her source for her testimony.

A big NO NO when your in that role. Seems you should know that as it was pointed out to you in your thread about her.


And as I pointed out in that same thread after reading the bulk of the report, the only ones cherry picking were the ones on the commission who were cherry picking what facts she could testify to... basically those that conformed to conventional medical opinion. Her job was to testify to those facts specific to that case, including those that did not conform to one-size-fits-all pseudo science. As the decision/report made clear, they were the ones cherry picking.


A big NO NO when your in that role. Seems you should know that as it was pointed out to you in your thread about her.


Yes, indeed a big NO NO when you're in a role that can make or break people's lives in many many ways... and when the public loses confidence in those who would hold such power. Such a cherry picked and blinkered approach sure doesn't inspire trust and confidence in many of us.


That is just your take on it, but in reality she didn't lose her license just because of that...seems your a bit disingenuous with your info there.


Technically, yes, several weasel words were used to say the same thing: She cannot deviate from the official approved script because it would make them look bad.

And they're right: They will look damn bad when/if the public becomes aware that a huge threat to the health of their children and grandchildren and even themselves was repressed for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.


Seems you are using the same tactic she did...cherrypicking info to back your claim.


I'm not the one cherry picking. I'm looking at ALL the facts. Not just the ones I want to believe.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese
One person's opinion of the evidence does not make it fact



There's a lot of anecdotal evidence to the contrary






posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Not "my" vaccine truther... "a" vaccine truther. I am not a medical professional and I cannot competently judge his medical research/work/testimony. What I do know is that he was prosecuted/persecuted after loudly and publicly blaming vaccines for autism.

Sorry, that is a complete misrepresentation. His work (which turned out fraudulent and horribly unethical) was concerned with MMR specifically, not vaccines in general.

The, now infamous, press conference he gave on the small scale research of 12 children he actually recommended children are given 3 separate vaccinations a year apart, rather than the "all in one" MMR. That is not "blaming vaccines for autism", it was blaming the MMR triple jab.

From the wiki:


According to the BBC, "He told journalists it was a 'moral issue' and he could no longer support the continued use of the three-in-one jab for measles, mumps and rubella. 'Urgent further research is needed to determine whether MMR may give rise to this complication in a small number of people,' Dr Wakefield said at the time."[57] He said, "If you give three viruses together, three live viruses, then you potentially increase the risk of an adverse event occurring, particularly when one of those viruses influences the immune system in the way that measles does."[55] He suggested parents should opt for single vaccinations against measles, mumps and rubella, separated by gaps of one year.


And these statements, though not supported by his research at all, were not what got him struck off. He lost his licence because of fraudulent statements, not declaring significant financial interests and worst of all: he subjected autistic children to invasive procedures such as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures.



Gravely abused the children under his care by unethically carrying out extensive invasive procedures (on occasions requiring three people to hold a child down), thereby driving nurses to leave and causing his medical colleagues serious concern and unhappiness


Since he was struck off from practising medicine he's turned himself into a grubby little "anti-vaxer" because that's where the money and fame is for him, not because he believes any of it.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
get me the phone number of somebody.......so I can hold em by the nose and kick em in the buns I'll tear some jackazz a new one.....do it for the gipper, yezz



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: FatherLukeDuke


Sorry, that is a complete misrepresentation. His work (which turned out fraudulent and horribly unethical) was concerned with MMR specifically, not vaccines in general.


Complete misrepresentation? Really??? Because the MMR vaccines aren't vaccines?

No. The MMR vaccines are -- gasp! -- vaccines... therefore, no misrepresentation. Could I have been more specific? Sure. And if I had been replying to someone who did not know that, perhaps I would have been. But obviously the person I was responding to knew that.... especially since it was that person who first referred to Wakefield as a vaccine truther. That wasn't my term. But you knew that already, didn't you? And yet you chose to direct your criticism to me... hmmmmm....


Since he was struck off from practising medicine he's turned himself into a grubby little "anti-vaxer"...


Um, misrepresent much? He was a so-called "anti-vaxer" before he was "struck off".


...because that's where the money and fame is for him not because he believes any of it.


Because you -- the omniscient -- know what's in his heart and mind? LOL!!! Of course you don't. And while you may believe that you do, I sure don't.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: FatherLukeDuke


Sorry, that is a complete misrepresentation. His work (which turned out fraudulent and horribly unethical) was concerned with MMR specifically, not vaccines in general.


Complete misrepresentation? Really??? Because the MMR vaccines aren't vaccines?

No. The MMR vaccines are -- gasp! -- vaccines... therefore, no misrepresentation. Could I have been more specific? Sure. And if I had been replying to someone who did not know that, perhaps I would have been. But obviously the person I was responding to knew that.... especially since it was that person who first referred to Wakefield as a vaccine truther. That wasn't my term. But you knew that already, didn't you? And yet you chose to direct your criticism to me... hmmmmm....


Since he was struck off from practising medicine he's turned himself into a grubby little "anti-vaxer"...


Um, misrepresent much? He was a so-called "anti-vaxer" before he was "struck off".


...because that's where the money and fame is for him not because he believes any of it.


Because you -- the omniscient -- know what's in his heart and mind? LOL!!! Of course you don't. And while you may believe that you do, I sure don't.


His heart & mind have nothing to do with anything he's ever done.
It's his wallet he cares most about and that's evident to anyone with any experience of working in paediatric healthcare.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h


In February, editors of the Lancet retracted Wakefield’s controversial paper, telling the Guardian “It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false.”


Interesting how your mind works. I dont know what Lancet is...but I find it funny that they initially obviously approved it. I guess since it was "utterly clear without ambiguity"...it is also rather clear without ambiguity that nobody initially red it...right ?
Because if anyone did....it would have been utterly clear without ambiguity...obviously even to a child...that the statements in the paper were...false.


In 2004, when concerns were first raised about the conduct of the study, the Lancet asked the Royal Free hospital, where Wakefield and his fellow authors worked, to investigate. But Professor Humphrey Hodgson, then vice-dean of the Royal Free and University College school of medicine, wrote to the journal to say it had found no problems. "We are entirely satisfied that the investigations performed on children reported in the Lancet paper had been subjected to appropriate and rigorous ethical scrutiny," he said at that time.



The GMC last week disagreed. Children had been subjected to invasive procedures that were not warranted, a disciplinary panel ruled. They had undergone lumbar punctures and other tests solely for research purposes and without valid ethical approval.


so in essence...the problem with the paper...as stated is...not in the results of the study...but in un-ethical way in which data was collected.

Let's get it straight..he lost his licence...due to supposed unethical conduct in gathering data for his study. This however does not negate the results of the study.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I had a dream that nanotechnology was put in vaccines,when a non-compliant misbehaved the nanotechnology was activated blocking the heart and caused a heart attack then dissasembles so it doesnt show up in the autopsy I never will have a vaccine personally ever again.The issue is armed with the information available you as a parent should be able to make a decision but in Australia its compulsory,that is wrong.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: tsurfer2000h


In February, editors of the Lancet retracted Wakefield’s controversial paper, telling the Guardian “It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false.”


Interesting how your mind works. I dont know what Lancet is...but I find it funny that they initially obviously approved it. I guess since it was "utterly clear without ambiguity"...it is also rather clear without ambiguity that nobody initially red it...right ?
Because if anyone did....it would have been utterly clear without ambiguity...obviously even to a child...that the statements in the paper were...false.


In 2004, when concerns were first raised about the conduct of the study, the Lancet asked the Royal Free hospital, where Wakefield and his fellow authors worked, to investigate. But Professor Humphrey Hodgson, then vice-dean of the Royal Free and University College school of medicine, wrote to the journal to say it had found no problems. "We are entirely satisfied that the investigations performed on children reported in the Lancet paper had been subjected to appropriate and rigorous ethical scrutiny," he said at that time.



The GMC last week disagreed. Children had been subjected to invasive procedures that were not warranted, a disciplinary panel ruled. They had undergone lumbar punctures and other tests solely for research purposes and without valid ethical approval.


so in essence...the problem with the paper...as stated is...not in the results of the study...but in un-ethical way in which data was collected.

Let's get it straight..he lost his licence...due to supposed unethical conduct in gathering data for his study. This however does not negate the results of the study.



Wrong, had he only done that he would have received little more than a slap on the wrist.
He lost his licence for far, far moe than that.
www.gmc-uk.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Wakefield Hearing


edit on 10/4/16 by Pardon? because: Formatting link

edit on 10/4/16 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
This is an indication of one thing people.

There are certain things they WON’T let get in the mainstream media.


You could publish on YouTube and other non MSM but NOT the mainstream MEDIA which is run by a consortium of powerful corporate interests similar to the mafia commission.

One of those on the very board is behind Vaccinations:
The chemical/drug/consortium will NOT be denied


They'll be dead bodies soon if they try to push this.

Just go and find your little corner of the alternative media and be satisfied.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
This is an indication of one thing people.

There are certain things they WON’T let get in the mainstream media.


You could publish on YouTube and other non MSM but NOT the mainstream MEDIA which is run by a consortium of powerful corporate interests similar to the mafia commission.

One of those on the very board is behind Vaccinations:
The chemical/drug/consortium will NOT be denied


They'll be dead bodies soon if they try to push this.

Just go and find your little corner of the alternative media and be satisfied.


Because of the film being pulled from the Tribeca festival this film has been ALL OVER the mainstream media.
It's probably had more exposure than it would have had if it had been screened.

Just go and find your little corner of your conspiracy-filled world and be satisfied...



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join